It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well yes that brings up the point that if small birds can put holes in the wings and airframe at slow speeds how can wings and airframe be strong enough to cut heavier, stronger steel?
In contrast, the WTC structural plans specified steels that began at a minimum yield strength FY = 36 ksi and increased from FY = 40 ksi to FY = 85 ksi in 5 ksi (34.5 MPa) increments. Corner elements in the exterior wall often used FY = 100 ksi steels. Contemporaneous construction documents indicate that the lowest strength exterior wall column steels were supplied to the ASTM A 36 standard,...
Originally posted by HLR53K
Also, can you specify as to which of the FY = 36 ksi to FY = 85 ksi beams the airplane impacted? Since there is such a broad range of strengths in the exterior columns.
Originally posted by Damocles
how slow is takeoff speed?
Originally posted by HLR53KThe only problem I have with that quote is that it doesn't directly state which perimeter beams they were comparing to.
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
www.tms.org...
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.
[edit on 16-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Takeoff is about 200 mph, about half the speed the planes that hit the towers were supposed to have been donig.
So if small birds can do that kind of damage, how much damage do you think the steel would do the wings and airframe?
[edit on 16-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by HLR53K
Haha! I've been brought up on both systems. Some of the college courses I took also had SI units mixing in with the English units.
The US might never move completely to the SI system because all of our tooling is in English and it would cost billions to switch.
Originally posted by HLR53K
Or are you telling us that we should just accept that without questioning it (just because you posted it)?
Originally posted by HLR53K
So you would have us believe that any airplane that's flown into a building (accidentally or not) would be like sending a vegetable through a screen mesh? Are you saying that the steel would not be damaged at all?
NEW YORK (AP) -- The tragic sinking of the Titanic nearly a century ago can be blamed on low grade rivets that the ship's builders used on some parts of the ill-fated liner, two experts on metals conclude in a new book.
The Titanic's hull had sixteen water- tight compartments. The iceberg punctured five compartments.
www.wicknet.org...'s/Warriner's18.h tm
On the bridge, the ship's First Officer gave the order to spin the wheel "Hard-a-starboard," while telegraphing to have the engines stopped and reversed. The bow of the ship eased to the left missing a head on collision, but below the water line, a rock-hard spur of ice punctured a large portion of the hull. From that moment, nothing could have saved the ship.
www.smokymountainsentinel.com...
The ten-second encounter with the iceberg had left six seemingly slight gashes in the ship's steel hull, but they were sufficient to puncture and flood six watertight compartments and thus sink the fabled vessel. Later metallurgical tests revealed that the ship's steel was overly brittle and thus prone to fracture because of an excess of slag used in its manufacture.
www.deathreference.com...
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well it seems you expect people to believe the official story just because you and others post it ?
I have posted more facts and evidence then most people on here, and will continue to find and post more facts and evidence.
[edit on 17-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
All you have to do is look at the Purdue animation and you can see that the aluminum airframe and wings are shredded as soon as they enter the building.
Also if you look at the photos of the hole in the side of the towers you can clearly see that the wings barely made it in to the building, specially the wing tips.
Originally posted by HLR53K
What we're saying is that those first few beams will break on impact.
But you still have failed to answer my question about that journal forgetting to acknowledge the titanium airframe structures in a 767.