Quote (sinbad2 @ Sep 16 2010 05:33pm)
how was i supposed to know you are a " 2nd year Mech Engineering at Twente University of Technology" ?
if thats the case why mention something like "strain hardening" which isnt as important as " tensile strength"
haveing a know how in welding means i need to know how each and every metal works,
it would all depend on what the metal is, if its cast iron or aluminum
or 2% carbon steel which is what the twin towers core colums where made out of.
which is harder then regualar steel.
all skyscrapers are made to withstand a plane impact
what exposion? from the fuel? a fuel explosion wouldnt cause that much damage with such a dirty burn.
and the fires would not have reached optimum temp to weaken the metal let alone melt any of it.
No one has claimed the fire melted steel. It weakened it. The weight bearing capacity of the steel was reduced by at LEAST 50%. That's why the second tower hit (which was hit lower, leaving more weight above the damage) was the first to collapse. The fire temperature of what started as burning fuel, and when that was comsumed, the combustibles on the building, followed lastly by the aluminum of the aircraft itself was easily hot enough to reduce the strength of the steel to a point that it couldn't hold up the load over the weakened point.
Quote (sinbad2 @ Sep 16 2010 05:38pm)
at free fall speed? seems abit off then a pancakeing theroy
It didn't fall at free fall speed. It accelerated at roughly 6 m/s, not 9.8 m/s.
Quote (sinbad2 @ Sep 16 2010 05:38pm)
B52 wasn't around in 1945.
This post was edited by Santara on Sep 16 2010 04:45pm