IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Aircraft aluminum
The aluminum used for commercial aircraft is nothing like the soft aluminum people see in other applications. It is strong, hard and brittle - and not that much softer than architectural steel On impact, this stuff doesn't bend and break, it shatters like glass.

There is no correlation whatever between fighter planes and commercial aircraft. Fighter planes generally have very large amounts of titanium and cobolt alloys. These materials are extremely tough. They will crunch into a compressed ball before they'll break. Fighter planes are designed to withstand extreme stress in daily use.

Fighter planes are hard, dense and heavy. The only reason they get off the ground is that with engines powerful enough a brick will fly. Seeing a few come into Burbank mixed in with 737s, you can see there isn't the slightest resemblence. It's like comparing a beer can to a rock crusher.

Disclaimer: I used to be a manufacturing engineer (designing manufacturing processes) in the aircraft industry, so I have at least a passing knowledge of the subject.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
Collapse Edited by Andrew Grygus Feb. 12, 2005, 12:33:59 AM EST
Aircraft aluminum
The aluminum used for commercial aircraft is nothing like the soft aluminum people see in other applications. It is strong, hard and brittle - and not that much softer than architectural steel On impact, this stuff doesn't bend and break, it shatters like glass.

There is no correlation whatever between fighter planes and commercial aircraft. Fighter planes generally have very large amounts of titanium and cobolt aloys. These materials are extremely tough. They will crunch into a compressed ball before they'll break. Fighter planes are designed to withstand extreme stress in daily use.

Fighter planes are hard, dense and heavy. The only reason they get off the ground is that with engines powerful enough a brick will fly. Seeing a few come into Burbank mixed in with 737s, you can see there isn't the slightest resemblence. It's like comparing a beer can to a rock crusher.

Disclaimer: I used to be a manufacturing engineer (designing manufacturing processes) in the aircraft industry, so I have at least a passing knowledge of the subject.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New While I appreciate this info
WHY IS ANYONE BOTHERING TO ANSWER THIS WHACKJOB??????
New marlowe doesn't stick around to argue, so Sam's standing in.
New Well, because . . .
. . having different kinds of whackos here generates interest.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New It IS hard
I've never seen it shatter, though I have seen it cracked.

We use it for our shields.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Re: Aircraft aluminum
"The aluminum used for commercial aircraft is nothing like the soft aluminum people see in other applications. It is strong, hard and brittle - and not that much softer than architectural steel

Yes, aluminum can offer far superior strength to steel in ratio to weight. Yes, indeed. However, when the aluminum plane strikes the steel building, the weight of the steel is going to render the much lighter aluminum into fine metallic confetti.

Carmakers understand the heavier their cars the safer they are:
[link|http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/YanaZorina.shtml|http://hypertextbook.../YanaZorina.shtml]

"On impact, this stuff doesn't bend and break, it shatters like glass."

yep. And, we saw nothing like this in the videos.
New Evidence please.
However, when the aluminum plane strikes the steel building, the weight of the steel is going to render the much lighter aluminum into fine metallic confetti.


Evidence please.

Note that video of a fighter hitting a reinforced concrete monolith isn't evidence to support your claim.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Bah. You simply don't listen.
but then, your credibility is already zero. You have nothing to lose. Ben lived in NYC. I lived in 'Jersey when it happened, with close personal friends working in NYC.

We have MANY credible witnesses, you have - what? An assertion that there should have been 'metallic confetti'? Then you don't see it, so rather than question your assertion we should disbelieve multiple credible witnesses and physical evidence?

Go preach to those that believe the holocaust didn't occur, or that the moon landings were faked. You bore me.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Actually, that's complete nonsense.
One of the safest cars on the road is the Toyota Avensis, which is not only considerably safer than most SUVs but considerably lighter.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New If heavier is safer . . .
. . . then why does the National Transportation Safety Board list pickup trucks and SUVs as the vehicles most likely to kill their occupants in an accident?

As to your metalic confetti, confetti going 400 miles per hour isn't going to just stop and bounce off the surface, it's going to keep on going.

You get a goose down pillow in your face at 400 miles per hour it's going to hurt like hell at least and probably kill you.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
     911 and the Society of the Spectacle - (Sam_Fan) - (72)
         Well, the author is an idiot - (JayMehaffey) - (34)
             Re: Well, the author is an idiot - (Sam_Fan) - (33)
                 Re: Well, the author is an idiot - (JayMehaffey) - (12)
                     Re: Well, the author is an idiot - (Sam_Fan) - (11)
                         Why would the wing break off? - (Another Scott) - (10)
                             Aircraft aluminum - (Andrew Grygus) - (9)
                                 While I appreciate this info - (broomberg) - (2)
                                     marlowe doesn't stick around to argue, so Sam's standing in. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                     Well, because . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                 It IS hard - (imric)
                                 Re: Aircraft aluminum - (Sam_Fan) - (4)
                                     Evidence please. - (Another Scott)
                                     Bah. You simply don't listen. - (imric)
                                     Actually, that's complete nonsense. - (pwhysall)
                                     If heavier is safer . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                 "911" - isn't that a phone number, to you Yanks? (new thread) - (CRConrad)
                 Not harsh - (bepatient) - (17)
                     To support some claims... - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                         Further - (bepatient) - (2)
                             Re: Further - (Sam_Fan) - (1)
                                 As opposed - (bepatient)
                     butter plane - (Sam_Fan) - (12)
                         Easy. It's simple physics. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                             Re: Easy. It's simple physics. - (Sam_Fan) - (8)
                                 Wave your hands all you like... -NT - (Another Scott)
                                 Correct... - (bepatient)
                                 "The Net"? - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                     Re: "The Net"? - (Sam_Fan) - (1)
                                         I repeat. - (pwhysall)
                                     That thingie Al Gore invented, remember? -NT - (bepatient)
                                 Re: Easy. It's simple physics. - (GBert) - (1)
                                     Well, there was that universal peace guy.. -NT - (inthane-chan)
                         Well.. - (bepatient)
                         'Cause we all know steel beats aluminum - (FuManChu)
                 Your expectations are wrong. - (Another Scott)
         Have you been to the Pentagon web site? - (Another Scott)
         You are a complete, f*cking idiot - (ben_tilly) - (19)
             Thank you, Agent Tilly. Please return to base. - (pwhysall) - (2)
                 ROTFL -NT - (ben_tilly)
                 All your base are be- ! <crash, bump, ungh, drag> - (jake123)
             I met the french guys... - (bepatient) - (7)
                 Trenchcoat mafia, eh? - (jake123) - (6)
                     Semi-seriously - (bepatient) - (5)
                         Non, je suis sur qu'ils sont tres sympathique - (jake123) - (4)
                             Control Panel, "Regional and Language Options" applet, on... - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                 Thanks, I'll have to try to remember that - (jake123)
                             That has been my experience as well. - (bepatient) - (1)
                                 Yeah, l'ecole polytechnique - (jake123)
             Mass hysteria? - (imric) - (6)
                 Dogs and cats, living together - (jake123)
                 I'm here to chew bubble gum... - (bepatient)
                 What's the watches reference? -NT - (inthane-chan) - (3)
                     They Live - (imric) - (2)
                         Oh, I saw it... - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                             Teleport away in emergencies... -NT - (imric)
             You sure it was Jets and not Black Helicopters? -NT - (mmoffitt)
         A hint for you - (ben_tilly) - (12)
             Re: A hint for you - (Sam_Fan) - (11)
                 Then they weren't there. -NT - (bepatient)
                 Evidence, please. -NT - (pwhysall)
                 Nobody that I know - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                     Re: Nobody that I know - (Sam_Fan) - (7)
                         Uh huh. -NT - (imric)
                         Let's examine the possibilities - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                             OT - did you whack your user prefs or something? -NT - (admin) - (1)
                                 Not intentionally... - (ben_tilly)
                         No you haven't. - (bepatient)
                         You need to get out more. -NT - (Another Scott)
                         Question for you - (drewk)
         head up ass time - (daemon) - (1)
             Oh by the way welcome and stop in anytime :-) -NT - (daemon)
         Re: 911 and the Age of Illiteracy and Innumeracy - (Ashton)

*pssst* Wanna buy a watch?
182 ms