"grid58 (Paul)" wrote:



Tony Polson wrote:

So what about the million or so people Irag citizens had killed in the
run up to the "war"? Certain Muslims who say they are being hard done
by seem to conveniently forget these atrocities.

You appear to have conveniently forgotten the 1.2 million Iraqis who
died during the period of sanctions enforced by the US and UK between
1991 and 2002, most of whom were children.

Iraqi's were killing innocent Kurds for instance in 1988 before the UN
resolution in the early 1990's. The evidence on the wholescale
poisoning of innnocent children and people seems to be a point not
disputed in the press coverage.


The British were killing innocent Kurds with poison gas in the 1920s,
a point not disputed by anybody.

"Roger T." wrote:

On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
impact?

Rather like the Titanic, unsinkable?


It is complete twaddle. I have worked at - or visited - many of the
UK's nuclear power stations in the course of my career.

The "containment" buildings are a misnomer. In most UK nuclear power
stations, the containment building is merely airtight. The structure
usually consists of profiled metal sheet cladding on a steel frame,
similar to what would be found in a DIY shed or supermarket. There is
no additional strength over and above what is required to carry the
cladding, wind and snow loads.

The idea that it could withstand an impact from any aircraft - let
alone 300+ tons of 747 - is laughable. The security services are well
aware of this, and our nuclear power stations are known to be very
vulnerable to airborne attack.

Two particular points of weakness are the exposed pile caps (the pile
cap is the top of the reactor) and control rooms. Hostile attack was
never considered in their design.

Sizewell B may be an exception. The containment building there is far
stronger than in all other UK nuclear stations, being of a completely
different design. But the vulnerable Sizewell A lies just alongside,
with two reactors to choose from. :-(

"Ian Johnston" wrote:

I wonder about suspension bridges. I suspect the wires are just too
much an area of concentrated strength, and would probably cheesecutter
the wings off. It would still be a heck of a mess, of course.


The deck at mid-span is a vulnerable point. Or fly through the
suspension hangers, which support the deck from the suspension cables.
You would only need to sever a (relatively) small number to result in
the surrounding hangers failing through being over-stressed.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:15:26 UTC, Tony Polson wrote:

: "Ian Johnston" wrote:
:
: I wonder about suspension bridges. I suspect the wires are just too
: much an area of concentrated strength, and would probably cheesecutter
: the wings off. It would still be a heck of a mess, of course.
:
: The deck at mid-span is a vulnerable point.

More than elsewhere? After all, if it's a theoretical suspension
bridge - uniform loading across span, parabolic cables - it should be
possible to slice across the deck as often as you like. Still, I
suppose it's a place where deck and cables are conveniently grouped as
a target.

: Or fly through the
: suspension hangers, which support the deck from the suspension cables.
: You would only need to sever a (relatively) small number to result in
: the surrounding hangers failing through being over-stressed.

That certainly sounds a possibility. Mind you, some suspension bridges
are very tough - I was amazed that they managed to repair the
foorbridge over the Ness in Inverness on which one of the suspension
cables broke. Looked like a hell of a mess, half collapsed into the
river.

However - isn't this a gruesome discussion? - I suspect there just
wouldn't be the casualty figures these people require. Heavily
populated / occupied areas will always be more attractive.

Ian


--

:
: Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
: impact?
:
: They did.
:
: However, they did not survive the subsequent fire.

People, I was just making a point!

We all know it was the heat that made the towers fall but we only found that
out during the enquiries after they fell Even the people who designed them
thought they'd stand.

Yes, the towers withstood the impact but the impact caused a fire and the
towers still fell. AFAIC, the aircraft impact caused the towers to
collapse. If there's a difference, I'm sure the families of those who died
will be happy and comforted in knowing that.

So, the roof of the containment building will withstand a fully loaded 747,
will it?

Remind me not to be there when this happens.

"Oh yes, the roof withstood the impact of the 747, it was the subsequent
fire that brought it down."


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

"Ian Johnston"

: On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station
is
: supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without
harm.
:
: Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
: impact?

Which they did, remarkably well. What they didn't do was survive the
fire.

Lets see, planes crash into towers, towers burn, towers fall, right?

I'd say that planes crashing into each of the towers brought them down.

Saying that they survived the impact is splitting hairs and I'm sure it's a
great comfort the families of those that died.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:39:29 UTC, "Roger T."
wrote:

: If there's a difference, I'm sure the families of those who died
: will be happy and comforted in knowing that.

The families of those who lived - and a hell of a lot more would have
died if the initial impact /had/ brought the towers down - are
probably quite glad.

Ian


--

"Chris Tolley"

I didn't miss that, but since I assumed that the OP knew full well (as
it has been one of the most broadcast incidents in history) that the
aircraft didn't push the buildings over, what he wrote wasn't quite what
he intended to convey.

What I wrote exactly conveyed what I intended.

Plane hits building, building burns, building collapses, building did NOT
survive impact of plane!

The fact that the building did not collapse on impact is neither here nor
there other than it gave those fortunate enough to be under the point of
impact more time to escape. Those above the impact were doomed the moment
the planes hit.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:45:15 UTC, "Roger T."
wrote:

:
: "Ian Johnston"
:
: : On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station
: is
: : supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without
: harm.
: :
: : Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
: : impact?
:
: Which they did, remarkably well. What they didn't do was survive the
: fire.
:
: Lets see, planes crash into towers, towers burn, towers fall, right?

Correct.

: I'd say that planes crashing into each of the towers brought them down.

No. The fires brought them down.

: Saying that they survived the impact is splitting hairs and I'm sure it's a
: great comfort the families of those that died.

It's not splitting hairs. If the towers had not been able to withstand
the impact, they'd have fallen down almost at once and everyone in
them would have died. As it was, almost everybody under the level of
the impact got out.

Ian

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:49:38 UTC, "Roger T."
wrote:

:
: "Chris Tolley"
:
: I didn't miss that, but since I assumed that the OP knew full well (as
: it has been one of the most broadcast incidents in history) that the
: aircraft didn't push the buildings over, what he wrote wasn't quite what
: he intended to convey.
:
: What I wrote exactly conveyed what I intended.
:
: Plane hits building, building burns, building collapses, building did NOT
: survive impact of plane!

So what were those burning buildings with survivirs running from them
which we watched for a couple of hours?

Ian