On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:40:51 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:20:54 -0700 someone who may be "Roger T."
: wrote this:-
:
: While I agree that there are sometimes overblown claims of safety
: your examples are debatable.
:
: 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.

Damn! I just posted almost the identical thing. Sorry, David, should
have read your post first.

: There are a whole host of things one could crash an aeroplane into,
: as well as Windscale. Chemical works (an oil refinery for example)
: and suspension bridges are two obvious things.

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.

: So-called security measures are not going to prevent disasters. Only
: draining the swamp will work.

Well said, that man.

Ian

On 25 Jul 2005 11:45:28 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
wrote this:-

: There are a whole host of things one could crash an aeroplane into,
: as well as Windscale. Chemical works (an oil refinery for example)
: and suspension bridges are two obvious things.

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.

I doubt if it would make sense to try and crash into the cables.
However, that does not mean that there are not other places to crash
into.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"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/

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


--

On 25 Jul 2005 15:47:34 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

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.

And that people died in a given situation is no reason why it should
not be discussed (perhaps with a suitable time span between the
incident and said discussion for sensitivity) - indeed, if it is not
discussed, we will not learn from the incident.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Roger T. wrote:
:

: 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.

I thought that that weakness had been detected some time (probably
years) before 9/11 and that the structural steel was being exposed and
coated with a new fire retardant material.

However without closing the buildings down and kicking all the tenants
out that was a slow process. Until it was complete the buildings were
vulnerable to an extreme fire, most floors failed when an overwhelming
load (the floors above) fell on them.

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.


snip

--

regards

Stephen