On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:20:54 UTC, "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?

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

Ian

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 11:43:33 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:20:54 UTC, "Roger T."

: 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.

That does seem a bit like arguing that the people of Hiroshima survived
the dropping of the atom bomb and only died as a result of the
explosion. Unless you are suggesting that any architect who might have
envisaged an aircraft striking the WTC would not have foreseen that a
fire was likely.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683738.html
(142 027 at Blackpool South, May 1995)

In message , at 11:52:56 on
Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Chris Tolley remarked:
: 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.

That does seem a bit like arguing that the people of Hiroshima survived
the dropping of the atom bomb and only died as a result of the
explosion. Unless you are suggesting that any architect who might have
envisaged an aircraft striking the WTC would not have foreseen that a
fire was likely.

You miss the point. The original assertion was about the *force* of the
impact.

The OP didn't say "able to survive the impact of a jet aircraft".
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:52:56 UTC, Chris Tolley
wrote:

: On 25 Jul 2005 11:43:33 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote:
: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:20:54 UTC, "Roger T."
:
: : 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.
:
: That does seem a bit like arguing that the people of Hiroshima survived
: the dropping of the atom bomb and only died as a result of the
: explosion. Unless you are suggesting that any architect who might have
: envisaged an aircraft striking the WTC would not have foreseen that a
: fire was likely.

It was designed to withstand aircraft impact, and did so. It was also
designed to withstand fire, which it did reasonably well. What was not
foreseen was an aircraft with full fuel tanks crashing into it, giving
a considerably worse fire than was envisaged.

Ian

--

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:11:49 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Chris Tolley remarked:
That does seem a bit like arguing that the people of Hiroshima survived
the dropping of the atom bomb and only died as a result of the
explosion. Unless you are suggesting that any architect who might have
envisaged an aircraft striking the WTC would not have foreseen that a
fire was likely.
You miss the point. The original assertion was about the *force* of the
impact. The OP didn't say "able to survive the impact of a jet aircraft".

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.

There is an irony here which may be escaping you.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589958.html (47 150, 20 Apr 1980)

In message , at 12:33:23 on
Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Chris Tolley remarked:
There is an irony here which may be escaping you.

You've lost me. Are you being ironic, or are you claiming Roger was?
--
Roland Perry

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.

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.

On 25 Jul 2005 06:11:08 -0700 someone who may be "grid58 (Paul)"
wrote this:-

Iraqi's were killing innocent Kurds for instance in 1988 before the UN
resolution in the early 1990's.

Some of us spoke out about the Ba'ath terror in Iraq in the early
1980s, a time when the UK government was all in favour of Mr
Hussein. If there is going to be a Dutch action on the subject of
who spoke out first then the UK government will always lose.


--
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.