More bombs?
 

In message net.com,
at 08:49:38 on Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Roger T.
remarked:
What I wrote exactly conveyed what I intended.

"Able to take the force of a jet aircraft impact?"

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

But building did survive the force of the impact of the plane.

QED.
--
Roland Perry

More bombs?
 

"Roger T." wrote:


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.


Doomed? ... except for the fact that so many of them escaped.

More bombs?
 

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:14:22 UTC, Tony Polson wrote:

: "Roger T." wrote:

: 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.

: Doomed? ... except for the fact that so many of them escaped.

I though the statistics were that nobody from the floors of impact or
above survived?

However it is remarkable, and a tribute to the design, that so many
from below the impacts survived.

Ian

More bombs?
 

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:38:53 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message net.com,
at 04:20:54 on Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Roger T.
remarked:
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?

I don't recall the towers falling over as a result of the impact. It was
the subsequent fire which toppled them (and even then, they fell mainly
downwards, rather than sideways).

There also seemed to be a hint both in the manner of collapse and in
later reports that the construction style was not an unrelated factor.

More bombs?
 

"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:14:22 UTC, Tony Polson wrote:

: "Roger T." wrote:

: 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.

: Doomed? ... except for the fact that so many of them escaped.

I though the statistics were that nobody from the floors of impact or
above survived?

I read reports of people being evacuated down stairwells past the
floors affected by impact until the fireproofing no longer worked.
How many escaped that way, I don't know.

However it is remarkable, and a tribute to the design, that so many
from below the impacts survived.

Agreed.

More bombs?
 

In message , at 17:49:21 on
Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Charles Ellson remarked:
I don't recall the towers falling over as a result of the impact. It was
the subsequent fire which toppled them (and even then, they fell mainly
downwards, rather than sideways).

There also seemed to be a hint both in the manner of collapse and in
later reports that the construction style was not an unrelated factor.

In terms of fire, perhaps. But the OP specifically mentioned *impact*.
--
Roland Perry

More bombs?
 

In article , Chris Tolley
writes
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.

Bit in the Sunday times mag re that this weekend. One of the survivors
was 550 meters away from the explosion!.....
--
Tony Sayer

More bombs?
 

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.

More bombs?
 

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:01:20 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
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?

Neither, Roland. If you really don't get it, I'll be happy to explain by
email. Is yours a real email address?

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486555.html
(47 841 at Winwick, 28 Apr 2005)

More bombs?
 

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:49:38 -0700, 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!

That's how I read it. Others, as their responses reveal, have assumed
you meant something sufficiently different that they have room to split
a few hairs.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683777.html
(144 017 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)