|
More bombs?
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 |
More bombs?
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 |
More bombs?
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) |
More bombs?
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 |
More bombs?
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 -- |
More bombs?
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) |
More bombs?
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 |
More bombs?
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. |
More bombs?
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. |
More bombs?
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. |
More bombs?
"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. |
More bombs?
"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. :-( |
More bombs?
"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. |
More bombs?
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 -- |
More bombs?
: : 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/ |
More bombs?
"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/ |
More bombs?
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 -- |
More bombs?
"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/ |
More bombs?
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 |
More bombs?
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 |
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) |
More bombs?
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:18:24 UTC, Chris Tolley
wrote: : 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. It may seem like hair splitting to an amateur, but from the engineering point of view the distinction is pretty important. Q. Would making the World Trade Center stronger have helped? A. No. Q. Would making the World Trade Center more fire-resistant have helped? A. Yes. Regards, Ian -- |
More bombs?
In message , at 19:14:36 on
Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Chris Tolley remarked: 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? Of course. -- Roland Perry |
More bombs?
"Tony Polson" 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. AFAIK, Only half a dozen people, in one tower, who were above the point of impact got out. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ |
More bombs?
On 25 Jul 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote: Q. Would making the World Trade Center more fire-resistant have helped? A. Yes. Indeed. I watched a documentary some time ago on the issue, which suggested[1] that, had a different type of fire-resistant lagging been used on the "core" supports, the buildings would probably have survived. To put a twist on it, however, it was also suggested that said fireproofing, as provided, was weakened by the "blast" of being hit by the planes. A different type may not have been more fire-resistant per-se, but less susceptible to being blasted out of the way by the impact and hence less susceptible to failure. If the human cost is put to the back of one's mind, however difficult, it is a very interesting and relevant civil engineering issue. [1] IANACE, so I say "suggested" because I'm not certain that the documentary was correct in its suggestion. It is, nonetheless, a feasible-sounding one. 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 13:50:18 -0700, "Roger T."
wrote: AFAIK, Only half a dozen people, in one tower, who were above the point of impact got out. The two planes hit at very different angles. In one tower, all stairways were severed, while those in the other were more lucky (or less unlucky). I have no idea of figures, however. 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?
In article , Neil Williams wrote:
Indeed. I watched a documentary some time ago on the issue, which suggested[1] that, had a different type of fire-resistant lagging been used on the "core" supports, the buildings would probably have survived. It does show up a potential weakness in our Building Regulations in that you would design a building of any note to be capable of withstanding accidental impact and also to have the requisite fire resistance, not the two considered together. The latter is tested by putting a protected steel beam (or whatever) in a test furnace in the undamaged condition: if you took the average test specimen and hit it a few times with a club hammer before testing many of the rigid board type fire protection systems would probably not then pass. -- Tony Bryer |
More bombs?
Neil Williams wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Ian Johnston" wrote: Q. Would making the World Trade Center more fire-resistant have helped? A. Yes. Indeed. I watched a documentary some time ago on the issue, which suggested[1] that, had a different type of fire-resistant lagging been used on the "core" supports, the buildings would probably have survived. To put a twist on it, however, it was also suggested that said fireproofing, as provided, was weakened by the "blast" of being hit by the planes. A different type may not have been more fire-resistant per-se, but less susceptible to being blasted out of the way by the impact and hence less susceptible to failure. If the human cost is put to the back of one's mind, however difficult, it is a very interesting and relevant civil engineering issue. [1] IANACE, so I say "suggested" because I'm not certain that the documentary was correct in its suggestion. It is, nonetheless, a feasible-sounding one. There is always an alternative scenario. http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php...rder=0&thold=0 |
More bombs?
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 |
More bombs?
"Gerald Henriksen" It was pointed out in one of the shows about the collapse that the stairwells in a modern building would likely have survived (as they are typically in a concrete shell in the centre of the bulding) whereas the stairs in the wtc were only protected using fireproof building materials. AIUI, two layers of "firestop" drywall. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ |
More bombs?
Tony Polson wrote:
I will never forgive the BBC for poaching the gorgeous, pouting Natasha Kaplinsky (for it is she) from Sky News. ;-) You might like some of this. http://www.breakfastfakes.co.uk/ |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk