Off-topic Talk Where overpaid, underworked S2000 owners waste the worst part of their days before the drive home. This forum is for general chit chat and discussions not covered by the other off-topic forums.

What they could have hit

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 04:07 AM
  #1  
ElTianti's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
From: Rome, GA
Default

We can all be grateful that they didn't hit the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Clavert CO. MD, or any other nuclear plant for that matter.

While nuclear power plants can't explode, had the containment vessel been breached, it would have spread VERY radioactive stuff a great distance. All the firemen trying to put out that fire would be dead by now as well as people in the surrounding area.

The long term consequences would have been worse.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 08:18 AM
  #2  
stooklova's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Providence
Default

The G-D Damn Short term consequences are bad enough @10,000+ people dead but that not bad enough for you
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 08:36 AM
  #3  
ElTianti's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
From: Rome, GA
Default

Originally posted by stooklova
The G-D Damn Short term consequences are bad enough @10,000+ people dead but that not bad enough for you
You miss my point. I was only highlighting that there are targets all around us that are subject to attack. Attacks on some these targets could have LONG lasting negative effects. The aircraft that went down in PA may have been headed for Ft.Detrict (sp?). The is the center for US military chemical and biological research. That is a very chilling thought.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 08:41 AM
  #4  
MHK S2000's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
From: Solvang
Default

Originally posted by stooklova
The G-D Damn Short term consequences are bad enough @10,000+ people dead but that not bad enough for you

I don't think he insinuated that it was not bad, but that it could have been much worse. Hindsight is 20/20.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 08:50 AM
  #5  
LewKeim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Default

The containmement facility can withstand a direct plane attack.
I believe it is about 3 ft of reinforced concrete. Design specs require this. I am not sure what size plane or safety factors are used but it is at least a 727 considering when specs where written. If a plane did get through containment building it would still not mean a rupture of the containment vessel..

There are many targets but I for one am not going to publish them..


PS.. the WTC was design to withstand a 747 attack.. IMWO they did that- but the fire was the ultimate force that brought the building down.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 09:40 AM
  #6  
AnDy_PaNdY's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 10,655
Likes: 0
From: stafford
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LewKeim
[B]

PS.. the WTC was design to withstand a 747 attack.. IMWO they did that-
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 10:02 AM
  #7  
Tonky's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,446
Likes: 1
From: West Mids.
Default

In attacking the WTC they chose a high profile target more for what it symbolises, in terms of the American way of life and values. It was also highly visible to the media and the population.
They could indeed have chosen far more sinister targets, a fact which I am sure is not lost on those who are currently reviewing security arrangements!
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 10:28 AM
  #8  
SuzukaSue's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
From: Lawrenceville, GA
Default

Originally posted by AnDy_PaNdY


That statement in itself is a contradiction.
When the building was designed to withstand the 747 they must surely have to take into account the effect of fire ??
Aeroplanes obviously carry many tons of fuel which would ignite into a huge fireball, therefore the sprinkler system should be able to compensate.


The steel beams did have a coating on them to withstand the normal temperature of a standard office fire...like paper, office furniture, carpet, etc. burning. The steel definitely was not able to withstand the tremendous heat generated by jet fuel over a long period of time. The plane was completely full of fuel for the long trip to CA. I am amazed that the building held up as well as it did, actually. The reason for collapse is because the steel weakened after being exposed to the extreme high temperatures of the fire. When the steel beams could no longer withstand the weight of the floors above them, the floors above acted sort of like a pile driver, pushing all that weight of concrete and steel quickly down to the ground. At least at was able to hold up long enough for many folks to get out. Unfortunately, it was also long enough for the police and fire fighters to get in.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 10:53 AM
  #9  
elanderholm's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
From: beaverton
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElTianti
[B]We can all be grateful that they didn't hit the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Clavert CO. MD, or any other nuclear plant for that matter.

While nuclear power plants can't explode, had the containment vessel been breached, it would have spread VERY radioactive stuff a great distance.
Reply
Old Sep 12, 2001 | 12:16 PM
  #10  
The Raptor's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
Community Builder
Active Streak: 30 Days
Liked
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,364
Likes: 1,614
From: La Crescenta, CA
Default

Today our foes have only stealth and suicide. How far away are they from nuclear bombs in laundry trucks or vials of anthrax in detergent boxes?
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:11 AM.