Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6470)	10/20/2001 9:35:15 PM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

With thicknesses of between 4 and 6 feet, a 747 would just disintegrate against the dome. How thick were the Pentagon E-ring walls, the ones that were reinforced, that took the impact? Each wall was less than 4 feet, but how many walls were there, and the place sliced through all of them, went into the D-ring, and caused serious smoke and fire damage all the way into the A-ring, that's five rings. And that wasn't even a 747. Don't know if you've seen the damage, but it was like a knife slicing through butter. Not arguing with you, just curious how those walls would compare with a containment wall. I'm sure they were not reinforced in the same way, but that section was recently renovated, and stiffened up. F4 Phantom being launched against a concrete section the thickness of a containment dome as a test. This jet was going 500 MPH on a rocket sled when it hit this wall, and the concrete was only dented by a couple of inches. That's encouraging, but a 747 is 15 times more massive (though slower). Anyway, my point was not about modern reactor construction but about the 60s and 70s designs, which the AEC admits were only reinforced against small aircraft collisions.