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: RocketMan who wrote (6474)	10/20/2001 10:30:38 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi RocketMan; The Pentagon reinforcement had nothing whatsoever to do with the 4 to 6 foot thick walls around a nuclear reactor. Here's a clue: One of the two types of buildings has windows the other doesn't. Here's another clue: What would it be like to look out a window in a building with 6 foot thick walls? (If you haven't lived in New Mexico you probably have never lived in a building with 4 to 6 foot thick walls.) -- Carl

To: RocketMan who wrote (6474)	10/20/2001 10:38:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Rocketman... I believe the Pentagon walls are only maybe 1 to 2 feet support beams with the walls maybe being a couple of inches. Remember, they built the entire Pentagon in 12 months back in 1941. They weren't into "hardening" it, but getting it erected with fairly standard building techniques. Only with the recent renovation effort has this strengthening and blast resistance been incorporated, but mainly to defend against truck bombs.... Here's a neat link with a few photos where you can discern the thickness of the walls for yourself (and look at those big windows.. :0) architectureweek.com I have an associate who works in Wedge 1, which was right next to the impact site. He survived with hardly feeling the impact (just a shudder), and the top three stories above the impact area (floors 1 and 2) were intact, and everyone able to move around and evacuate, for about 30 minutes, before collapsing as the supports melted underneath. But without that renovation, the entire segment would have probably collapsed with the old design and no reinforcement. And the Pentagon, well built as it is, is NOT a nuclear containment dome. And the last time I checked, containment domes don't have windows that permit aircraft to "slice through them like butter". Again... the Mass of aircraft might be formidable, but its density is NOT. A 747, were it able to hit a containment dome square on (not easy to do), would find its impact force spread over the entire surface area of the dome, and diverted by the natural curvature of its design. But the issue is that, just because they say it was only designed against small aircraft, doesn't mean that it couldn't handle much larger impacts, but just that they don't know because they didn't design it that way. They didn't design Bould dam to handle a collision with a 747 either (they didn't exist) but I have little doubt that its design would make short work of any aircraft that hit it.. (unless that plane word carrying a hyper-dense kenetic penetrator). But let's face some facts here... the odds of another aircraft being SUCCESSFULLY hijacked, let alone being permitted to approach a nuclear reactor is between zero and none right now. There is a retricted air space around each plant now, and fighters flying CAP over the entire US mainland. But I guarantee you that the next Nuclear plant that is build will be designed to withstand such a collision. Hawk