Hi Ekhart, Friday, June 4, 2004, 12:11:35 PM, you wrote: >> EGlnl> (Nor the idiots who build skyscrapers without remembering that planes >> EGlnl> have fuel tanks -- when i stood on the WTC in 1985, i said that i'm >> 100% >> EGlnl> sure it can't survive a full hit by a large civilian plane, but since >> I read an article discussing that very issue; at the time it was >> seigned, it was able to. They didn't expect that planes would balloon >> so much larger. EGlnl> That's very interesting. Please tell me more if you can remember or find EGlnl> more, maybe privately since this is not exactly a PC topic anymore (-: Since others might be interested in the CONCLUSION of the off-topic discussion... :) Nuclear plants: "When the plants were designed, large aircrafts that are presently used were not in use" http://www.attackonamerica.net/jetcouldwrecknuclearnrcadmits.htm "The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ "The World Trade Center was designed for an impact of Boeing 707-320 rather than Boeing 767-320. But note that the maximum takeoff weight of that older, less efficient, aircraft is only 15% less than that of Boeing 767-200. Besides, the manimum fuel tank capacity of that aircract is only 4% less. These differences are well within the safety margins of design. So the observed response of the towers proves the correctness of the original dynamic design. What was not considered in design was the temperature that can develop in the ensuing fire." --Scott. Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig> Freelists login at //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi List archives at //www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig Latest news live feeds at http://modecideas.com/indexhomenews.htm?sig Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.