[ RadSafe ] Unidentified Helicopters Nearly Fired UponOver Nuclear Power ...

[Gerry Blackwood]

Gary
 
I never said it was just the explosion...... again based on theory and computer modeling at the time the engineers said that the build could with stand an impact from an airliner..... Now all I am saying and I am not getting huffy about it  I just don't like computer modeling in these types of events. I am saying the same thing about an airliner impacting a containment dome....There are way to many variables here for my comfort......


garyi at trinityphysics.com wrote:
On 13 Mar 2005 at 7:04, Gerry Blackwood wrote:

> 
> Again all theory this is like saying that its the engine on a missile
> not the warhead that does the damage......For all of those who
> disbelieve as any commerical airline pilot how difficult it was to fly
> two not one airliner into the WTC at 6--MPH???? Then ask the engineers
> if they thought it possible that both towers would just drop???? BTW
> the spec on speed comes from Boeing itself ask them if they are full
> of it or not????? 

Sorry, but that's just wrong. It wasn't the explosion, but the cumulative heat from 
burning fuel that weakened the girders and collapsed the buildings. It was a simple 
theoretical evaluation that told Bin Laden's boys how to best destroy them. Obviously it 
worked. Don't underestimate the so-called theoretical.

About the airspeed, I was essentially consulting you about something I thought you 
know more about that I do, so there's no need to get huffy. But like I said, it wouldn't 
have made any difference.

I don't know if there are any nuclear power plants that were within range of those planes 
on 9-11, but if there are it should tell us something. You seem to be pretty 
knowlegeable about such things - do you know?

-Gary


> 
> garyi at trinityphysics.com wrote: 
> OK, I'll state the obvious: its not about mass, its about density.
> The engine is the part most likely to penetrate, for the same
> reason that DU shells are so good against tanks. 
> 
> Do 737s really cruise at 900+ km/hr? Even so, it would crumple up
> like an accordion.
> 
> -Gary Isenhower
> 
> On 12 Mar 2005 at 14:48, Gerry Blackwood wrote:
> 
> > Yep well we know if the engine hits us we are fairly ok......
> but lets > try a Boeing 737 Cruising speed: 795 - 908 km/h and
> with a typical > take-off weight: 62.8 t loaded with fuel and
> explosives ???? > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for
> those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."
> 





"Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."