"... Mr. Clements said threats from the air -- such as missile attacks and crashing airliners -- haven't been given much thought, and that these installations are just as defenceless to such an attack as the Pentagon and other office buildings."
If he means defenseless in the sense of being unable to PREVENT attack, then of course I must agree. But if he means unable to SURVIVE then he is wrong. The conditions that containment are meant to survive are much more stringent than an airliner impact. You need to understand that aircraft are not high-density objects - in ordnance terms their ballistic coefficient is low. They HAVE to be light in order to fly! In addition, they are frangible - they burst easily - and most of their mass dissipates with the residual fuel, so they cannot penetrate hard targets. The World Trade Towers were soft-shell targets, and even they were not destroyed by impact, but by the subsequent fire. A fire on the outside of a nuclear plant containment dome would have no effect whatever except to scorch the shell and raise the temperature inside by a few degrees. Marc de Piolenc ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
