• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

9/11: What if the hijackers crashed the planes into Nuke plants instead?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Woosta

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2008
2,978
0
71
More mass + surface area would mean the wall would have a much easier time absorbing the plane.

There has to be some weak point which they can target... there's no way that wall can absorb 2 jumbo size planes.
 

McLovin

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2007
1,915
58
91
It is scary really how fragile it is , one engineer said it was held together with shoestrings and duct tape. Here in NC progress energy is putting up 400 miles worth of new high tension lines but will not invest in lines outside their area because it doesn't benefit them. Nobody wants to spend money on something that gives the other power company the ability to sell power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGdfbovPCFc&feature=related

:-O
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,035
1,133
126
A jumbo jet is basically the same as an empty soda can. It's not penetrating feet of concrete. There's videos on youtube of them testing planes and crashing them into walls that are only 2 or 3 feet thick, nothing happens to the wall. Though in those the planes are on the ground not flying at 600 mph. Look at how the plane looks after a "slow" crash in this snopes article.
 

Jeeebus

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2006
9,181
901
126
I wonder what model treadmill they had that F4 on to prevent it from taking off at 500 mph?
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
1) The actual reactor is about 30 feet below surface level
2) Everything is triple redundant
3) The cement walls are 6 feet thick, steel re-enforced

Any questions?

The only risk is that the shaft from an engine (made of titanium) would go through that cemement like a hot knife through butter. There are no tests that I know of that test this. But even if it did, the reactor would easily be safe and it would immediately be shut down. Everything would in fact be contained.

What is sad is that new reactor designs are tons safer than 30 years ago. And they are now the same thing. There are not custom for each plant. mking them cheeper to make and even safer as iissues are found. Fixes can be made to all plants since they are identical. This country needs to pull it's head out of it's a$$ and get educated on the matter.
 

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
As I pointed out the best target would have been dams due to massive flooding.

The concrete slab in that vid is 10 feet thick. The hoover dam is 43' at the minimum, and more than 600 at the bottom. A plane hitting it would be the equivalent of peeling some paint off the outside.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant won't result in anything except a scratch on the power plant and a destroyed plane.

my mom is a senior project manager for a few nuclear power plants and works for the nuclear regulatory commission (nrc).
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant won't result in anything except a scratch on the power plant and a destroyed plane.

my mom is a senior project manager for a few nuclear power plants and works for the nuclear regulatory commission (nrc).

Read two posts up. She is correct but it could be more than a scratch.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Better to crash into the spent fuel pool building or exposed dry cask storage, which might be less spectacular but burning nuclear waste would sure have caused a lot of cancer and ruined a lot of land.

The spent fuel pool would be an extremely hard target to hit, and even if you did hit it, it's unlikely it would do any substantial damage.

The casks are even less likely to sustain damage - they are 150 tons of solid steel and designed to withstand being hit head on by a freight train, dropped from 1000 ft in the air, or burn in a fire for days.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
WTC wasn't "symbolic". They were designated as targets due to the amount of commerce centralized in one location there. Al Quesadilla has always been interested in trying to cripple the US's financial infrastructure. I'm not sure blowing up a few buildings is a good way to do it, but they have pretty much succeeded in their overarching goals anyway.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
Ah, close. I work with the Office of New Reactors, Division of New Reactor Licensing folks a lot. Does she work at HQ in Rockville?