If a jumbo jet crashes into a nuclear reactor, nothing bad would happen

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Very cool, if true. I have to look this YouTube up once I get home.

A hijacked jet liner crashing into a reactor would cause a nuclear holocaust. Go to YouTube and search "plane crashing into wall." You'll see a video of an F-4 fighter jet hitting a concrete containment wall at 500 miles per hour. The plane simply disappears. The wall barely budges. Nuclear opponents argue that a jumbo jet would have a greater impact, but the laws of physics say it would be about the same. A jet is a hollow metal tube. Even at the speed of a bullet (700 mph) it could not penetrate a concrete containment wall.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I remember the documentary I watched about the WTC construction and how the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 - which, at the time, was the largest jet around. Now, remind me again, what brought down the twin towers?

Oh, and do take a look at the next generation of airplanes - the below hypersonic jet which will reach speeds of 3,000 mph - Mach 5. Given demand, it's about a quarter century away from flying a load of up to 300 passengers from Europe to Australia in less than 5 hours.

[Peikko 1,575]

Nothing bad happens? I doubt any passenger on the plane would reach that conclusion

Regardless, I do not think the dangers of nuclear power really lie in the reactors. The big problems are, storage of nuclear waste and the dangers of having more nuclear material world wide that could be used for military use. The waste needs to be secure from leaks and secure from terrorists.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I remember the documentary I watched about the WTC construction and how the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 - which, at the time, was the largest jet around. Now, remind me again, what brought down the twin towers?

Oh, and do take a look at the next generation of airplanes - the below hypersonic jet which will reach speeds of 3,000 mph - Mach 5. Given demand, it's about a quarter century away from flying a load of up to 300 passengers from Europe to Australia in less than 5 hours.

Why would anyone in Europe want to go to Australia?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Considering the US commercial nuclear industry has had ZERO fatalities, most would say it's safe.

The technologically retarded Russians are another story.

[Nikita2Charles 33]

With the disappearance of the Concord, I don't see anything supersonic commercial flight in the foreseeable future. I had the chance to fly on Concord a few years before the crash that led to the fleet retirement beside the business climate of course as less people had enough money for that quick cross Atlantic flight.

We used to fly business on companies trips, then everybody got downgrade to coach, maybe except for the CEO.

Would love to one of the 1st passengers on that Mac 5 flight, I went on a MiG 29 flight once it was an awsome flight.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Nikita2Charles

[Pooky 3,929]

I remember the documentary I watched about the WTC construction and how the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 - which, at the time, was the largest jet around. Now, remind me again, what brought down the twin towers?

Oh, and do take a look at the next generation of airplanes - the below hypersonic jet which will reach speeds of 3,000 mph - Mach 5. Given demand, it's about a quarter century away from flying a load of up to 300 passengers from Europe to Australia in less than 5 hours.

Looks like a cross between a Gerry Anderson model from Thunderbirds, crossed with a hopeless Russian bomber prototype (the Myasischev "Bounder") from the late '50's.

And the WTC was designed to withstand a slow-speed impact from an empty Boeing 707, the scenario being that it was "lost in fog" trying a landing at one of the New York airports - a scenario rather different than a Boeing 767, fully-loaded, doing 500 knots IAS.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Pooky

[Niels Bohr 72]

Well, what brought the twin towers down as the pressure coming from the fuel explosion. The heat was so strong that it liquify the beams, reducing the stress of the beams, therefore, making them vulnerable to the unbalance mass of the tower.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And the WTC was designed to withstand a slow-speed impact from an empty Boeing 707, the scenario being that it was "lost in fog" trying a landing at one of the New York airports - a scenario rather different than a Boeing 767, fully-loaded, doing 500 knots IAS.

Aah. Sounds like a contingency dreamed up during more innocent times.