The air we breath out is about 40,000 ppm co2
Wonder what the co2 levels are in enclosed places, such as bedrooms, offices, classrooms, cars, planes, inner city cafes for the green left elite social class, ISS, etc etc ?????
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
The air we breath out is about 40,000 ppm co2
Wonder what the co2 levels are in enclosed places, such as bedrooms, offices, classrooms, cars, planes, inner city cafes for the green left elite social class, ISS, etc etc ?????
Don't know but they live in a climate controlled bubble.
So you disagree with a 'believer' scientist that states there is no empirical evidence to support your doomsday prophecies. Good one. What a joke.
One day your prophecies of the climate reaping may come true. In the meantime go live the zero co2 life you think we all should, go live in a cave and and only eat what you find on the ground.
It is not science, knowledge or understanding you are interested in, this is a religion for you alarmists.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
So you disagree with a 'believer' scientist that states there is no empirical evidence to support your doomsday prophecies. Good one. What a joke.
One day your prophecies of the climate reaping may come true. In the meantime go live the zero co2 life you think we all should, go live in a cave and and only eat what you find on the ground.
It is not science, knowledge or understanding you are interested in, this is a religion for you alarmists.
" It is not science, knowledge or understanding you are interested in, this is a religion for you alarmists zealots!"
Select to expand quotejapie said..TonyAbbott said..
So you disagree with a 'believer' scientist that states there is no empirical evidence to support your doomsday prophecies. Good one. What a joke.
One day your prophecies of the climate reaping may come true. In the meantime go live the zero co2 life you think we all should, go live in a cave and and only eat what you find on the ground.
It is not science, knowledge or understanding you are interested in, this is a religion for you alarmists.
" It is not science, knowledge or understanding you are interested in, this is a religion for you alarmists zealots!"
Ptrain because he's a captive of right wing denialism, japie because he's wedded to a globalist conspiracy theory, neither of them scientists, armed only with cynicism and anecdotal talking points bravely contradict received science. I guess it's not impossible that they could turn out to be right just utterly improbable.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..japie said..TonyAbbott said..
So you disagree with a 'believer' scientist that states there is no empirical evidence to support your doomsday prophecies. Good one. What a joke.
One day your prophecies of the climate reaping may come true. In the meantime go live the zero co2 life you think we all should, go live in a cave and and only eat what you find on the ground.
It is not science, knowledge or understanding you are interested in, this is a religion for you alarmists.
" It is not science, knowledge or understanding you are interested in, this is a religion for you alarmists zealots!"
Ptrain because he's a captive of right wing denialism, japie because he's wedded to a globalist conspiracy theory, neither of them scientists, armed only with cynicism and anecdotal talking points bravely contradict received science. I guess it's not impossible that they could turn out to be right just utterly improbable.
I'll back my One World Government to beat the end of humanity through Global Cooking by Climate Change!
Another piece from "The Conversation"
theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763
" Why do people still think climate change isn't real? At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong. As I've argued elsewhere, acknowledging climate change involves accepting certain facts. But being concerned about climate change involves connecting these facts to values. It involves building bridges between the science of climate change and peoples' various causes, commitments and convictions. Denial happens when climate science rubs us up the wrong way. Instead of making us want to arrest the climate crisis, it makes us resist the very thought of it, because the facts of anthropogenic global heating clash with our personal projects. It could be that the idea of climate change is a threat to our worldview. Or it could be that we fear society's response to climate change, the disruption created by the transition to a low-emissions economy. Either way, climate change becomes such an "inconvenient truth" that, instead of living with and acting upon our worries, we suppress the truth instead. "
Climate activists slash believers are religious zealots.
No amount of evidence wil get thru to them period.
Believe what we tell you not what you see.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said.. No amount of evidence wil get thru to them period.
But Peter, all they are going on is evidence, not emotional spin
You are correct in a way decrepit.......they are going on is THEIR evidence otherwise known amongst the Truth community as "scientism".
Science should be repeatable.
There have been thousands of skyscrapers brought down by controlled charges and pretty much they all collapse in a similar manner.
WTC 7 was one of those thousands of skyscrapers brought down this way yet low and behold we are somehow supposed to gulp down the NIST science theory / report that it collapsed due to a failure of a cross beam leading to the symmetrical collapse of the entire building.
One minute video exposes the truth. As the song mentions it's all lies.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
You are correct in a way decrepit.......they are going on is THEIR evidence otherwise known amongst the Truth community as "scientism".
Science should be repeatable.
There have been thousands of skyscrapers brought down by controlled charges and pretty much they all collapse in a similar manner.
WTC 7 was one of those thousands of skyscrapers brought down this way yet low and behold we are somehow supposed to gulp down the NIST science theory / report that it collapsed due to a failure of a cross beam leading to the symmetrical collapse of the entire building.
One minute video exposes the truth. As the song mentions it's all lies.
#fauxfullscreen
The rubbish you write used to irritate me but I've learned to have a chuckle at the silliness - keep it coming 
My favorite of your expressions is "their".
I have fun visualizing who "their/they" could possibly be - omniscient, omnipotent bogeymen I guess 
Hey petermac33 - we had a visit to my work building from a bunch of table tennis players today which made me think of you. Hope your recovery is going well!
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
You are correct in a way decrepit.......they are going on is THEIR evidence otherwise known amongst the Truth community as "scientism".
Science should be repeatable.
There have been thousands of skyscrapers brought down by controlled charges and pretty much they all collapse in a similar manner.
WTC 7 was one of those thousands of skyscrapers brought down this way yet low and behold we are somehow supposed to gulp down the NIST science theory / report that it collapsed due to a failure of a cross beam leading to the symmetrical collapse of the entire building.
One minute video exposes the truth. As the song mentions it's all lies.
#fauxfullscreen
Bahahaha, truth community???
Honestly what the **** is that?
Please Pete step back from your computer and phone for a while so you can see what an idiot you're making of yourself.
What the .....is that? Well if you don't see or hear about them on the mainstream media then they do not exist - right?
Richard Gage co founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is a figment of my imagination.
You like logman seem incapable of attacking the message so you resort to childish name calling.
You clearly have nout of substance to add on this thread so better you stick to commenting on something you know about like the windsurfing forums.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
What the .....is that? Well if you don't see or hear about them on the mainstream media then they do not exist - right?
Richard Gage co founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is a figment of my imagination.
You like logman seem incapable of attacking the message so you resort to childish name calling.
You clearly have nout of substance to add on this thread so better you stick to commenting on something you know about like the windsurfing forums.
petie you are incapable of staying on topic on ANY thread, you will introduce 911, Illuminati, Chemtrails, flat earth rubbish and all the other crap you believe is contributing to the downfall of civilisation as we know it into every thread irrelevant of what the actual topic is.
So how about you take your 911 crud over to the 911 thread where it belongs?
So you take your car to 100 mechanics. 95 of them say that you should replace the airbag, as it can potentially blow up and kill you with shrapnel. 5 of them tell you that this is never going to happen (because they are in the pocket of Big Airbag/are too busy to do the work/aren't particularly up to date with the research/are a visionary ahead of their time who will be proven to be a genius by future generations). Based on this lack of consensus and the particularly strident viewpoints put forth by the 5 mechanics who are very certain that you don't need to make the change, and because it would be inconvenient to change the airbag, you seek further advice from your trusted colleagues and friends.
After speaking to a guy you surf with, a physiotherapist, a bricklayer, an industrial psychologist and an instrumentation engineer, you now have even further mixed opinions about the likelihood of this airbag thing being a concern, and maybe it is in fact some kind of Deep State intervention to install face-recognition surveillance equipment in your car.
So, you do nothing about it, and some time down the track you hand the car down to your daughter who promptly crashes into another post-millennial while watching Tik-Tok videos while driving. At that point either the airbag deploys and kills her in a hail of shrapnel, or the airbag deploys and works perfectly fine.
To draw the parable to a close, why wouldn't you change the airbag? What is to be gained by not doing it? The majority of interventions that would be required to address climate change are net positives for society anyway, so what is the fight against?
If you saw plastic bags littering your local beach, wouldn't you put them in the bin, whether or not you believe the science behind microplastic loading in the food chain? If you can get reliable power that doesn't produce particulate matter or rely on open-cut mining or imported oil, why wouldn't you want it, whatever your belief on the influence of CO2 emissions? If you didn't have to pay for fuel and didn't have to have car noise and emissions on the roads you live on, why would you say no to that?
Ultimately the proposals of Kyoto Protocol/Paris Agreement etc are achieved by increasing renewable energy, reducing pollution and protecting our oceans, forests and natural areas. On a site like Seabreeze, who is arguing against that, and genuinely- why? If the 'alarmists' are wrong, what exactly is lost by precautionary action compared with the alternative? In short (and I know this hasn't been) - climate change denial is essentially a call to inaction. Its saying that the status quo of non-renewable power, fossil fuel cars and plastic consumerism is the best that we can be.
Stay cool, roll on seabreezes, love you all. Peace.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Climate activists slash believers are religious zealots.
No amount of evidence wil get thru to them period.
Believe what we tell you not what you see.
Really? So I should not believe a Nobel Prize winner who has nothing to gain from believing in AGW, and stands to lose by being in opposition to the government on the issue?
Select to expand quoteCH3MTR4IL5 said..
So you take your car to 100 mechanics. 95 of them say that you should replace the airbag, as it can potentially blow up and kill you with shrapnel. 5 of them tell you that this is never going to happen (because they are in the pocket of Big Airbag/are too busy to do the work/aren't particularly up to date with the research/are a visionary ahead of their time who will be proven to be a genius by future generations). Based on this lack of consensus and the particularly strident viewpoints put forth by the 5 mechanics who are very certain that you don't need to make the change, and because it would be inconvenient to change the airbag, you seek further advice from your trusted colleagues and friends.
After speaking to a guy you surf with, a physiotherapist, a bricklayer, an industrial psychologist and an instrumentation engineer, you now have even further mixed opinions about the likelihood of this airbag thing being a concern, and maybe it is in fact some kind of Deep State intervention to install face-recognition surveillance equipment in your car.
So, you do nothing about it, and some time down the track you hand the car down to your daughter who promptly crashes into another post-millennial while watching Tik-Tok videos while driving. At that point either the airbag deploys and kills her in a hail of shrapnel, or the airbag deploys and works perfectly fine.
To draw the parable to a close, why wouldn't you change the airbag? What is to be gained by not doing it? The majority of interventions that would be required to address climate change are net positives for society anyway, so what is the fight against?
If you saw plastic bags littering your local beach, wouldn't you put them in the bin, whether or not you believe the science behind microplastic loading in the food chain? If you can get reliable power that doesn't produce particulate matter or rely on open-cut mining or imported oil, why wouldn't you want it, whatever your belief on the influence of CO2 emissions? If you didn't have to pay for fuel and didn't have to have car noise and emissions on the roads you live on, why would you say no to that?
Ultimately the proposals of Kyoto Protocol/Paris Agreement etc are achieved by increasing renewable energy, reducing pollution and protecting our oceans, forests and natural areas. On a site like Seabreeze, who is arguing against that, and genuinely- why? If the 'alarmists' are wrong, what exactly is lost by precautionary action compared with the alternative? In short (and I know this hasn't been) - climate change denial is essentially a call to inaction. Its saying that the status quo of non-renewable power, fossil fuel cars and plastic consumerism is the best that we can be.
Stay cool, roll on seabreezes, love you all. Peace.
good analogy
I'm not sure why so many are getting their panties in a knot about change for the good of the planet. Especially considering the earths population will double and triple sooner than expected.
There are around 3500 architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling for a new independent investigation of what happened on 911. Most of them openly state in the petition that the three towers were brought down by controlled demolitions.
Chris - should we not act on their professional opinions calling for a new independent investigation?
The mainstream media is guilty of covering up numerous testimonies of witnesses who were in the buildings prior to collapse. Many who were in the basement and sub basement heard explosions going off and saw numerous dead and injured people. Their testimonies are not consistent with the official story.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
There are around 3500 architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling for a new independent investigation of what happened on 911. Most of them openly state in the petition that the three towers were brought down by controlled demolitions.
Chris - should we not act on their professional opinions calling for a new independent investigation?
The mainstream media is guilty of covering up numerous testimonies of witnesses who were in the buildings prior to collapse. Many who were in the basement and sub basement heard explosions going off and saw numerous dead and injured people. Their testimonies are not consistent with the official story.
So, Peter, you are just going to ignore the evidence that buildings do NOT take minutes to fall down? You are just going to close your eyes to the facts? Is that how it works? Aren't you embarrassed about the fact that you have shown that you don't understand basic physics?
There are three videos in my post above that prove that what you say is BS, and you can't even discuss them? Really?
There are over 15 million engineers in the world. About 1.5% of people suffer from paranoia..... do the maths. It is strange that you apparently believe a tiny minority of some 3500 people out of 15 million plus, but do not believe the great majority of professionals.
There is no reason to believe what you say about explosions etc when you are so utterly and ridiculously wrong about how long it takes a building to fall down, and so blind that you will not even address the ones that, as I have shown above, collapse in seconds.
Is it ok to ignore the testimonies from people who were in the basement and the sub basement prior to collapse who heard explosions going off and seeing injured and dead? I think not.
The evidence is not just from the close to free fall collapse of the three buildings but nearly everything that happened that day appears to now be in question.
For a second time - are you in favour of having a independent investigation to what what happened on that day?
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
There are around 3500 architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling for a new independent investigation of what happened on 911
Chris - should we not act on their professional opinions calling for a new independent investigation?
The number of architects per person across the 36 countries surveyed is 2,759. If this average were representative of the whole world (7.5 billion people), that would mean there are 2.7 million architects on the planet.
architizer.com/blog/inspiration/industry/how-many-architects-are-in-the-world/
The number of engineers worldwide is about 10-15 million. But, know that there are dozens of different engineering disciplines. So, there will always be a shortage in several of those disciplines. Still considering that there are roughly 7 billion people in the world, even 15 million is a drop in the bucket.
www.quora.com/How-many-engineers-are-there-in-the-worldSelect to expand quote " Most of them openly state in the petition that the three towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. "
"most of them" So some of the 3,500 out of about 15 - 17 million, not exactly a majority is it? 
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Is it ok to ignore the testimonies from people who were in the basement and the sub basement prior to collapse who heard explosions going off and seeing injured and dead? I think not.
The evidence is not just from the close to free fall collapse of the three buildings but nearly everything that happened that day appears to now be in question.
For a second time - are you in favour of having a independent investigation to what what happened on that day?
Peter - are you actually going to try to discuss things? Earlier, you stated that a tower would take minutes to fall. I put up three vids showing them falling in seconds, and you just ignored the fact that they proved that what you said was wrong.
I assume you think that you are honest and reasonable, but you are actually just being bloody rude if you utterly ignore the points people make in discussions with you. The fact is that your claims that towers took minutes to fall are WRONG. Do you have the guts and honesty to admit that your claim about the speed of collapse was wrong, and will you therefore consider that the other stuff you have written is wrong as well?
As far as your claims about explosions; 1- bangs are regularly heard before buildings collapse through structural failure so there is nothing unusual about such sounds. The mechanism of such sounds is pretty simple; 2 - why in the world should I answer your questions if you don't answer mine; 3- No, I am not in favour of having an independent investigation because there is no CREDIBLE evidence that shows that what happened that day was not due to a bunch of AK terrorists driving planes into towers.
Chris there is 243 pages devoted to 911 in HW, if those 243 pages can't convince PM33 I don't think you will, his conspiracy theory will out last any logic or evidence you post. FYI there is another 100+ pages across multiple threads trying to convince him the earth is round, unfortunaltley we as a seabreeze community failed in that as well.
Structural failures that were 80 and more floors below the impact area that resulted in numerous deaths and injuries?
Remember these 'failures' happened well before the collapse of the building.
The exact speed of a pancaked collapse I do not know but I can say to break through 80 floors that are all structurally sound is going to take considerable time. In the remains of the debris pile you would see a pile of pancaked floors (around 35 storeys high) on top of each other if this is what happened. You do not see this - instead the debris pile is minuscule with no pancaked floors visible.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
In the remains of the debris pile you would see a pile of pancaked floors (around 35 storeys high) on top of each other if this is what happened. You do not see this - instead the debris pile is minuscule with no pancaked floors visible.
The WTCs appear to have been 104 storeys tall. How does that then result in a stack of debris 35 storeys high? Those numbers don't work unless you think that the concrete floors were somehow a third of the storey thickness. These were 'light weight' suspended concrete slabs.
Edit: Here, you go, this is the composition of the WTC floors, taken from science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/world-trade-center-construction-unique2.htm
'The floors that flowed between the supporting walls and interior columns were made from 0.5 inch (1.27 centimeter) thick steel slabs covered in 4 inches (10.2 centimeters) of lightweight concrete.'
Assuming really basic maths and simplifying it, 104x 4.5 inches, and we get something that if stacked flat with no missing debris would be 12m high. Not 35 stories.
