Liverpool FC Forum

[Judge]

Ace' - how the f'uck does a resourse increase the more you use it? ie: i mean oil etc, not water

[tonyeh]

click here for more info

do you believe them, if so why?

hopefully we can get some good debate here   

>>>"Flaws in the theory: The intense nature of the fires, caused by aviation fuel and the length of time they were able to burn, have been proven to have caused the collapse of the towers, including the tower that wasn't a specific target."<<<

Ermmm...regardless of what people choose to believe about 9/11, the above is not true by any stretch of the imagination. There are many engineers who say that it would be virtually impossible for aviation fuel to burn that intensly and to weaken all of the internal supports suffucuently enough to make a tower building collapse in on itself the way the WTC buildings did.

For it to happen once would be remarkable, but happening THREE times defies logic. This is especially true in the case of building 7, which suffered far less damage than other buildings near the towers that day.

I admit, I don't know the answers to the many questions that people have about 9/11 (including the Pentagon attack and flight 93), but I will say this...when I saw those towers come down in work that morning, the first thing that popped into my head was controlled demolition at the base of the buildings.

[JoeTerp]

9/11 Debunk

[Judge]

click here for more info

do you believe them, if so why?

hopefully we can get some good debate here   

>>>"Flaws in the theory: The intense nature of the fires, caused by aviation fuel and the length of time they were able to burn, have been proven to have caused the collapse of the towers, including the tower that wasn't a specific target."<<<

Ermmm...regardless of what people choose to believe about 9/11, the above is not true by any stretch of the imagination. There are many engineers who say that it would be virtually impossible for aviation fuel to burn that intensly and to weaken all of the internal supports suffucuently enough to make a tower building collapse in on itself the way the WTC buildings did.

For it to happen once would be remarkable, but happening THREE times defies logic. This is especially true in the case of building 7, which suffered far less damage than other buildings near the towers that day.

I admit, I don't know the answers to the many questions that people have about 9/11 (including the Pentagon attack and flight 93), but I will say this...when I saw those towers come down in work that morning, the first thing that popped into my head was controlled demolition at the base of the buildings.

seems reasonable mate.

i couldnt believe that the buildings actually all fell straight down and not across many other streets and buildings.
if it were an out of control fire then the burn and weakening rate would be uneven, but the buildings all fell unilaterally?!?

[bunglemark2]

It's a myth that male employees are better than female employees.
Read on, and you'll see how even our forefathers debunked this myth...

http://www.roadandtravel.com/roadhumor/1943transportation.htm

[tonyeh]

click here for more info

do you believe them, if so why?

hopefully we can get some good debate here   

>>>"Flaws in the theory: The intense nature of the fires, caused by aviation fuel and the length of time they were able to burn, have been proven to have caused the collapse of the towers, including the tower that wasn't a specific target."<<<

Ermmm...regardless of what people choose to believe about 9/11, the above is not true by any stretch of the imagination. There are many engineers who say that it would be virtually impossible for aviation fuel to burn that intensly and to weaken all of the internal supports suffucuently enough to make a tower building collapse in on itself the way the WTC buildings did.

For it to happen once would be remarkable, but happening THREE times defies logic. This is especially true in the case of building 7, which suffered far less damage than other buildings near the towers that day.

I admit, I don't know the answers to the many questions that people have about 9/11 (including the Pentagon attack and flight 93), but I will say this...when I saw those towers come down in work that morning, the first thing that popped into my head was controlled demolition at the base of the buildings.

seems reasonable mate.

i couldnt believe that the buildings actually all fell straight down and not across many other streets and buildings.
if it were an out of control fire then the burn and weakening rate would be uneven, but the buildings all fell unilaterally?!?

As I said earlier, I don't know what the answers are S@int. But I do find the "official" explinations a bit too convineint, TBH.

But I share your...em..."wonder" shall we say? I could easilly understand if the tops of the buildings had sheered off and fell to the streets below. Or even if the tops partially collapsed into the structure below. That would make a logical and physical sense. But the buildings collapse from weakness at ground level, not at mid / upper level and for three buildings to collapse in on themselves in such a way, I have to say, I find incredible.

[Judge]

click here for more info

do you believe them, if so why?

hopefully we can get some good debate here   

>>>"Flaws in the theory: The intense nature of the fires, caused by aviation fuel and the length of time they were able to burn, have been proven to have caused the collapse of the towers, including the tower that wasn't a specific target."<<<

Ermmm...regardless of what people choose to believe about 9/11, the above is not true by any stretch of the imagination. There are many engineers who say that it would be virtually impossible for aviation fuel to burn that intensly and to weaken all of the internal supports suffucuently enough to make a tower building collapse in on itself the way the WTC buildings did.

For it to happen once would be remarkable, but happening THREE times defies logic. This is especially true in the case of building 7, which suffered far less damage than other buildings near the towers that day.

I admit, I don't know the answers to the many questions that people have about 9/11 (including the Pentagon attack and flight 93), but I will say this...when I saw those towers come down in work that morning, the first thing that popped into my head was controlled demolition at the base of the buildings.

seems reasonable mate.

i couldnt believe that the buildings actually all fell straight down and not across many other streets and buildings.
if it were an out of control fire then the burn and weakening rate would be uneven, but the buildings all fell unilaterally?!?

As I said earlier, I don't know what the answers are S@int. But I do find the "official" explinations a bit too convineint, TBH.

But I share your...em..."wonder" shall we say? I could easilly understand if the tops of the buildings had sheered off and fell to the streets below. Or even if the tops partially collapsed into the structure below. That would make a logical and physical sense. But the buildings collapse from weakness at ground level, not at mid / upper level and for three buildings to collapse in on themselves in such a way, I have to say, I find incredible.

s@int?  , im judge

[andy_g]

But the buildings collapse from weakness at ground level, not at mid / upper level

did they??

i'm sure i remember seeing the tops collapsing inwards first and then 'pancaking' down on to the lower levels forcing them to collapse downwards one by one under the sheer weight and momentum of debris.

it was a long time ago though...

[aCe']

Ace' - how the f'uck does a resourse increase the more you use it? ie: i mean oil etc, not water

most natural resources (metals, oil, green lands..etc) are increasing... its vvery hard to determine the stocks of such resources so the best (and possibly ONLY) way to compare is by comparing prices over certain time intervals... look up Julian Simon's bet with Ehrlich... regarding oil... its a little more complicated... bottom line is theres enough oil in some parts of the world today to last the whole world 100s of years with no problems... but its way more expensive to extract because of its solid nature as compared to the liquid oil you get from the mideast and other parts... way cheaper because its way easier to extract... basically we'll get to a point where its cheaper to use a different energy source before we run out of oil and ill bet anything on it...

EPA and ECOWORLD (2003) both comfirm that stocks of natural resources are actually increasing not decreasing.. not all of them but most of them...

[aCe']

about 9/11... i dont buy into the whole conspiracy theory BS but that movie "Loose Change" is a must see for anyone who does or is in any way interested in what happnd

[JoeTerp]

it was certainly top down

[Big Niall]

south park were right on re 9/11. america is the most powerful country in the world and the shock that it could be vulnerable to outsiders was so bad that some people find it easier to believe that it had to be their own government, that way, they still have the power.

[Judge]

i now understand you niall

your inspiration is taken from south park !!

[Bad Bob]

Ace' - how the f'uck does a resourse increase the more you use it? ie: i mean oil etc, not water

most natural resources (metals, oil, green lands..etc) are increasing... its vvery hard to determine the stocks of such resources so the best (and possibly ONLY) way to compare is by comparing prices over certain time intervals... look up Julian Simon's bet with Ehrlich... regarding oil... its a little more complicated... bottom line is theres enough oil in some parts of the world today to last the whole world 100s of years with no problems... but its way more expensive to extract because of its solid nature as compared to the liquid oil you get from the mideast and other parts... way cheaper because its way easier to extract... basically we'll get to a point where its cheaper to use a different energy source before we run out of oil and ill bet anything on it...

EPA and ECOWORLD (2003) both comfirm that stocks of natural resources are actually increasing not decreasing.. not all of them but most of them...

Correct, there will still be oil in the ground hundreds of years from now and there may be even some people desperate enough to try and mine it.  The problem is that, as you say, it's becoming harder to extract and refine efficiently, which means that it's price will continue to trend upwards over time.  That, in turn, means we'll need a replacement source of energy to turn to.  But, there's the rub...there is no single or even readily available combination of replacements that will be able to easily be substituted for oil.  Consider all the things we really on oil or other petroleum products for:

1) powering trucks, cars, etc.
2) heating/cooling homes
3) generating electricity in many regions
4) food production (most pesticides and fertilizers are petroleum based and almost all food processing, transportation, refrigeration and preparation relies on hydrocarbon energy at some stage)

Think we're going to seemlessly switch from oil to other energy sources over night, with little disruption of our current way of life?  Dream on.

[aCe']

Ace' - how the f'uck does a resourse increase the more you use it? ie: i mean oil etc, not water

most natural resources (metals, oil, green lands..etc) are increasing... its vvery hard to determine the stocks of such resources so the best (and possibly ONLY) way to compare is by comparing prices over certain time intervals... look up Julian Simon's bet with Ehrlich... regarding oil... its a little more complicated... bottom line is theres enough oil in some parts of the world today to last the whole world 100s of years with no problems... but its way more expensive to extract because of its solid nature as compared to the liquid oil you get from the mideast and other parts... way cheaper because its way easier to extract... basically we'll get to a point where its cheaper to use a different energy source before we run out of oil and ill bet anything on it...

EPA and ECOWORLD (2003) both comfirm that stocks of natural resources are actually increasing not decreasing.. not all of them but most of them...

Correct, there will still be oil in the ground hundreds of years from now and there may be even some people desperate enough to try and mine it.  The problem is that, as you say, it's becoming harder to extract and refine efficiently, which means that it's price will continue to trend upwards over time.  That, in turn, means we'll need a replacement source of energy to turn to.  But, there's the rub...there is no single or even readily available combination of replacements that will be able to easily be substituted for oil.  Consider all the things we really on oil or other petroleum products for:

1) powering trucks, cars, etc.
2) heating/cooling homes
3) generating electricity in many regions
4) food production (most pesticides and fertilizers are petroleum based and almost all food processing, transportation, refrigeration and preparation relies on hydrocarbon energy at some stage)

Think we're going to seemlessly switch from oil to other energy sources over night, with little disruption of our current way of life?  Dream on.

we wont run out of oil overnight either...