How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

Why? Because Grumpy is not an American citizen. As such, I appreciated the humor behind the post pointing out that Grumpy is not protected by our Bill of Rights. Unlike some here, Grumpy has a good sense of humor, so I enjoy picking on him.

Tom

 

"So-called “global warming†is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!" -Chip Giller, Founder of Grist.org.

 

I propose a solution to this madness, a first hand experience test.

We will construct a metal platform suspended over a pit of molten slag within a blast furnace. We will heat the chamber to the same temperature as the WTC experienced. Not enough to melt the steel, but enough to soften it. On this platform we will place a few hundred metric tonne weight to simulate the weight of the floors above the impact point as well as yourself and all others that believe it is not possible. We will of course provide you and your peers a fire suit so you do not burn in the ambient temperature (no guarentees if the experiment "fails" and you are dunked into the pit of molten ooze though) as well as a supply of oxygen that magically wont combust in your face (We'll have to figure this one out somehow).

Now... If your theory is correct, you and your friends will be safe on the platform. However, if you are wrong the heat from the furnace equivalent to the fires that burned that day will heat the steel so that the stress from the hundreds of tonnes above (well plus you and your friends) and its own mass will buckle the structure. Everyone and everything onboard will gain +1G in acceleration towards the earth because of that other controversial theory, "gravity", and within a second or two into the burning hellfire below.

How much do you believe your theory vs. basic science and the mechanics of hardened steel?

 

I don't see how wasting billions of dollars researching AGW is going to accomplish that goal? Not to mention scaring the crap out of children and teaching them that's it ok to cheat and lie to attain an objective. But that's just me.

 

Engineering fields are very localized. A bunch of residential structural engineers are going to know diddly squat about what stresses a steel skyscraper faces when on fire.

You can find crazies in any bunch. Just because they congregate en masse, doesnt make them right.

I suggest you read some books on the subject. Not books written by crazies, but textbooks on the subject. Videos and blogs do not overwrite hundreds of years of physics and science.

If you have no doubt that a fire could bring down the towers, then do the experiment I suggest. We will never hear back from you because you will be in a molten ooze pile after an hour or two.


Here is a quick article by National Geographic that google turned up:

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.
Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.


Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.
Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.


Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.
Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the checmical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.
​

 

So you maintain that they accomplished a very difficult task of secretly planting explosives and making major structural changes to the WTC towers AND then planned a monumentally complex charade of hijacking and flying commercial passengers jets into the WTC? In order to blame Arab terrorist! ound: Wouldn't it have just been easier to blow the WTC up and blame it on the terrorist? Would anyone have doubted this after the attempt in 1996? Sorry, nothing personal but this is as stupid as claiming Bush fabricated the lie about WMD's in Iraq to start a war and didn't think to have a few WMD's around that he could plant to cover his story. I guess he just thought being vilified for the rest of his life as a liar that started a war sounded like fun, eh?

 

California Interchange Collapses After Tanker Fire - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Screw Loose Change: The Fourth Steel-Framed Building To Collapse from Fire



or he could just read a newspaper but I suppose the "Truthers" will say that Bush was involved and there was some vast conspiracy out there to collapse this bridge and office building?

 

I'm probably wasting my time aren't I?

 

Let me see a outlaw secret organization plans and executes an attack which catches everyone by surprise therefore no one is in a position to document the moment by moment events as they happen. Add to that the fact that most of the evidence is destroyed and since something like this has never happened before there are some things that can't be explained. You're probably right it seems perfectly reasonable to concoct an entirely outrageous fiction that blames everything on Bush so he can start some wars! Yeah, that makes sense.

 

Interesting that we are simultaneously discussing how a plane flying into the World Trade Center did not cause enough damage to collapse them....and how the same plane flying into a reinforced concrete cylinder might get to a nuclear reactor. Go Figure.

My real awakening to how strong reinforced concrete was seeing the U-Boat pens in Brest France. The Allied air forces dropped every possible bomb meant to penetrate the pens and only succeeded with special 6 ton bombs (but did not damage any U-Boats). After the war, the French tried everything they had to get rid of the German monstrosities for years. All attempt have failed to this day.

The bombs only chip off the concrete to the first exposure of the rebar. Getting rid of the rebar can only occur a foot at a time due to the interlacing of the rebar weaving in and out of the concrete. No way you ever have to worry about a dinky 767 loaded to the hilt penetrating nuclear power plant containment buildings.

uboat.net - Boats - Flotillas - Bases - Brest, France

 

Why is it that every title with the word "Truth" in it on youtube winds up being some major opinion piece? There's a difference between having an open mind and being completely gullable. Look up "truth prius" on youtube and you'll only see opinion pieces: which mainly regurgitate that hummer vs prius piece.

I'd rather put stock in structural engineers who designed the world trade center over an architect in the San Fransisco area drawing a lot of speculation. That architect does not know the design or materials used as well as the engineers assigned to the building of the towers. I watched an interview with one of the engineers: he said the towers fell because they could not fathom fully fueled passenger planes flying into them. They did allow tolerance for fully fueled commuter planes or a relatively depleted 707s. It's pretty simple physics really: heat was propelled by a large fuel tank....enough for the floors above and below to buckle and collapse. Enough for the central core superstucture to give way and collapse. Thousands of people were saved because of the towers being well designed enough to have stood for an hour. Seeing all the devastation, it could have been a lot worst....I thanked god that day for that.

I'm a moderate liberal, who thinks Bush is the worst president we've had, yet even I don't subscribe to these conspiracy theories. So it was either the Bush administration, all of the Jews (I've even heard that from some nuts), or all of the Muslims that planted explosives on top of hijacking planes just for dramatic effect?? Call me silly, but I blame the hijackers over any other group. And since I'm a person of science, Occam's razor seems to dictate that extremist members of Al-Queda had the most motive and the most to gain from flying planes into the towers. This discussion will probably turn really political if we were to compare who has the most to gain for the Iraq war, and this is also way off from the intent of the thread.

To get back on track....I was expecting a poll to vote on from the title. Otherwise, we'll just get an empty debate from global warming believers vs global warming skeptics. Since there's no place for me to vote, I'll just have to state my belief....I'm a prius driver who does think man is contributing to the environment. Climate scientists only seem to be debating the intricacies over "if" there is global warming.

 

My question to the folks who think that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration:

Are you saying that the Bush administration actually successfully succeeded in doing something?

 

Wasn't you that mentioned that he put us into this recession?

 

A lot of defense contractors made a lot of money (and still are). But I suspect that would have happened with or without 9/11 - 9/11 just made it easier.

 

can someone tell me how we got 9/11 conspiracy theory in a global warming thread? i've followed somewhat, but i'm not sure why this is in here.

 

A significant proportion of excess heat in the atmosphere is directly traceable to the elevated temperatures that accompany most "discussion" about 9/11, so its presence here is not out of place, and it is certainly entertaining!