climate change whos paying?

as for the sun thing.

peter there is ample scientific evidence from satelites that clearly show the sun theory is a load of crap.

don't take this the wrong way but do you have any underlying conditions?

Be bloody glad when we see some consistant wind on the East Coast
Time to get of each dead horse lads, The RSPCA is looking at each and wants an explantion to why you all flogged them to death[}:)]

i love the black knight! he has already made an appearance on this thread.

speaking of horses........

u 2.

hey whats the convention for 2010?

2-10
iix
y2k10
010

hmmm.

bzzzt,

the external skin was trhe main structural component. that is why the columns are spaced 500mm apart. what set the wtc apart from other building was the massive clear span floor plates and the fact that the loads were primarily transferred through the outside skin. in most high rise buildings the core is the main structural element "typically"

(Taken from www.skyscraper.org)

The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."

to suggest that the north and south towers were demolished is very over the top.

the floors were lightweight bondeck slabs with spray on fireproofing. as the top part of the building feel the floors sheared without resistance and the "external" structural grid peeled like a banana.

gestalt, can you answer me a question with a yes or no answer.

did the twin towers have central steel columns or not.

patiently awaiting your one word reply.

and cisco.... you seem strangely silent on this.... no sitting on the fence allowed!

ok, your reply equates to a yes answer.

these massive central support columns, 47 of them i believe made up the core, with around 150 exterior columns.

these 2 towers were superstructures.

these massive central + exterior columns were cut using thermite.

look at the photos of these cut columns, you can see where the molten iron has dripped down from the cutting point.

residue of thermite has been found on the steel taken from the wtc by professor Steven Jones

the photos back this up.

this is why i was initially sceptical of this climate change stuff they have been pushing hard in last few years.

i now do not believe anything they tell me anymore, unless backed with evidence.

remember the WMD fiasco.

Proved: There is no climate crisis:
Major paper shows CO2's effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000%
WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis" appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement
of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 ?F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 ?F.

Lord Monckton concludes -
". Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC's estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no 'climate crisis' at all. . The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:
"I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about 'global warming' and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.
"To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition - or, rather, expos? - of the IPCC's method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic 'global warming'."

Lord Monckton's paper reveals that -
* The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 ?F (0.6 ?C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
* The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
* The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
"Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Contact: Robert Ferguson, Science and Public Policy Institute www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
202-288-5699 bferguson@sppinstitute.org




.......... oh and 9-11 was an inside job

fair enough peter,

but

you have taken my words out of context, there is no conspriacy on my part here.

to explain,

when i said, all of the structure was on the outside of the building it was referrencing that unlike other buildings of that era, the main structure was on the outside of the building instead of the internal core.

i did not say there was no core and i did not say there were no other columns. you have missconstrued my words there.

in normal terms, in a highrise building the "core" is the main structural system or component for the buildings integrity, it is normally an insitu concrete or concrete encased steel system (ie the lift shaft or nearby). it forms the main bracing point of the building and redistributes the "major" loads down to the foundations. this is not to say the external columns etc are doing nothing. also the core doesn't have to be the centre of the building and in an innercity senario is normally aligned to a side boundary or on a party wall edge for space planning reasons.

now the north and south towers of the wtc did not work this way. unlike most buildings, their internal core was not the main load absorbing element of the building. the core was actually lightweight.

the main structural component was the outside skin of the building. in crass terms you could say the outside skin was the structure (like a pipe), you could even say the outside of the building was actually the "core". kind of like an inside out building. this however is not to say there was no bracing at all in the wtc lightweight core.

all of the above does also not take into account hybrid structual systems on more contemporary buidling. just to clarify.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but it's an interesting read on the Copenhagen Summit

www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas