iNow Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 It seems rooted in the way that our ranching practices and the livestock we breed increase the amount of atmospheric methane which further impacts climate change. EDIT: I misread IAs post. The above is not really a relevant response to him. Mea culpa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 "and I think you`ll find there are Other countries that are more than equal as "offenders" in that dept too!" I think the obesity levels in the US indicate that, in terms of CO2 emited by animals used as food per capita, there aren't many countries that beat the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.CWho Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 INow, ROFLMAO!!! Poor baby... we won't put you in jail for an innocent infraction as such... (Thanks for the laugh guys... I needed a good one.) JC, The US is publicized on the news as the worst offender. We can't mind our own business 'cause the whole world's got to be just like us. Now we are fighting a war over there. Whoever's the winner, we can't pay the cost. There's a monster on the loose. It's got our heads into the noose... and it just sits there watching... Are all these skinhead NWO guys for real or what? DrDNA, Since this is heading into that WTC stuff, get the video WTC: The first 24 hours and watch what really happened. The fuel splattered and ignited into a giant fireball that blew off the anodized aluminum and scorched the building. Yes, the engines and a shredded fuselage made it in, but most of the fuel stayed outside. This is corroborated by the impact lower on the South Tower that created a second fireball. Floor 51 was the perfect key area where a series of incindiary detonations could implode the core and drag the entire building down by funnelling it inward, similar to an extension ladder fully extended of which the palls were suddenly removed by some means. Had only the plane done the job, the top system would have ended up in the street, just as the builder Karl Koch III exclaimed as it was happening to his daughter who watched the whole event. In the torch situation, velocity separates the fuel from the nozzle while the escaping gases have an expansion valve effect, cooling the tip. A carburizing, acetylene flame does not burn hot enough to destroy the alloy tip. If you weld, certainly you are aware of the separation between the flame and the tip when the oxygen pressure is increased. There has been the statement about 90 nukes not having the potential to destroy the world. Destroying the world has a relative aspect to it, same as the flood of Noah. Most scientists agree that a global flood never occurred. The world was, in their opinion, destroyed on a local basis. 90 (plus) nukes have a good deal of damage potential, but that is only considering them being used "as is." They could be disassembled and used to initiate a series of "supers." Another question in all of this arises: Time travel. Could we unconscionably be invaded by time agents from the future without it being evident except in events like the WTC? The WTC demolition wreaks of the same type diversion as Hitler burning the Reichstag and blaming it on the communists in Russia. It would seem there would be anti-time agents as well. The paradoxical question is does it all change suddenly to a skewed time-line and the common man or common scientist would have no idea a skew actually occurred? It would all seem like normal history to all but the time traveler. Ya think? Dr. CWho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 INow, ROFLMAO!!! Poor baby... we won't put you in jail for an innocent infraction as such... (Thanks for the laugh guys... I needed a good one.) WTF are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 There has been the statement about 90 nukes not having the potential to destroy the world. Destroying the world has a relative aspect to it, same as the flood of Noah. Most scientists agree that a global flood never occurred. The world was, in their opinion, destroyed on a local basis. 90 (plus) nukes have a good deal of damage potential, but that is only considering them being used "as is." They could be disassembled and used to initiate a series of "supers." Unless you quantify "super" and cite a feasible technical means of reassembling 90 tactical nukes into a device that can initiate a series of such "supers", this is a fairly spurious comment. Asserting that 90 tactical nukes could "end the world" was factually incorrect and could be shown as such with relative ease. But vague possibilities that aren't defined and don't use conventional terms are not exactly going to help this thread to stay on track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Ya think? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Just wondering... would it be possible to blow up Jupiter? It is a large body of mostly Hydrogen and Helium (99+% for the atmosphere and 95% below), and if we put enough nukes in proper arangement around it might we be able to make a miniture supernova? That seems like it would be enough to destroy Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 This thread is not interesting or informative enough to stay off topic for long without being locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 It's starting to look more and more like the infamous battle between Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian.... "Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.CWho Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Gee, I'm speechless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts