Current events discussion

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

And why are you confused about an amp having low-level input AND output connections?

You do understand some amps only have a single rca input right...

But now that you've tried covering everything but the question...why were you the only one lost on that thread?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You do understand stand some amps only have a single rca input right...

Plenty do. I have at least three self-contained sub in my home system that do.
But they also have outputs for pass-through, some which say pass-through, one which says "output".
Did you genuinely not know why there would be a low-level output connection? If so, then that would simply and quickly explain your post, and we can move on.

You keep saying I was lost, yet you still can't tell us why you posted as if wiring the subs to one set of terminals would be different than wiring the subs to two sets of terminals on a mono amp. You also can't tell us which amp he was referring to, and if he owned it or not.
How do you give amp-specific advice without knowing what amp he has? What if it was a stereo amp that could be bridged to mono, and the speaker terminals were labeled as such?

I think science tests can be misleading intentionally, absolutely. I'm just saying keep that in mind.

The MIT stuff wasn't based on testing. It was based on long-known and sound principles of chemistry, physics, etc, combined with the facts they knew about the planes. jet fuel, building, etc.
They were not making some claim that this was a "miracle" set of circumstances or that there were some unknow hidden magic forces or dark conspirators at work, like you see in the movies.

If someone is going to try to claim that the combustion of jet fuel cannot cause steel to melt and thus the WTC collapse was a planned and plotted destruction by the dark state, then their entire premise is based on a false presumption.

This is why conspiracy theories pretty much always collapse under scrutiny.
If it smells like bullshit, then it's likely bullshit. A few simple tests can verify it.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

You keep saying I was lost, yet you still can't tell us why you posted as if wiring the subs to one set of terminals would be different than wiring the subs to two sets of terminals on a mono amp

You're spinning buddy...you haven't shown me where I said there was a difference...but you're doing the typical Rob thing...deflecting from the topic at hand because it doesn't make you look "smart"

So you gonna answer why you were the only lost on that thread or not?

I assuming not because you too busy trying to read into everything I said as inaccurate or "will cause his amp to catch fire" ...just shows you're scared of the answer getting out

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You're spinning buddy...you haven't shown me where I said there was a difference...but you're doing the typical Rob thing...deflecting from the topic at hand because it doesn't make you look "smart"

So you gonna answer why you were the only lost on that thread or not?

I assuming not because you too busy trying to read into everything I said as inaccurate or "will cause his amp to catch fire" ...just shows you're scared of the answer getting out

You're not familiar with the use of the word "if" in a conditional statement, huh?
Do you often just say "if" about things, when there is no "then"?

OK. What is next? What is the "then" statement? How would that statement change depending on whether two subs were connected to one set of terminals or two set son a mono amp?
And why aren't you familiar with low-level pass-through on a car amp? Have you never seen or used one?

How about "If you stack 23 tweeters in a vertical column."
What does that tell you without a "then"?
So tell us your "then" statement regarding the difference between hooking up the subs to one set of terminals vs two sets on a mono amp.

If you want to play guru, then you sure as f*ck had better be able to speak with authority on the topic.
You "assume" the low-level output is to feed another amp? Really? No self-professed expert would ever say that.

View attachment 56823

Is that how conspiracy theory believers are so easily convinced?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

You're not familiar with the use of the word "if" in a conditional statement, huh?
Do you often just say "if" about things, when there is no "then"?

View attachment 56822
OK. What is next? What is the "then" statement? How would that statement change depending on whether two subs were connected to one set of terminals or two set son a mono amp?
And why aren't you familiar with low-level pass-through on a car amp? Have you never seen or used one?

How about "If you stack 23 tweeters in a vertical column."
What does that tell you without a "then"?
So tell us your "then" statement regarding the difference between hooking up the subs to one set of terminals vs two sets on a mono amp.

If you want to play guru, then you sure as f*ck had better be able to speak with authority on the topic.
You "assume" the low-level output is to feed another amp? Really? No self-professed expert would ever say that.

Omg you've resorted to grammar to avoid the question now

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Omg you've resorted to grammar to avoid the question now

So, there is no "then" to follow your "if" statement?
Nothing happens "if" you connect the two subs to a single set of outputs?

"If I had a million dollars."
"Yes. Then what?"
"Huh?"
"If you had a million dollars, THEN what?"
"There is no then. Just 'If I had a million dollars'".

Brilliant.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

It wasn't the jet fuel, it was the fire started by the jet fuel. And the "majority of the fuel" wasn't consumed by the fireball. They estimate 20,000kg went into the building. That's over 5,000 gallons of jet fuel,
Do you consider that an insignificant amount when it is a fuel source dumped in a somewhat enclosed space, saturating anything porous?

Try this: pour a cup of gas on a rag and light it as fast as you possibly can.
Tell us if the gas just flash-burns off as vapor and leaves the rag untouched, or if the rag itself starts to burn.

But since you are likely an expert from your education, I'll defer to the other experts' explanation. You can then tell us why they are wrong:
."A substantial portion of the fuel got burned in the initial fireball on the exterior, which suggests that the fuel volume that was ignited in the interior of the towers may have been on the order of 25 m3, or about 20,000 kg. It should be remembered, however, that the initial fireball contributed to the heating of the building and the ignition of some of its flammable material. The enthalpy of reaction of the fuel, that is the heat generated as the fuel is burned under stoichiometric conditions in air, is almost 45 MJ/kg of fuel. Thus, for a plane fueled to capacity (72,000 kg), the total heat load (the heat generated if all the fuel is burned) is a staggering 3,240 GJ (giga-Joules). Burning this fuel continuously over a period of almost an hour, this energy generates a power of almost one gigawatt, equivalent to the power of a large conventional or nuclear power plant. A small fraction of this power is indeed capable of causing enormous damage if unleashed close to a building."

https://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

So a 767 plane... a plane that holds 20K gallons of fuel traveling right near 500mph hits a building. According to you over 5K gallons of liquid fuel go into that building. Let's touch on the amount of fuel. I said the majority burned in the explosion, you said no. Well Rob, math appears not to be YOUR wheelhouse. I am pretty sure that 20K gallons minus 5K gallons leaves 15k gallons. Which is the majority of the fuel that burned up in the explosion. Maybe you think the math is wrong now because it PROVES you wrong. Anyway, this fuel entering the building isn't just going to sit there in a puddle burning until the tower falls. When it enters the building it is going to hit objects, deflect in all directions, ignite, evaporate, run out of the building, fall to other floors and so on. Did you know, both buildings had fireproofing. One building had fireproofing 1.5in thick, the other, 3/4" thick. You really believe some papers and chairs brought down the towers? Really... with a breeze? Really?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

So, there is no "then" to follow your "if" statement?
Nothing happens "if" you connect the two subs to a single set of outputs?

"If I had a million dollars."
"Yes. Then what?"
"Huh?"
"If you had a million dollars, THEN what?"
"There is no then. Just 'If I had a million dollars'".

Brilliant.

Double down buddy...nothing shows you're "right" like nitpicking grammar to prove your point...lots of innerweb trolls swear by the technique

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So a 767 plane... a plane that holds 20K gallons of fuel traveling right near 500mph hits a building. According to you over 5K gallons of liquid fuel go into that building. Let's touch on the amount of fuel. I said the majority burned in the explosion, you said no. Well Rob, math appears not to be YOUR wheelhouse. I am pretty sure that 20K gallons minus 5K gallons leaves 15k gallons. Which is the majority of the fuel that burned up in the explosion. Maybe you think the math is wrong now because it PROVES you wrong. Anyway, this fuel entering the building isn't just going to sit there in a puddle burning until the tower falls. When it enters the building it is going to hit objects, deflect in all directions, ignite, evaporate, run out of the building, fall to other floors and so on. Did you know, both buildings had fireproofing. One building had fireproofing 1.5in thick, the other, 3/4" thick. You really believe some papers and chairs brought down the towers? Really... with a breeze? Really?

So when you have 1/4 of a tank ( 3 gallons of 12) of fuel left, you are "empty"?
Those 3 gallons of fuel are not enough to create combustion and propel your car?
I suppose if you dumped them inside the car and tossed a match in, nothing would happen because they are a "minority" amount of a tankful?

Who said the fuel just "sat there" in the building? I said it saturated stuff and them combusted. I even gave an example of dousing a rag with gas and setting it on fire. Do YOU think the rag will burn, or just the gasoline, leaving the rag intact?

Did you know, both buildings had fireproofing.

And? Do you think that somehow makes everything IN a building "fireproof"? God, I hope your really not THAT stupid.
What is office carpeting made of? Plastic, maybe some natural fibers.
What are office chairs covers and stuffed with? Vinyl and foam. What is EVERY computer screen housed in? Plastic.

If ANYTHING, the fireproofing could have made the situation worse by preventing multiple access points for even MORE air to enter and actually slow combustion.
Ever heard of a woodstove? Closing off airflow to a point will actually make it burn HOTTER than if you left it wide open. Simple physics, kid.
You should have learned stuff like this when you were awarded your "Expert" status upon graduation from Ohio State.

"Some papers and chairs". Stupidest thing I've heard today.
Each floor alone has ONE ACRE of usable space. "Some chairs and papers"? F*cking moronic.

So let's get back to how things that don't burn hot enough are able to melt metal. Like gasoline.
Tell me how it's not possible for a "puddle" of gasoline to have melted these aluminum rims in a roadside car fire.
.

Double down buddy...nothing shows you're "right" like nitpicking grammar to prove your point...lots of innerweb trolls swear by the technique

Still waiting for you to explain your lack of knowledge regarding low-level line-outs on a car amplifier, and why you think connecting two subs to 4 terminals on a mono amp is different than connecting them to just 2 terminals on a mono amp.

I noticed you HAD to chime in on that subwoofer phase question.
Why didn't you provide an answer?
He obviously told you all you needed to know about his setup...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

So when you have 1/4 of a tank ( 3 gallons of 12) of fuel left, you are "empty"?
Those 3 gallons of fuel are not enough to create combustion and propel your car?
I suppose if you dumped them inside the car and tossed a match in, nothing would happen because they are a "minority" amount of a tankful?

Who said the fuel just "sat there" in the building? I said it saturated stuff and them combusted. I even gave an example of dousing a rag with gas and setting it on fire. Do YOU think the rag will burn, or just the gasoline, leaving the rag intact?


And? Do you think that somehow makes everything IN a building "fireproof"? God, I hope your really not THAT stupid.
What is office carpeting made of? Plastic, maybe some natural fibers.
What are office chairs covers and stuffed with? Vinyl and foam. What is EVERY computer screen housed in? Plastic.

If ANYTHING, the fireproofing could have made the situation worse by preventing multiple access points for even MORE air to enter and actually slow combustion.
Ever heard of a woodstove? Closing off airflow to a point will actually make it burn HOTTER than if you left it wide open. Simple physics, kid.
You should have learned stuff like this when you were awarded your "Expert" status upon graduation from Ohio State.

"Some papers and chairs". Stupidest thing I've heard today.
Each floor alone has ONE ACRE of usable space. "Some chairs and papers"? F*cking moronic.

So let's get back to how things that don't burn hot enough are able to melt metal. Like gasoline.
Tell me how it's not possible for a "puddle" of gasoline to have melted these aluminum rims in a roadside car fire.
.View attachment 56826




Still waiting for you to explain your lack of knowledge regarding low-level line-outs

So were you wrong about the majority of the fuel being burned up in the explosion or not Rob?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Still waiting for you to explain your lack of knowledge regarding low-level line-outs

You haven't shown me anything that proves I don't understand...besides nitpicking grammar of course

The more you spin and hide from the question Rob...the worst you look

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So were you wrong about the majority of the fuel being burned up in the explosion or not Rob?

You described it as "majority of fuel" and then followed with "how was there enough if any left behind to continue to burn for as long as each tower stood before they collapsed?"

You are indicating you think the "majority fuel" is ALL of the fuel. That's the "if any" part.
As if there would be no fuel left if the "majority" was burned, or that there would be so little left as to be inconsequential.
You were not using majority in the mathematical sense, but to try and reach a conclusion. A false one.
If you were using it mathematically, you would not have mentioned the "if any" because the math shows ~5,000 gallons of fuel not consumed by the fireball.

So in the context of YOUR usage of "majority of fuel" being consumed to indicate little to none remaining for additional combustion, I will continue to say you are wrong..
Pretty ironically dumb move for the guy who cries so much about "context".

Not only was there "any" fuel left, they estimate it at 5,218 gallons of jet fuel.
That's 5,218 gallons of fuel that creates 146,500,000 joules PER GALLON.
764,541,360,000 joules of energy from the burning of the remaining fuel.

Do an experiment: Douse your car interior with only one gallon of that fuel. Light it. No big deal, RIGHT?

Sorry if this hurts any snowflake feelings out there but people who fall for conspiracy theories are, plain and simple, IDIOTS.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You described it as "majority of fuel" and then followed with "how was there enough if any left behind to continue to burn for as long as each tower stood before they collapsed?"

You are indicating you think the "majority fuel" is ALL of the fuel. That's the "if any" part.
As if there would be no fuel left if the "majority" was burned, or that there would be so little left as to be inconsequential.
You were not using majority in the mathematical sense, but to try and reach a conclusion. A false one.
If you were using it mathematically, you would not have mentioned the "if any" because the math shows ~5,000 gallons of fuel not consumed by the fireball.

So in the context of YOUR usage of "majority of fuel" being consumed to indicate little to none remaining for additional combustion, I will continue to say you are wrong..
Pretty ironically dumb move for the guy who cries so much about "context".

Not only was there "any" fuel left, they estimate it at 5,218 gallons of jet fuel.
That's 5,218 gallons of fuel that creates 146,500,000 joules PER GALLON.
764,541,360,000 joules of energy from the burning of the remaining fuel.

Do an experiment: Douse your car interior with only one gallon of that fuel. Light it. No big deal, RIGHT?

Sorry if this hurts any snowflake feelings out there but people who fall for conspiracy theories are, plain and simple, IDIOTS.

That's a lot of not answering the question right there. Did you not understand the question?

I will ask it again in a different way.

Out of 20,000 gallons of jet fuel, is 15,000 gallons the majority between 15,000 gallons and 5,000 gallons?

I am not asking for tangents or spins, hypotheticals or what ifs. Answer the question Rob.

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]