Current events discussion

[ThxOne Premium Member]

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

@RobGMN......

 

[Old_Slapper]

Rob,
You asked me to tell you how America was better under Trump. Well, I gave you over a dozen reasons and still have not heard one reason why you think America is better now. All you keep saying is "Trump is a liar." He might be a liar, but America was better with him running it.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

I'm reading all of this and getting Rob'd of my sanity

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Careful guys...you're gonna get your grammar nitpicked

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

Rob,
You asked me to tell you how America was better under Trump. Well, I gave you over a dozen reasons and still have not heard one reason why you think America is better now. All you keep saying is "Trump is a liar." He might be a liar, but America was better with him running it.

He will post the cropped GDP graph again.....just wait for it

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

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.

Sorry kid, YOU are the one who opened the "context" can of worms and who cries about it so much.

YOUR context was that burning the "majority" left little "if any" (your words) fuel to saturate the place and combust.

You want to backtrack? Then change your statement to "even though the majority of fuel was consumed by the fireball, it was calculated there were still over 5,000 gallons left".

So once again: When you say "majority" to mean "all" or little "if any" left, then you are wrong.

Did your own context confuse you, or did you not even realize you were saying no fuel was left, so nothing to burn?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

He will post the cropped GDP graph again.....just wait for it

Show us another stupid *** meme with bullshit "facts" on it, kid.
Facts that you see and start rubbing yourself to with glee, thinking they prove you right.

But then they just make you look even dumber.

Rob,
You asked me to tell you how America was better under Trump. Well, I gave you over a dozen reasons and still have not heard one reason why you think America is better now. All you keep saying is "Trump is a liar." He might be a liar, but America was better with him running it.

I will go back and look at your list, and comment.
Can you give a post # to me?

And yes, I HAVE posted reasons I think America is better now. I was pretty clear when I said I believe the economy is a leading indicator of our situation, and that the economy is better now than it was under Trump.
I even included economy metrics and the difference between then and now.

I can probably find it and give you a post number if you want. Tomorrow. My 10 post limit has been reached.

Maybe I could do 20 if it was just bullshit memes?
Like the one below where they claim the neo-Nazis were Biden supporters.
With what proof? Because a tweet claiming it exists was viewed a lot?
GMAFB

People are so f*****g stupid, it's genuinely scary.

Why dont you just sign in as Jimi77 as usual

Ironic post from the guy hiding behind his name, refusing to allow people to see who he is.

Sorry child, I'm not Jimi. He is far more eloquent than I could hope to be. If you had a higher IQ, you could see that just by reading some of his posts.

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

As requested.....

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

My 10 post limit has been reached

Why dont you just sign in as Jimi77 as usual.....but wait at least 30 minutes so i doesnt look too obvious

 

[Speed Chaser]

Tell me how air can move without a velocity. Is it air that is moving but standing still?
Do you think air in an HVAC system that is running has no velocity?
Do you think either WTC tower could be considered a completely sealed system with no air movement?

So, tell us why you think the stoichiometric ratio of the fire at WTC was at the perfect 14.7 or less, that jet fuel was the only thing burning, and thus why the fire could not melt steel.
And then explain how steel can be melted in a wood fire. While you're at it, also explain why an container can be melted in a campfire if wood only burns at 700F, but aluminum melts at 1,221F.

For extra credit, tell us why it is not possible for the temps inside Notre Dame to have reached 2,500F with nothing more than the building itself feeding the fire.
Same "act of god" that people claim saved the crucifix in there?
Now, tell us how a forest fire can reach upwards of 2,000F with nothing more than live trees (very inefficient fuel) being consumed by flame.

Explain the basics that you think "can't happen" before you get into the conspiracy fantasy crap.






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

After you debunk the folks of MIT, please explain how this stainless chimney liner is glowing orange (indicating a temp in the range of 1,600-1,900F) when it is connected to a woodstove. Wood burns at 700F in free air.
Try to speak to facts and evidence, even scientific principles, in your explanation.

View attachment 56802


A typical useless and meaningless response.
No, it's the same MIT that helped create the vaccine that made your body a magnetic 5G tower full of nanobots.
They are funded by 100 y.o. astral-projecting Nazis who were resurrected from the dead and brought here by Bill Gates and IBM in order to conquer the world.
They work in pyramids hidden in caverns under the campus.

Wow, and you continue with irrelevant arguments. The writer in the article assumed the best-case scenario, which would be a stoichiometric ratio. Please show anywhere in the article or anywhere I said only the fuel was burning because any 3rd grader would tell you that's impossible. I guess you are more stupid than a 3rd grader. Rob now brings a completely different metal, "aluminum," into a conversation about steel. You can really tell he has no defense. How about you do some homework and learn basic chemistry? Here is another thing you probably are learning for the first time, just like you learned about stoichiometry a few days ago. There is something called thermal efficiency, and even the National Institute of Standards and Technology has said:

1. The subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

even they have admitted the steel didn't melt and I already take their report with a grain of salt, are you going to accuse them of being conspiracy propagandists to imbecilic?
Stop pushing mainstream ideas; I know critical thinking is too hard for you, but try it at least once in your life. Look how many times this person has changed the subject: first, it's a wood fire, then aluminum, and now Notre Dame. Don't start an argument when you don't even understand the most basic things.
In summary, this is how stupid his argument is: the article assumes a stoichiometric ratio where every single last drop of fuel gets mixed with air to achieve complete combustion, meaning nothing is left to burn. Yet, this dunderhead thinks that adding more air to something that has already completely burned would make it hotter.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Sorry kid, YOU are the one who opened the "context" can of worms and who cries about it so much.

YOUR context was that burning the "majority" left little "if any" (your words) fuel to saturate the place and combust.

You want to backtrack? Then change your statement to "even though the majority of fuel was consumed by the fireball, it was calculated there were still over 5,000 gallons left".

So once again: When you say "majority" to mean "all" or little "if any" left, then you are wrong.

Did your own context confuse you, or did you not even realize you were saying no fuel was left, so nothing to burn?

No ya don't Rob. Answer the question. The way you are choosing to take it is not how it is intended. Stop tapdancing.

 

[Speed Chaser]

No ya don't Rob. Answer the question. The way you are choosing to take it is not how it is intended. Stop tapdancing.

i think he is playing footsie with you

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

i think he is playing footsie with you

indeed. He was very wrong, he has been called out and now will do anything and everything he can to avoid saying I was right or he was wrong. Sad actually.