Sidebar

Current events discussion

Reply
Jump to latest
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
ThxOne said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think I found a solution for his problems:

"Scientists have successfully grown working “testicles in a dish"..."

studyfinds.org

Lab-Grown Testicles Created In Male Fertility Breakthrough

Scientists have successfully grown working “testicles in a dish” that could one day help solve male infertility, which affects one in 12 men worldwide.
studyfinds.org studyfinds.org
 
www.rebelnews.com

One-third of Canadian doctors and over half of nurses fear COVID-19 vaccine side effects

One individual expressed concern about the speed at which the vaccines were released to the general public, stating that the inoculations were 'developed in a matter of a couple of months that's being handed out like candy.'
www.rebelnews.com www.rebelnews.com
8gijtl.gif
 
Last edited:
Speed Chaser said:
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.
View attachment 56837
Click to expand...
Melted vs heated to the point of bowing/collapsing? Yet nuanced argument about language.... 😵‍💫
 
Speed Chaser said:
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.
View attachment 56837
Click to expand...
"The best case scenario would be a stoichiometric ratio"?
That sentence alone tells us you only just read something that describes stoichiometry, and think you're going to use the term to argue your point.

So go ahead and school us. Tell us, WHICH "a stoichiometric ratio" would that "best case scenario" BE, exactly?
Give me numbers and tell me why it's "best" for the WTC fires. Express it in lambda with regard to jet fuel, and melting steel.

And then let's get back to the basic premise that the steel in the towers could not have melted.
Explain why a wood-based fire can be used to forge steel, but you think a jet-fuel and anything-else-that-will-burn fire cannot.

Yes. Notre Dame. An interior fire where temperatures reached 2,500 degrees with no accelerants, and only the materials within burning.

Reconcile those two instances alone with the asinine belief that the steel in the WTC could not have been melted by the fire following the crash.


ThxOne said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to speak to the CONTEXT of your post where you intimate that all the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, and that the remaining fuel "if any" would have been irrelevant.

How is 5,218 gallons of jet fuel irrelevant when it comes to a fire in an enclosed space? How did you determine that it was unlikely there would be any fuel not consumed by the initial fireball?

EXPLAIN how a simple wood fire can get stainless steel glowing red/orange when wood burns at 700F.
Or explain how that is impossible, if that's your personal belief.

And don't forget to explain your belief that all the fuel was burned at initial impact. Debunk the MIT folks (and plenty others) with your expert status you gained in the subject, while getting your vo-tech degree in biology.
You have a degree so they're obviously no more an expert than you, right?
 
Last edited:
RobGMN said:
"The best case scenario would be a stoichiometric ratio"?
That sentence alone tells us you only just read something that describes stoichiometry, and think you're going to use the term to argue your point.

So go ahead and school us. Tell us, WHICH "a stoichiometric ratio" would that "best case scenario" BE, exactly?
Give me numbers and tell me why it's "best" for the WTC fires. Express it in lambda with regard to jet fuel, and melting steel.

And then let's get back to the basic premise that the steel in the towers could not have melted.
Explain why a wood-based fire can be used to forge steel, but you think a jet-fuel and anything-else-that-will-burn fire cannot.

Yes. Notre Dame. An interior fire where temperatures reached 2,500 degrees with no accelerants, and only the materials within burning.

Reconcile those two instances alone with the asinine belief that the steel in the WTC could not have been melted by the fire following the crash.



Still waiting for you to speak to the CONTEXT of your post where you intimate that all the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, and that the remaining fuel "if any" would have been irrelevant.

How is 5,218 gallons of jet fuel irrelevant when it comes to a fire in an enclosed space? How did you determine that it was unlikely there would be any fuel not consumed by the initial fireball?

EXPLAIN how a simple wood fire can get stainless steel glowing red/orange when wood burns at 700F.
Or explain how that is impossible, if that's your personal belief.

And don't forget to explain your belief that all the fuel was burned at initial impact. Debunk the MIT folks (and plenty others) with your expert status you gained in the subject, while getting your vo-tech degree in biology.
You have a degree so they're obviously no more an expert than you, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, the best-case scenario would be a stoichiometric ratio. You can tell this idiot still doesn't know what a stoichiometric ratio is when he has to ask
Tell us, WHICH "a stoichiometric ratio"
Click to expand...
any middle schooler will tell you that for a given hydrocarbon fuel, and assuming you want complete combustion, there is only one stoichiometric ratio. This ratio represents the exact amount of oxygen needed to react with the fuel to produce carbon dioxide and water, with no leftover reactants. But this dimwit still doesn't understand this. Please tell me why a situation where complete combustion of the fuel is taking place would not be the best-case scenario if the goal is to release as much energy as possible to heat the steel. Do you even know what lambda is or how it would fit in this conversation?
Express it in lambda with regard to jet fuel, and melting steel.
Click to expand...
Once again, anyone who has taken an introductory Chemistry course would tell you that in a stoichiometric situation, the lambda value would be 1. In a situation where lambda is less than 1, indicating a rich mixture, not all available oxygen is used for combustion, leading to incomplete burning of fuel. The temperature would result in a lower value than the stoichiometric case as some fuel remains unburned.

Now, if lambda is greater than 1, it is a lean mixture, which would be more fuel-efficient, meaning more burn time but would result in lower flame temperatures due to the excess air cooling the combustion process. The temperature would be lower than the stoichiometric case as the excess oxygen can dissipate heat.

Assuming a lambda value of 1, as the author did in his article, represents an idealized, stoichiometric condition. Deviations from this ideal value, either richer or leaner mixtures, would likely result in lower temperatures due to incomplete combustion or excess air cooling.

Do some basic math, maroon, and stop asking others to do it for you. In this case, there was no math needed to prove your statement wrong; all that was needed was a basic understanding of chemistry. Explain why the National Institute of Standards and Technology themselves said the fire didn't melt the steel. Where did I say
anything-else-that-will-burn fire cannot.
Click to expand...
I was waiting for proof or did you just make up like the rest of the crap you say. Yes
Notre Dame.
Click to expand...
a fire that doesn't belong in the same conversation as the World Trade Center (WTC) fires. Notre Dame, a stone and wood cathedral, is like comparing a medieval fortress to a modern skyscraper. The materials, accelerants, and fire dynamics are entirely different. When discussing the WTC fires, we're delving into collapse mechanisms and steel behavior. Notre Dame's fire doesn't offer comparable insights. They're simply different scenarios, like comparing a rock concert to a Shakespeare play – both events, but entirely different shows.
 
RobGMN said:
Still waiting for you to speak to the CONTEXT of your post where you intimate that all the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, and that the remaining fuel "if any" would have been irrelevant.

How is 5,218 gallons of jet fuel irrelevant when it comes to a fire in an enclosed space? How did you determine that it was unlikely there would be any fuel not consumed by the initial fireball?

EXPLAIN how a simple wood fire can get stainless steel glowing red/orange when wood burns at 700F.
Or explain how that is impossible, if that's your personal belief.

And don't forget to explain your belief that all the fuel was burned at initial impact. Debunk the MIT folks (and plenty others) with your expert status you gained in the subject, while getting your vo-tech degree in biology.
You have a degree so they're obviously no more an expert than you, right?
Click to expand...
I don't think so Rob. Thanks for showing all of us just how full of it you are. I didn't say ALL of the fuel was consumed in the initial explosion, didn't insinuate or beat around the bush... this is all your bullshit tactic to avoid admitting you were wrong. All of your response is YOU avoiding giving an answer. Nobody said 5,000 gallons is irrelevant, nobody said wood can't get hot when burning and nobody said ALL OF THE FUEL was burned at initial impact. So your insults and avoiding a simple question are for what reason? Are you that childish you can't even admit you were wrong? Is your ego that big that you can't admit 15,000 is the majority of 20,000????
 
ThxOne said:
I don't think so Rob. Thanks for showing all of us just how full of it you are. I didn't say ALL of the fuel was consumed in the initial explosion, didn't insinuate or beat around the bush... this is all your bullshit tactic to avoid admitting you were wrong. All of your response is YOU avoiding giving an answer. Nobody said 5,000 gallons is irrelevant, nobody said wood can't get hot when burning and nobody said ALL OF THE FUEL was burned at initial impact. So your insults and avoiding a simple question are for what reason? Are you that childish you can't even admit you were wrong? Is your ego that big that you can't admit 15,000 is the majority of 20,000????
Click to expand...
Sorry kid, but your command of the language is poor enough that you paint yourself into corners you can't escape from. CONTEXT is your battle cry whenever you get proved wrong, and this is where CONTEXT again hurts you.

Words matter, and here are yours. I've changed to bold the words that make the difference: "...how was there enough if any left behind to continue to burn for as long as each tower stood before they collapsed?

You described the amount of fuel left using the the interjectory "if any" to indicate a negligible amount, or no amount at all. 'Kind of like asking an amateur poker player "How much money IF ANY did you have after playing against Daniel Weinman?"
The interjectory is to show one expects the sum to be "zero" dollars.

Since you'll try to spin and say it's all made up, or that I am telling you what you think, or reading your words improperly, here's the scoop from multiple sources:
"The interjectory “if any” is used to indicate that the bare minimum of something will probably not happen or will not come to pass."
linguaholic.com

How to Use the Phrase "if any"

Some phrases and expressions can stump even the most fluent of speakers. For instance, plenty of English speakers will say, “I could care less” when they are trying to show their indifference towards something. However,
linguaholic.com linguaholic.com
"not very many or none at all"
www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of IF ANY

If any is contained in 2 matches in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. See the full list.
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
"a phrase used in questions or statements to show that there may be zero instances or examples of the main idea"
So you were trying to indicate that there was too little fuel left IF ANY to really matter with regards to the ensuing fire once the primary and momentary fireball was done. You then tried to strengthen your argument that the building had fireproofing, so it was ludicrous to think that anything would burn except "some papers" due to "a breeze".
YOUR brilliant statement: "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?"

I'll try to be more clear because I know you have trouble with words.
NO, Thxone, in the CONTEXT of you trying to use the "majority" to indicate ALL or nearly ALL of the fuel being consumed by the initial fireball, you are wrong.
51% is the MAJORITY of any total. If you take 51% of something, it does not mean ALL, it simply means the majority.

Your lameass attempt to "prove" the remaining fuel was nothing that would have mattered is just that: A LAMEASS ATTEMPT.
Your additional lameass attempt to say the building's fireproofing would prevent the contents from burning, and that the only thing that would have burned is "some papers" is just that: A LAMEASS ATTEMPT.
And it also indicates a rather low level of intelligence to even presume such nonsense. Childlike.

So, let's get back to the "impossibility" of there being enough heat generated to melt steel in the fire that ensued after the initial impact.
EXPLAIN how it is not possible to melt steel in a building fire.
 
RobGMN said:
Sorry kid, but your command of the language is poor enough that you paint yourself into corners you can't escape from. CONTEXT is your battle cry whenever you get proved wrong, and this is where CONTEXT again hurts you.

Words matter, and here are yours. I've changed to bold the words that make the difference: "...how was there enough if any left behind to continue to burn for as long as each tower stood before they collapsed?

You described the amount of fuel left using the the interjectory "if any" to indicate a negligible amount, or no amount at all. 'Kind of like asking an amateur poker player "How much money IF ANY did you have after playing against Daniel Weinman?"
The interjectory is to show one expects the sum to be "zero" dollars.

Since you'll try to spin and say it's all made up, or that I am telling you what you think, or reading your words improperly, here's the scoop from multiple sources:
"The interjectory “if any” is used to indicate that the bare minimum of something will probably not happen or will not come to pass."
linguaholic.com

How to Use the Phrase "if any"

Some phrases and expressions can stump even the most fluent of speakers. For instance, plenty of English speakers will say, “I could care less” when they are trying to show their indifference towards something. However,
linguaholic.com linguaholic.com
"not very many or none at all"
www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of IF ANY

If any is contained in 2 matches in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. See the full list.
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
"a phrase used in questions or statements to show that there may be zero instances or examples of the main idea"
So you were trying to indicate that there was too little fuel left IF ANY to really matter with regards to the ensuing fire once the primary and momentary fireball was done. You then tried to strengthen your argument that the building had fireproofing, so it was ludicrous to think that anything would burn except "some papers" due to "a breeze".
YOUR brilliant statement: "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?"

I'll try to be more clear because I know you have trouble with words.
NO, Thxone, in the CONTEXT of you trying to use the "majority" to indicate ALL or nearly ALL of the fuel being consumed by the initial fireball, you are wrong.
51% is the MAJORITY of any total. If you take 51% of something, it does not mean ALL, it simply means the majority.

Your lameass attempt to "prove" the remaining fuel was nothing that would have mattered is just that: A LAMEASS ATTEMPT.
Your additional lameass attempt to say the building's fireproofing would prevent the contents from burning, and that the only thing that would have burned is "some papers" is just that: A LAMEASS ATTEMPT.
And it also indicates a rather low level of intelligence to even presume such nonsense. Childlike.

So, let's get back to the "impossibility" of there being enough heat generated to melt steel in the fire that ensued after the initial impact.
EXPLAIN how it is not possible to melt steel in a building fire.
Click to expand...
I don't care to what lengths you are now going to in avoidance of the question. You are not spinning this and you are not going to ask me questions. You painted yourself in a corner and now you are tap dancing like no other. You insulting me will not change you being wrong. You refusing to answer a simple question does not mean it never happened. Everything you are posting is pointless and I will not entertain any of it. The nerve you have to sit there thinking you can demand answers from anyone you choose yet refuse to be questioned. You have no idea what direction I am going with the remaining fuel. All you have are assumptions and you are using them to avoid answering my question. Be a man, grow a pair and answer the question. Otherwise, F-off.
 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Previous thread

Similar threads

Matthew17
Featured Head unit discussion
6
1K
General Car Audio recently
ThxOne
ThxOne

About this thread

Jimi77

Jimi77

Premium Member
CarAudio.com VIP
Thread starter
Jimi77
Joined
Location
Denver, CO
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
32,910
Views
476,963
Last reply date
Last reply from
Jimi77
Share thread
IMG_20260516_193114554_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
IMG_20260516_192955471_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list