Current events discussion

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Still no explanation why Rob was lost on a monoblock thread

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

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

How can the "best case scenario" be "A stoichiometric ratio". That's like "The best case scenario in the superbowl would be A final score" or "the best case scenario in the race would be A speed"
So, tell us : WHAT ratio is the "best case scenario" for this discussion.
Not "A ratio". I want the actual ratio. Express it as a ratio or as lambda.

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?

Still waiting for the actual ratio with regards to this discussion. Gimme numbers, please.
Yes, I know plenty about lambda. Ever play with modified forced induction engines? You learn that shit real quick unless you have unlimited money to play with.
So, what ratio are we talking about with regards to this discussion and the asinine belief that steel could not have melted in the WTC fires and collapse?

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.

So once again: WHAT IS THE RATIO WITH REGARDS TO THIS DISCUSSION?
Is your argument that the lambda was less than 1, so there is no way the steel could melt in the fire?
If so, what is your data that tells you this?
Do you think it's simply not possible, or only for this particular conspiracy theory?

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.

Why in the word would he assume a perfect air/fuel mixture? Did he think this was a sealed environment, with no variables in play? That is the dumbest assumption EVER. Did he not know it was a building, and not a matchstick in a science lab?
FFS, the assumption is asinine.
If a deviation in either direction would result in lower temps, HOW THE F*CK does plain firewood get this stove pipe to glowing hot? That's 1,800 degrees or more. At lambda, would burns at 700 degrees.
Explain what you consider an impossible situation.
No, it is not being fed with pure oxygen, or any accelerants, just outside fresh air.

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

So, WHAT IS THE STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO FOR THIS DISCUSSION?
It's not "A ratio"; I want THE ratio.

I was waiting for proof or did you just make up like the rest of the crap you say. Yes

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.

We're talking the realm of what is POSSIBLE.
If anything, the fire at Notre Dame would be LESS likely to create the superheated conditions required to melt steel. Yet, it hit 2,500 degrees there. NO accelerants. NO major "chimneys" and intake ducts that can cause the "woodstove effect".

But since you don't like Notre Dame, explain why this wood beam remains intact after a building fire while the steel beams have melted over it. "Unpossible", right?

https://ru

stylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/03/history_is_made.html

Tell us how it's impossible that a simple open-air gasoline fire cause this damage to a steel bridge.
In a whopping 17 minutes.

The I-95 bridge was not designed to withstand fire. Few bridges are.

The bridge collapse on I-95 was eerily similar to the April 2007 fire at Oakland's 'MacArthur Maze.'

www.inquirer.com

Tell me how all these "impossible" things happened, and then tell me why it was not possible for the steel to melt in the WTC fire without some dark state plot and thermite.
In case you forgot:
1. Tell me the stoichiometric ratio FOR THIS DISCUSSION OF THE WTC FIRE.
2. Tell me why it would be presumed the combustion was at lambda FOR THE WTC FIRE
3. Tell me how a simple woodstove can get stainless pipe glowing red/orange if going above or below 1 lambda will make a fire less efficient (i.e. "cooler"), when wood burns at 700F.
4. Explain how , in a building fire, steel melted over a wood beam that was still supporting the steel after the fire was put out.
5. Explain how a simple gasoline fire melted steel.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Ignore this clown. He has no clue what he is talking about. For Christ sake he posted a picture of steel beams and ask how they "melted" over. If he doesn't even know what the word melt means he clearly is just arguing to argue.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Before you respond Rob, go read the definition of MELT and of the word LIQUID. Educate yourself Rob.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

How can the "best case scenario" be "A stoichiometric ratio". That's like "The best case scenario in the superbowl would be A final score" or "the best case scenario in the race would be A speed"
So, tell us : WHAT ratio is the "best case scenario" for this discussion.
Not "A ratio". I want the actual ratio. Express it as a ratio or as lambda.


Still waiting for the actual ratio with regards to this discussion. Gimme numbers, please.
Yes, I know plenty about lambda. Ever play with modified forced induction engines? You learn that shit real quick unless you have unlimited money to play with.
So, what ratio are we talking about with regards to this discussion and the asinine belief that steel could not have melted in the WTC fires and collapse?

So once again: WHAT IS THE RATIO WITH REGARDS TO THIS DISCUSSION?
Is your argument that the lambda was less than 1, so there is no way the steel could melt in the fire?
If so, what is your data that tells you this?
Do you think it's simply not possible, or only for this particular conspiracy theory?

Why in the word would he assume a perfect air/fuel mixture? Did he think this was a sealed environment, with no variables in play? That is the dumbest assumption EVER. Did he not know it was a building, and not a matchstick in a science lab?
FFS, the assumption is asinine.
If a deviation in either direction would result in lower temps, HOW THE F*CK does plain firewood get this stove pipe to glowing hot? That's 1,800 degrees or more. At lambda, would burns at 700 degrees.
Explain what you consider an impossible situation.
No, it is not being fed with pure oxygen, or any accelerants, just outside fresh air.
View attachment 56853



So, WHAT IS THE STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO FOR THIS DISCUSSION?
It's not "A ratio"; I want THE ratio.

We're talking the realm of what is POSSIBLE.
If anything, the fire at Notre Dame would be LESS likely to create the superheated conditions required to melt steel. Yet, it hit 2,500 degrees there. NO accelerants. NO major "chimneys" and intake ducts that can cause the "woodstove effect".

But since you don't like Notre Dame, explain why this wood beam remains intact after a building fire while the steel beams have melted over it. "Unpossible", right?
View attachment 56854

https://ru

stylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/03/history_is_made.html

Tell us how it's impossible that a simple open-air gasoline fire cause this damage to a steel bridge.
In a whopping 17 minutes.
View attachment 56855

The I-95 bridge was not designed to withstand fire. Few bridges are.

The bridge collapse on I-95 was eerily similar to the April 2007 fire at Oakland's 'MacArthur Maze.'

www.inquirer.com

Tell me how all these "impossible" things happened, and then tell me why it was not possible for the steel to melt in the WTC fire without some dark state plot and thermite.
In case you forgot:
1. Tell me the stoichiometric ratio FOR THIS DISCUSSION OF THE WTC FIRE.
2. Tell me why it would be presumed the combustion was at lambda FOR THE WTC FIRE
3. Tell me how a simple woodstove can get stainless pipe glowing red/orange if going above or below 1 lambda will make a fire less efficient (i.e. "cooler"), when wood burns at 700F.
4. Explain how , in a building fire, steel melted over a wood beam that was still supporting the steel after the fire was put out.
5. Explain how a simple gasoline fire melted steel.

Why didn't this building collapse?

1945 Empire State Building B-25 crash - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

I mean let's be honest buildings hit up high by planes don't pancake into their own footprint. What, did the jet fuel heat up all the I beams in the basement too? LOL! There was molten steel flowing at the bottom of the towers after it collapsed, because the jet fuel didn't bring them down lol. Gtfoutta here.

 

[Old_Slapper]

Wow. A lot has been said since my last visit. However, I'm still waiting for Rob to give me his reasons on why America is better under Biden than it was under Trump. I asked this question twice already. Maybe I should just let it go. I'll just hear a bunch of crap that Trump is the reason for our country in shambles, right now, and Biden is totally innocent. The same crap I hear from every other libral, without a single thread of proof that Trump's era was worse.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

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.

Hahahaha. I'm literally laughing out loud. The NERVE of me!

"if any"
Meaning an expectation of "none".
If you don't know how to use words to say what you mean, then the LAST thing you should be doing is arguing concepts you can't even begin to understand.

For f*ck sake, you think fireproofing a building makes the contents fireproof, that WTC 7 (an NYC skyscraper with 10 MILLION square feet of floor space) only had "some chairs and papers" to burn, and that 5,000 gallons of fuel is nothing in the big picture of the fire there.

You get so far over your head in pretty much any argument, I sometimes feel bad for you. It's like the cartoon where the little guy is taking swings at the big guy, but simply flails air as the big guy palms his head like a basketball.

Before you respond Rob, go read the definition of MELT and of the word LIQUID. Educate yourself Rob.

Holy sh*t, you really ARE hoping to die on yet another hill, huh?
I'll give you ONE, juts ONE guess as to what happens to metal on the way to a state where it FLOWS like a LIQUID.
And I'm typing those in caps so you can harken back to your argument that glass is a LIQUID. Do you recall that one? If not, I'll help you:

But, since you want to jump into definitions of "liquid" and "melt", let's use YOUR argument. If glass is a liquid, then so is steel. So the semantics you are trying to use to support your argument just crushed your argument.

In light of that do you want to continue trying to use definitions to support your argument?
Make a choice, and I'll accept it and run with it.

I mean let's be honest buildings hit up high by planes don't pancake into their own footprint. What, did the jet fuel heat up all the I beams in the basement too? LOL! There was molten steel flowing at the bottom of the towers after it collapsed, because the jet fuel didn't bring them down lol. Gtfoutta here.

Except they did. TWICE.
I mean, let's be honest, planes don't just get hijacked and fly into skyscrapers in Manhattan, or the Pentagon, or into the ground in Pennsylvania.
Except they all did.
And let's be honest, humans can't just jump over a bar 8+ feet off the ground.
Except they do.
Let's be honest, there is NO way to get 1,000 HP out of a 1.6 litre engine without instant destruction.
Except they do.
Speaking of lambda...

it's a REALLY dumb premise to say that things can't happen after they already HAVE happened.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Wow. A lot has been said since my last visit. However, I'm still waiting for Rob to give me his reasons on why America is better under Biden than it was under Trump. I asked this question twice already. Maybe I should just let it go. I'll just hear a bunch of crap that Trump is the reason for our country in shambles, right now, and Biden is totally innocent. The same crap I hear from every other libral, without a single thread of proof that Trump's era was worse.

I already did, and then I did it again when you recently asked (yesterday?).
I also asked you in my reply to give me the post # where you listed the dozen-or-so reasons you feel the economy was better under Trump.

Consider this my second request, and you can go ahead and share that info.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Hahahaha. I'm literally laughing out loud. The NERVE of me!

"if any"
Meaning an expectation of "none".
If you don't know how to use words to say what you mean, then the LAST thing you should be doing is arguing concepts you can't even begin to understand.

For f*ck sake, you think fireproofing a building makes the contents fireproof, that WTC 7 (an NYC skyscraper with 10 MILLION square feet of floor space) only had "some chairs and papers" to burn, and that 5,000 gallons of fuel is nothing in the big picture of the fire there.

You get so far over your head in pretty much any argument, I sometimes feel bad for you. It's like the cartoon where the little guy is taking swings at the big guy, but simply flails air as the big guy palms his head like a basketball.

I wouldn't expect anything else from you. Another ignorant response. So when did I say "if any" and if I did why didn't you comprehend what I said?

Holy sh*t, you really ARE hoping to die on yet another hill, huh?
I'll give you ONE, juts ONE guess as to what happens to metal on the way to a state where it FLOWS like a LIQUID.
And I'm typing those in caps so you can harken back to your argument that glass is a LIQUID. Do you recall that one? If not, I'll help you:
View attachment 56857

Wow Rob... I have NO DOUBTS now that you have folder after folder on your POS computer just waiting to throw up old post... LOL pathetic!!! Posting old shit again with no context. You are a clown.

But, since you want to jump into definitions of "liquid" and "melt", let's use YOUR argument. If glass is a liquid, then so is steel. So the semantics you are trying to use to support your argument just crushed your argument.

Steel and glass not even close to the same.

In light of that do you want to continue trying to use definitions to support your argument?
Make a choice, and I'll accept it and run with it.

Sure do.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Wow. A lot has been said since my last visit. However, I'm still waiting for Rob to give me his reasons on why America is better under Biden than it was under Trump. I asked this question twice already. Maybe I should just let it go. I'll just hear a bunch of crap that Trump is the reason for our country in shambles, right now, and Biden is totally innocent. The same crap I hear from every other libral, without a single thread of proof that Trump's era was worse.

Expect absolutely zero forward movement with your Rob convos. It's always been like this. He is always like this, and sometimes will make up fake accusations about you or twist what you say to try to make you look bad. So, just don't have any expectations anything will change.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Expect absolutely zero forward movement with your Rob convos. It's always been like this. He is always like this, and sometimes will make up fake accusations about you or twist what you say to try to make you look bad. So, just don't have any expectations anything will change.

He keeps making assumptions then grills me about them like I said them. He may have a mental disorder.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

He keeps making assumptions then grills me about them like I said them. He may have a mental disorder.

I don't think he has the capacity to actually care about anyone else, but I'm not a biologist. He's also a faux intellectual.

 

[Old_Slapper]

I already did, and then I did it again when you recently asked (yesterday?).
I also asked you in my reply to give me the post # where you listed the dozen-or-so reasons you feel the economy was better under Trump.

Consider this my second request, and you can go ahead and share that info.

I went all the way back to page 33, where I asked the last time, and I also check my notifications. I did not see your reply. As for the economy, I answer that already, and the 12+ were reasons why the US was better under Trump.

About the economy, do I really have to explain what is wrong with the economy today? All you need to realize is, everything costs a lot more now than it did 4 years ago. I see you like to read up on things. Read up on how the economy works and how Trump made energy cheaper under his presidency and how the cost of energy effects the economy.

Oh, last thing, bones do have pain receptors in them, so it is accurate to say they have nerves.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Still no reasoning behind a certain someone being lost on a certain topic