Since you knew nothing about the temperatures involved, you are a poor one to carp about them. Who says efficiency is necessary? There is an 800 F margin between the two numbers. The stuff that burns will burn at the flame temperature. Even Diesel engines and gas turbines will produce soot, and they are supposedly optimized for high efficiency. You certainly can't substantiate your claim.
No squibs necessary. The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast. Noise? You must be kidding. A building collapses and there would be no noise? Serious structural failures would make loud sounds. People are conditioned by bad movies to associate loud sounds with "explosions," when they be nothing of the kind.
Suppose I am. How would you convince me otherwise? It was the video you recommended.
The guy that watches a video many times---with the wrong understanding---will not be an expert. He will be an ignoramus. Way too much bias confirmation interpretation going on here.
You a bit of a know it all and not at all worth engaging with. You should know, I think you are stupid and misguided, that’s if you are not here as cognitive infiltration.
I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. But what I do know is solid; I don't much butt in when the matter is not my strength. You, on the other hand, have no credentials and use this opportunity to throw insults at me. The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers. (But on the last point, stay tuned. The Chinese have announced they plan to orbit a 1 MW laser next year, and I will be very interested to see if and how they pull it off.)
But I was rated for my breadth and depth of technical knowledge. Not for any lapse of decorum. And what I know is solid. Enough to win military development contracts by competitive procurement (e.g., YAL-1A).
Credentials are public evidence of your competence. Being shy about offering them is basically a cover for not having any. I don't subscribe to the internet principle of egalitarianism, where we are all experts until shown otherwise.
I "understand" insults in only one way: When your opponent is out of argument, they are his last resort. It's playground stuff. I'm long over it.
The stupid and misguided ones lack basic education and logical powers. This is based on listening closely to what they have to say. They are perhaps the most profoundly ignorant lot I have encountered. (The recent flap in these pages over the Mercator map projection illustrates the point.)
The difference between us is that I do bother, to communicate. You seem interested mainly in playing to the Peanut Gallery. I know all about that. So, we've had all this interaction in the spirit of dick-fighting, and there has been no discussion of any important point. Don't you see that as a missed opportunity?
Since you knew nothing about the temperatures involved, you are a poor one to carp about them. Who says efficiency is necessary? There is an 800 F margin between the two numbers. The stuff that burns will burn at the flame temperature. Even Diesel engines and gas turbines will produce soot, and they are supposedly optimized for high efficiency. You certainly can't substantiate your claim.
No squibs necessary. The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast. Noise? You must be kidding. A building collapses and there would be no noise? Serious structural failures would make loud sounds. People are conditioned by bad movies to associate loud sounds with "explosions," when they be nothing of the kind.
“The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast.“
Hey everyone!!! The guy that watched one video once is an expert.
Suppose I am. How would you convince me otherwise? It was the video you recommended.
The guy that watches a video many times---with the wrong understanding---will not be an expert. He will be an ignoramus. Way too much bias confirmation interpretation going on here.
Took a quick look at your post history.
You a bit of a know it all and not at all worth engaging with. You should know, I think you are stupid and misguided, that’s if you are not here as cognitive infiltration.
I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. But what I do know is solid; I don't much butt in when the matter is not my strength. You, on the other hand, have no credentials and use this opportunity to throw insults at me. The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers. (But on the last point, stay tuned. The Chinese have announced they plan to orbit a 1 MW laser next year, and I will be very interested to see if and how they pull it off.)
"I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. "
It shows.
"But what I do know is solid;"
No. You are wrong, but you are highly confident in your ignorance.
"You, on the other hand, have no credentials"
You do not know this for a fact, yet you project this as a conclusion with great confidence. You are ignorant.
" and use this opportunity to throw insults at me."
Because it is a language you understand.
"The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers."
Are you evaluating information based upon information, or are you evaluating information within the filter of your prejudice and ignorance?
Don't bother, it was a rhetorical question.
But I was rated for my breadth and depth of technical knowledge. Not for any lapse of decorum. And what I know is solid. Enough to win military development contracts by competitive procurement (e.g., YAL-1A).
Credentials are public evidence of your competence. Being shy about offering them is basically a cover for not having any. I don't subscribe to the internet principle of egalitarianism, where we are all experts until shown otherwise.
I "understand" insults in only one way: When your opponent is out of argument, they are his last resort. It's playground stuff. I'm long over it.
The stupid and misguided ones lack basic education and logical powers. This is based on listening closely to what they have to say. They are perhaps the most profoundly ignorant lot I have encountered. (The recent flap in these pages over the Mercator map projection illustrates the point.)
The difference between us is that I do bother, to communicate. You seem interested mainly in playing to the Peanut Gallery. I know all about that. So, we've had all this interaction in the spirit of dick-fighting, and there has been no discussion of any important point. Don't you see that as a missed opportunity?