The online racing simulator
Searching in All forums
(983 results)
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
If that's not the case, then what exactly are the situations for a failed tire? Just the CENTER getting too hot?
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Slightly OT: I was under the impression that if any ONE surface of the tire got over 200 degrees, the tire would pop. Is this not the case?
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from samforey12345 :No, because i can't even get onto the main pc, it locks up at the login menu (well just before, in vista thats when it updates).

Can you try safe mode or something? I would hope that would skip the update part...
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Trust me, you were screwed when you ticked the box marked "Vista."

Anyway, I'd help, but I don't know much about Vista ATM. Is there any way you can figure out which particular update it is that it seems to get hung up on? That might be a start.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from niall09 :Yea, but it's Dara Ó Briain not Daryl O Brein

That guy is pretty damned funny. Just watched his whole stand-up on YouTube.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from mcgas001 :You missed the best one!, Lee Evans

I win. (Post above yours!)
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
I will admit that the best comedian ever is Lee Evans.

Look his act up on YouTube. I GUARANTEE he will make your top 3 instantly. He's had the world's largest audience too, I believe.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n8-2cdGrJcc

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gY6ylPZcNpk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JreKwfQ12D4
Stang70Fastback is back!
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Hey guys. I just wanted to let y'all know that I have returned. My stupid wireless Linksys router froze, so I had to reset it. Took a whole goddamned 5 minutes - but I'm back now, so it's A-OK!
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Hey thanks for your query, I have checked out everything about you and I predict that your ideal job Jeremy is a Sewage Worker. Good luck in your new career.

So I guess I should drop out of the Aerospace program then... eh? :P
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
I don't mind the engine shut-off feature. But, and I already posted this in the bugs forum, it shouldn't do it even when you pause the game. Right now, if you pause in the middle of a race for a minute, and then come back and pick up where you left off, you have to turn the engine on again.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from Zachary Zoomy :its not a car but
My ride (literaly )

My Bike:

2005 Norco Mountineer
21 speed sequential
0-30kmh in 7.8 secs
theroretical 0-100kmh in 23ish seconds
top speed: (gear limited est) 60kmh
20kmh-0kmh in 3 sidewalk squares (each square est 1m :P)
cruising speed to school, 20-30kmh
I'll post my daily commute sometime
est max RPM: 145-160RPM :P

I have that same exact cargo tray on my bike!!! YAYY!
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from David33 :I suppose that next you're going to claim that a duplicate set of WTC towers rose up out of the ground, at the same moments that the NYC WTC towers fell.

No. Quantum fluctuation results from massive kinetic energy changes in heavy objects. It's most likely to occur when an object traveling at a high rate of speed is significantly slowed in a very short period of time (e.g. big crash, plane into building, etc...) but can also occur if an object accelerates fast enough, although this is rare (artillery, for example will generally not undergo this effect as is is not massive enough to induce it.) When a large mass slows down very rapidly, the molecular structure of certain components can "shift" slightly. This is most common in the more dense parts (steel, for example, as opposed to plastic) because of the significant weight that must be slowed without compromising molecular stability. Imagine stacking 100 empty boxes in a 10x10 pile (boxes being molecules) and then hurling them (somehow staying together) at 20 mph into a wall. When they hit, they compress, and then bounce back so that the resulting stack is actually longer (they leave space between them as they rebound.) This is what happens during quantum fluctuation at a molecular level. However, as you know, the molecular bonds in such materials as steel are nothing if not strong, so it takes an ENORMOUS amount of energy to separate molecules, even by as much as what happens in this phenomena. So what happens is the steel actually becomes very hot as it absorbs a significant amount of heat from the surrounding environment to account for this change in its structure. Most of the time, however, the steel cools almost as quickly when the molecules snap back together, but if the impact is strong enough, the molecules are banged up so much that they cannot quite realign (imagine slamming the boxes so hard that they kind of fall out of order) and so the heat is retained, and the steel stays hot.

If enough steel undergoes this phenomena, it can actually produce a significant amount of heat.

It has nothing to do with duplication of objects, however.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from thisnameistaken :Definitely: Cover the steel with a generous topping of mozzarella cheese. If you've ever made a lasagne you'll appreciate the world-beating insulation characteristics of mozzarella.

I can't say I "appreciate" cheese's heat-retaining properties. While I understand the lasagna analogy, it's usually the slab of detached cheese on the pizza slice that attacks my chin. :weeping:
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from David33 :I was joking. Shotglass's representation of energy equal to "27*10^21 J in the mass of the plane" is e=mc^2 for Tristan's plane mass of 300 metric tons.

In fact, I have no reason at all to suppose that there was any nuclear explosion (which is the usual context of e=mc^2) in the WTC, notwithstanding the previous proposition, in this thread, that U.S. gov't nuclear demolition items may have been used to produce the necessary extent of WTC destruction. Nor can I think of any way that the plane's mass could be converted into e=mc^2 energy; I was just playing; sorry.

Ahhh alright. I wasn't actually sure if you were joking or not, but most of the crazy statements in this thread have been serious so far, so I assumed the worst.

Quote from Shotglass :so you think your puny little energy estimate which roughly equals what a modern nuclear power plant will deliver every single second can account for molten steel months after the impact then?

Well, let me ask you this then. Do you really believe that it's possible to heat steel to the point of being ABLE to stay molten for months?! I can't even imagine steel being heated by ANYTHING that might have happened on that day to the point of staying molten for months.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from David33 :Ah, finally an explanation for the seemingly nuclear-like explosion, necessary to bring down the WTC towers. Now, we just need to know what converted the mass to energy. And we need to expose the perpetrators, who did that.

Are you serious? How was that a "nuclear-like" explosion?! Give me ONE PIECE of evidence to support that the impact of that aircraft and the resulting explosion were any sort of nuclear blast. ONE.

It was just a big blast. Period.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from tristancliffe :But being such a simplistic comparison only RacerX would likely believe the results as hard fact.

What's one to do, y'know?
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Yeah, I agree. I just thought I'd point it out before everyone called your data "useless" on the grounds that you didn't use the absolutely correct conversion factor.

But who the hell cares. The point is it's a lot of energy.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from tristancliffe :I took 250mph, and went to m/s in my head. I knew it was a case of doubling one of the numbers, and without thinking I chose the wrong way - 250mph = 125m/s.

This therefore changes my numbers massively (square law). It will remain a lot of energy though!! I'll edit the post with new numbers. Thanks for pointing it out!

Well, if we're going to be technical, its more like 112 m/s...
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from Racer X NZ :A repost of the links and page no's debunking the pancake theory as requested. And remember that the buildings were designed to take a 707 crash, including the ensuing fires.

What I don't like about this study, is that they tested the building's ability to withstand the fires, as designed, with the 3/4" of fireproofing material. They DO state that maybe the fireproofing wasn't as thick as what they tested it with, HOWEVER, they don't seem to state the possibility of the fireproofing being knocked off entirely during the impact. That would have lead to a significantly different outcome.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from Shotglass :im no expert on boeings but i think mach 1.5 is a little much for a 757

Maybe he meant 500 mph?
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from tristancliffe :In short, it's a LOT of energy.

Yeah. Take, for example, a bowling ball, and a bunch of styrofo...

...gah... there I go again! :doh:
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from Hankstar :I read your posts, thanks for your concern. This thread isn't about you and my post wan't directed at you personally, but of course in a forum you're free to respond to anything you like. However, I don't see the value in sighing and groaning like some frustrated 14-year old, throwing in the odd CAPS LOCK assault and accusing me of rank ignorance. Certainly doesn't add any credibility to your content.

I expressed my doubts. That's all. Then I shared some info I found interesting and which only served to strengthen those doubts. If people are going to take that personally or as some kind of sign that I'm blatantly ignoring their sage wisdom, I can't help that. This thread's going around in facking circles anyway, like every other thread on this topic inevitably does.

You're right. This thread is going in circles. Which is why I *sigh*ed. If you'd read previous posts, you'd have seen that the pancake theory was already discussed. You are absolutely free to discuss anything you wish, but at this point, you're only another part of the repetitive process.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
You know what. It may have well been a government conspiracy. But that doesn't mean that the planes WEREN'T responsible for the collapse of the towers! Why MUST it be more complicated than that? I'm pretty certain that even if the buildings hadn't collapsed, most Americans would have been just as willing to attack Afghanistan.

I'm not trying to make a point that it was or was not an inside job. I'm simply trying to make the point that I BELIEVE the collapse was not a result of explosives, or aliens or drunk drivers... that the planes and subsequent fire were enough to bring them down. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from Hankstar :Here are reproductions of Engineering News articles from the late 60s/early 70s giving details about the WTC construction (interesting articles in and of themselves actually). I found this particularly interesting:That's a seriously hefty piece of metal. I wonder if anyone here could be bothered working out how much heat it would take to weaken just one column sufficiently to make it fail, all at once, and fall straight down, not just bend or fall over. They'd then have to multiply that by the total number of core columns (16 I think) and work out the probability of that exact same scenario happening twice, in identical buildings with exactly the same effect (I'm sure a demolition expert or a structural engineer could have a decent crack at it).

I really hate repeating myself, so if you read my past posts, you will see that the central columns are NOT the reason for the buildings' collapse. It's the trusses spanning from the core to the outer skeleton that failed.

Quote :I'm sure someone will mention the "pancake theory" (one floor smacking onto the one below, perfectly flat and even, in sequence, fast enough to collapse the tower, at the same time as every single steel support column in the core fails at precisely the same time as each other) but going by what I saw (buildings almost falling from the bottom up) as well as what I've just read about the floor design & various load-bearing capacities of floors and floor supports, that seems less likely to me than ever.

Ughhh... again, as you stated, this HAS been mentioned. First off, the buildings collapsed from the point of impact. That is where the collapse started, and it worked its way down from there. The collapse was NOT a pancake collapse, as is clearly seen by simply watching the videos. It was simply a matter of the top part smashing its way through the bottom.

Quote :Hypotheticals and my non-engineering background aside, these articles give a good indication of how the WTC towers were built and the methods and materials used. These things were tough as hell and, it seems to me anyway, should've taken something a little more substantial than a mostly hollow aluminium & plastic aircraft to bring down. We're talking a few hundred tons of thin aluminium plate & plastic reducing the largest skyscraper in the world, constructed on a skeleton of over 200,000 tons of solid steel columns many feet thick, to rubble in seconds. Twice. I don't have any theories myself (I'm suprised anyone does, including the government, considering the shameful lack of evidence), but that does not compute.

*sigh* Did you read any of this thread? I actually went through great pains to explain how the collapse happened. I don't see what's so surprising about BOTH buildings going down. Don't you think it's more likely that if a design fault caused one to collapse, the other would collapse too? Seeing as they were both subjected to the same exact attack? I personally would find it MORE odd if only ONE fell down. Read my post on, I think page three (the loooong one.) That gives a somewhat detailed explanation as to why they collapsed.
Stang70Fastback
No longer welcome
Quote from thisnameistaken :How the hell do demolition experts make a living when buildings just fall like that naturally nearly all the time?

Because it's terribly expensive to crash a fully-fueled 757 into a building every time... not to mention the lack of kamikaze pilots who will sign up for the job...
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG