"I just watched jp3 a few hours ago and don't know alot about dinos but I do know some and I know that a spinosaurus could in no way kill a t-rex,I mean it's impossible their is no way. The t-rex was way to strong and fast for a fish-eater to just bite and break. Am I right. someone please tell me???????"

Ouch, somehow sent that last post prematurely. Anyway Chris, calm down. Like yourself, no one who knows anything past a Jurassic Park library of knowledge will tell you that Spinosaurus had any good chances of beating a T-Rex. The one in JP3 was a pumped up freak that never existed in real life. And on top of that, it obviously lost that fight and won only for the films purposes. T-Rex delivered the first bite to the neck, and nothing that has ever lived on this planet can surive that.
from Usen, age 20, ?, ?, USA; September 15, 2001

HEY,HOWCOME NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT DILOPHOSAURUS?HE WAS NOT VERY MUCH SMALLER THAN T-REX!
from BA, age 9, MCKINNY, TEXAS, USA; September 15, 2001

ChrisW.,YOU ARE ABSOLUTEY RIGHT!
from BA, age 9, MCKINNY, TEXAS, USA; September 15, 2001

You people,dilophosaurus did not have a frill!(I am not saying you think that.)but it is totally wrong!Dilophosaurus did not need a frill!
from BA, age 9, MCKINNY, TEXAS, USA; September 15, 2001

I just watched jp3 a few hours ago and don't know alot about dinos but I do know some and I know that a spinosaurus could in no way kill a t-rex,I mean it's impossible their is no way. The t-rex was way to strong and fast for a fish-eater to just bite and break. Am I right. someone please tell me???????
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 15, 2001

dilophosaurus rules
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnet, Georgia, U.S.of A; September 15, 2001

I STILL remain unconvinced that it was impossible for t-rex to run.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 15, 2001

Why would t-rex automatically trip as soon as he runs? That's absurd. Like Honkie said, its like limiting a falcon to 30mph becuase it would kill itself if it hit a wall at those speeds.

...and are you (Skeptic) implying that Struthiomimus and other ornithomimids evolved into ostriches???
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 15, 2001

"Who is the best debater on this board? I want to know what everyone else thinks."

It seems that Honkie Tong, Skeptic, Brad, Jason and Leonard are the main debaters. It seems that the only ones who have ever outsmarted one of them is eachother.
from Thunderbird, age 11, ?, ?, ?; September 15, 2001

"Hmmmm......I remain unconvinced. I believe that T. Rex was capable of running in the sense that both feet are off the ground for a brief time."

Need convincing? I'll give you convincing. If T. Rex moved with both feet off the ground the time of that would have to be very brief, lest he trip, and at 40km/h+ he'd be crushed by his own weight. In addition to this, there was no reason for T. Rex to move in such a way. He could move fast enough just walking quickly.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 15, 2001

"But ostriches run with both feet off the ground. If you run with one foot on the ground at every step you aren't going very fast."

When I mentioned that the ostrich was fast, I knew that it ran with both feet on the ground. The thing is, you said that bipads weren't fast. I was using the ostrich as an example to prove you were wrong, and that certain bipads can move fast, even though those of today move with feet off the ground.

Also, if you run with one foot on the ground at every step, you are going fast when you gigantic muscular legs which produce a stride ranging from 12 to 14 feet. The only reason T. Rex did move with one foot on the ground was to prevent him from tripping and killing himself. T. Rex was fast Jason. It's been proven. You can't argue with facts.

"If he was noctournal, then you would have to change everything you thought about his hunting style! Noctournal predators are known for their large eyes, not good smell like tyrannosaurus. It would have also been very dangerous to hunt at night. The possibility of him tripping at night was greater."

Do you know why noctournal animals have big, shiny eyes, Jason? Yes, it's because it helps them have good eyesight. T. Rex had good eyesight, in addition to his other acute senses. This could have been helpful at hunting at night. Also, I don't think it was more likely for T. Rex to trip at night. When T. Rex moved fast, he was usually watching prey, not watching where he was stepping. That's because he relied on the "one foot on the ground" idea to keep him fron falling when he moved. So even though it was harder to see at night, T. Rex didn't use his eyesight to watch were he was going, so it didn't matter. In my opinion, he could move just as well at any time of day, as long as he moved with one foot on the ground at all times.

So no, I wouldn't have to change everything I ever thought about his hunting style. I've used facts I've already mentioned to prove that he was capable of hunting in the dark.

"Unless you are suggesting that all birds descended from Ornithonade Aves would be polyphetic and ostriches would not be birds! Where did you hear this theory anyway? I support a monophyletic aves not descended from Ornithomimidae. Reminds me of an experience: once the ROM brought a trailer full of dinosaurs near where I live, a lady who worked theretried to convince me that late cretacious ornthopods wer bird ancestors. I knew that wasn't true, because the first birds in the jurassic. I had a hard time getting that across, though:("

I'm no bird expert, Brad, but I'll try to defend my point of view anyway.

First, you're right in your statement that birds did rise in the jurassic, but I find it hard to believe that all modern birds came from them. Before those birds there were dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx. Many believe that this was the common ancestor for most birds. From this guy not only evolved your flying birds of the jurassic, but velociraptor, uneglia, caudiopteryx, and proarchaeoptryx. I think that from these specimens, different birds evolved to their forms of today. Velociraptor, with signs of feathers and the intelligence of birds of prey, probably evolve into eagles and other birds of prey. From archaeoptryx, the spanish eolulavis bird, and evetually the crow. Others, like caudipterxy, may have evolved into the bird mimics, then later into ostriches.

So really, the first birds were in the jurassic, they just didn't all fit your idea of birds, because some were yet to actually evolve into birds. While some evolved into gliders, others had feathers but remained primarily terrestrial, and would either later evolve into flying birds (like velociraptors) or would remain as terrestrial birds (like struthioumimus) to the present.

My theory comes from the No.1 Vol. 194 July '98 issue of national geographic. Happy Brad? Or do I have to give you the other books and magazines that I read to give me my theory. I'm sorry but when someone tells me I'm wrong when I know I'm right, I'll defend my point of view if necessary.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canadian and proud; September 15, 2001

"Q: What is the name of the dinasauer with the large crown or frill type things framing the back of the head like a fan?
from Conner, Meridian, Idaho, USA; September 4, 2001"

Wouldn't the be the Chasmosaurinae? :)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 15, 2001

I would just like to say one thing;

I pray for your families, if they were in any of the buildings that had been attacked. I pray that your fammilies will be safe. I pray that this country do what is right, in the eyes of the Lord. I pray President BUsh will do what is right.

Let us all pray and give thanks that we are alive.

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
>From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
from firebird, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 15, 2001

"No sauropods survived into the Cretaceous."

Sauropods were actually very common in Cretaceous South America, and there are a few North American forms.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 15, 2001

I LOVE DINOSAURS
I JUST CANT UNDERSTAND ONE THING AND THAT IS HOW WERE DINOSAURS
LIKE BEFORE
from MAHEEN [M.H.N], age 11, KITCHNER, ONTARIO, CANADA; September 15, 2001

Just surfed on in.

"But ostritches run with both feet off the ground. If you "run" with one foot on the ground at every step, you aren't going very fast. "

It all depends on how you are designed, as Honkie said. I prefer to listen to people who explain their points in detail rather than listen to simple one-line statements. If you don't explain your points well or in detail, it's obvious you don't really know much. I've notice you saying "A large stride is not the most efficent way to maintain a high speed." Without any reason only to have Honkie refute that very conclusively with his detailed points going deep into the hows of animals limbs work. Sorry, it doesn't even take a rex fan to see who has a better case here. Are you sure you even know what you are talking about? You said that the septic bite thingie was entirely made up by some rex fans to keep rexy on top only to have Honkie site an entire study done into the matter by paleontologists, and he even had enough details to explain to us how and why rexy had a septic bite, and even how they did it. I'm not sure, but your apparent ignorace on this matter and accusation of rex fans of making up something just to keep their dino on top when it was actually a scientifically published and confirmed paper (meaning all the paleontologists who reviewed the paper agreed with it) makes you look very bad. You would have almost gotten away with it if not for Honkie.

Honkie, are you a paleontologist? Have you ever considered becoming one? You are very talented!

This is a vote for Titanosaurus, my favourite dinosaur.
from Larson Peters, age 13, OK. city, OK, USA; September 15, 2001

"The real question is this: if there was no big, fast, ferocious and hungry predator, why would Ankylosaurus have evolved such elaborate defenses? All that stuff is a massive metabolic investment; if it served no purpose it would be a disadvantage and natural selection would have selected against it. No dinosaur of the mid-Jurassic has anything remotely like this. On ankylosaurus there isn't just a little bit of it; there's as much armor plate and spikes as can possibly be packed in. We're seeing the end product of a long process of selection which clearly favored as much armor as possible. The only way that could happen is if that armor represented a substantial survival advantage, which means there must have been a big, fast, ferocious, HARD BITING and hungry predator. The only candidate which we've found which fits that bill is Tyrannosaurus and co."

This is a very good point. I wondered if any paleontologist ever considered the morphlogical structures as a result of behavioural interactions between the species and used it for deriving their behaviour. Ankylosaurus was certainly specalized itself for defence from Tyrannosaurus and co, and one tends to wonder why such an animal have to take such elobarate measures against an animal that as some argue, was mainly a scavenger?
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 15, 2001

"But ostritches run with both feet off the ground. If you "run" with one foot on the ground at every step, you aren't going very fast."

Nope, in my review of locomotion in very large animals, I've realized that you don't need to move both feet off the ground to achieve a suitable rate. Lifting both feeth off the ground allows us to achieve a greater step frequency, thus increasing our speed. In very large animals like Tyrannosaurus, they made up for not being able to achieve a rapid step rate via a suspensory locomotion mode by having a very large stride, after all, speed is directly dependent on both stride length and step rate. Even while it's taking slower steps, it could still achieve a very high speed. To get a bearing, by moving its legs as fast as we do while we are walking normally, Tyrannosaurus was already doing 17-20 kilometers an hour. Going by biomechnical models to determine how fast Tyrannosaurus could atcually take steps, we found out that this animal could easily do 40-50 kph without even having to lift both feet off the ground. More than fast enough to catch its prey. You shouldn't make state! ments like "show me one animal that keeps a foot on the ground and moves fast" as it is a very bad way to model Tyrannosaurus movement. You might as well argue that Sauropods could not walk by saying "Show me one 30-ton animal that can walk on land." I prefer to go into the actual science on how the animals works. It's apparent that Tyrannosaurus used a differenty method of achieveing high speeds.

"If he was, then you have to change everything you ever thought about his hunting style! Nocturnal predatrors are known for their large eyes, not good smell like Tyrannosaur. It is also very dangerous to hunt at night. The possibility of him tripping is greater at night."

Tyrannosaurus had very good eyesight, and that would have been more than sutitable for night operations. And smell comes in useful at night too. Canids, who have very poor night vision, have no problems hunting their prey via their nose.

"If you will read the post, I was saying that marks on bones aren't very sufficient evidence of a creature's hunting abilities. I wasn't even talking about raptors anyway. "

It appears you are not familar with the fossil specimens in question. What is significant is not the bite marks, for they could have been inserted pre or post-mortem. But what is really significant is that the bite marks showed signs of healing, which meant the attack was done on the animal while it was alive, showing that the animal was preyed upond by Tyrannosaurus. Another less well known fossil also has a healed-over mark done by Tyrannosaurus on it's hip, and even had a T.rex tooth sticking out of it! This is very strong eivdence for predatory behavior.

"That is not true. There are many Cretaceous sauropods."

He was most likely refering to T.rexes' neighbourhood towards the KT.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 15, 2001

"But ostritches run with both feet off the ground. If you "run" with one foot on the ground at every step, you aren't going very fast."

Nope, in my review of locomotion in very large animals, I've realized that you don't need to move both feet off the ground to achieve a suitable rate. Lifting both feeth off the ground allows us to achieve a greater step frequency, thus increasing our speed. In very large animals like Tyrannosaurus, they made up for not being able to achieve a rapid step rate via a suspensory locomotion mode by having a very large stride, after all, speed is directly dependent on both stride length and step rate. Even while it's taking slower steps, it could still achieve a very high speed. To get a bearing, by moving its legs as fast as we do while we are walking normally, Tyrannosaurus was already doing 17-20 kilometers an hour. Going by biomechnical models to determine how fast Tyrannosaurus could atcually take steps, we found out that this animal could easily do 40-50 kph without even having to lift both feet off the ground. Fast enough to catch its prey, I'm sure. W
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 15, 2001

troodons are cool.
from Monique, age ......, ....., ....., ......; September 15, 2001

Raptor prey.

The dromeaosauridae family is definetly the most dangerous family out dere.

Scenes that would happen if these dinos lived in same place:

Spinosaurus is walking alongside a lake, looking down for fish.

It gets a big one, and roars in anger to keep others away.

A megaraptor comes from the left, farther down the lakee's edge.

Spiny grabs fish and runs to his right.

He stops when he sees a raptor coming toward him.

He bolts into the forest like a deer through a forest with bear up backside.

he shudders when a raptor birsts out from the side onto his left side.

It is on the top of his leg and his holdin' on hard, slashing into him with his 13 inche sickles.

The two from before jump, one onto his back and another onto his neck.

The spino lets his head down trying to make it slip, but it is on hard.

he grabs it in his claws, pulling it off.

Suddenly he falls from the pain and bleeding in his leg.

he grabs the necker in his jaws, and crunches down.

His teeth come loose.

The Raptor is bleeding like hell and dies from the teeth, but falls out of the weak jaws with teeth stuck into his side.

the spino rears its head in anger, sending a deafening roar throughout the island.

The one on it's back comes up to the neck and rips the hell out of it, and the legger starts feeding on his underbelly.

Goodbye spiner.

All dromeaosaurids are powerful, smart (although Troodontids are smartest) and agile. Only large sauropods would be able to defend against a large pack. My theory is raptors would sit in a tree (similar to birds) and jump down on unsuspecting prey poassing through vegetation. Remember, Birds were once ferocious, killing reptiles (maybe not reptiles, but anyway...)
from Utahraptor rules, age 12, Wodonga, Victoria, Australia; September 15, 2001

Hmmmm....I remain unconvinced. I believe t-rex was capable of running in the sense that both feet are off the ground for a brief time.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

"Jason, I forgot to mention that there are some modern animals that exist today and are bipedal. Yes, if you said ostriches, you're right. Osrtiches have muscular legs and are the fastest flightless birds. So it proves that you can be bipedal and move fast."

But ostritches run with both feet off the ground. If you "run" with one foot on the ground at every step, you aren't going very fast.

"Yeah, sharp teeth and claws is no evidence of the raptors deing carnivores, how much does it take for this to get through your thick skulls?"

If you will read the post, I was saying that marks on bones aren't very sufficient evidence of a creature's hunting abilities. I wasn't even talking about raptors anyway.

"What about if T. Rex was a noctournal predator, Jason?"

If he was, then you have to change everything you ever thought about his hunting style! Nocturnal predatrors are known for their large eyes, not good smell like Tyrannosaur. It is also very dangerous to hunt at night. The possibility of him tripping is greater at night.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 14, 2001

"The modern day ostrich may have evolved from those "bird mimics" dinosaurs, i.e. Struthiomimus, who were relatives of Tyrannosaurids."

Unless you are suggesting that all bird descended from Ornithomimidae, Aves would be polyphyletic and ostriches would not be birds! Where did you hear this theory, anyway? I support a monophyletic Aves not descended from Ornithomimidae.

Reminds me of an experience: Once when the ROM brought a trailer full of dinosaurs to a town near me, and a lady who worked there tried to convince me that Late Cretaceous ornithomimids were bird ancestors. I knew that wasn't true, because the first birds were Jurassic. I had a hard time getting that across, though. :(
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 14, 2001

"Who says T. Rex can't run?"

I do. Though he couldn't technically run (which the exact definition of would be moving with feet off the ground), he could still move incredibly fast with his long stride and powerful legs. If he did move with feet off the ground, he was more likely to trip, and if he did at over 40km/h an hour he'd crush himself.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Upper Canada, Canada; September 14, 2001

I was about to mention the Calvin and Hobbes story, but someone beat me to it.

"No sauropods survived into the Cretaceous."
That is not true. There are many Cretaceous sauropods.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 14, 2001

Jason, I forgot to mention that there are some modern animals that exist today and are bipedal. Yes, if you said ostriches, you're right. Osrtiches have muscular legs and are the fastest flightless birds. So it proves that you can be bipedal and move fast. You know what else is interesting? The modern day ostrich may have evolved from those "bird mimics" dinosaurs, i.e. Struthiomimus, who were relatives of Tyrannosaurids.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontairo (Upper Canada), Canada; September 14, 2001

"This is nothing more than an idea someone came up with to keep Tyrannosaur at the top."

Actually, my statement on a septic T. Rex bite is very possible and realistic, and many would agree that it was certainly a possibility.

"I don't see haering playing a large part in hunting, when he has a giant lobe dedicated to smell. His sight isn't important either, he has no need to see large distances. If he was mainly a predator, he would only have to see 40 metres ahead. Smell obviously plays a much larger part than any other of his senses. Thus he was probably mainly a scavenger."

What about if T. Rex was a noctournal predator, Jason? Since it's dark at night, hearing certainly could have helped him identify hadrosaurs splashing around in water. This could have helped him track hadrosaurs, since when they were in the water he would be unable to pick up a scent.

Good vision in a predator also would have certainly been a priority. If T. Rex stalked his prey, then vision could have helped him see it from afar. It may have also aided him in distinguishing dinosaurs with camoflouge (if there were any, though there probably were) from their surroundings.

Finally, the fact that T. Rex had an excellent sense of smell doesn't tell us that T. Rex was a scavenger. Many animals like dogs have great senses of smell and still hunt. Also, if he was noctournal, smell could have helped him hunt when it was too dark to see.

"Show me an animal that runs very fast with one leg still on the ground, and has their weight focused on the front. Remember, bipedalism isn't the way to go when running very fast for very long. Cheetahs, horses, dogs, lions, all run with all their legs on the ground. Oops, I can't do that, comparing modern animals to dinosaurs, can I?"

The thing is, Jason, I can't show you an animal that runs very fast with one foot on the ground. That's because animals didn't run that way. Like I said, T. Rex didn't run, he "walked fast." If he did run, he may have tripped, and at that speed, he would have crushed himself. Anyway, a stride of 12 to 14 feet is a pretty long distance for a stride, and the fact that T. Rex had muscular legs was an added advantage allowing him to increase his speed. It's a proven fact that T. Rex could exceed 40km/h. Face it. He was fast.

To say that T. Rex had weight focused on the front is simply incorrect. Remember how you were claiming that T. Rex's arms were too small to be used but I said they didn't need to be used? Well, since they had no use, they gradually got smaller to take the weight off the front. The reason why the tail was so long and muscular was to counter the weight of T. Rex's jaws and belly.

Now, you're comparing modern day animals to a 12ft tall 40ft. long extinct reptile which hasn't been around in 65 million years? Of course you can't compare them to this thing! Why? There's one main reason. First, T. Rex had been designed to take down hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, and a whole wide range of herbivores. The Cheetah, and other Afrian quadrapad predators of today on the other hand, are designed to take down gazelles, wildebeast, herbivores which can be found today in the predators natural habitat.

"Wolves, tigers, lions, all major predators, don't have bonecrushing jaws. You might argue that hyenas hunt wel, true, but have you seen how little they hunt? Aren't very enthusiastic about that, are they? Oops, I compared today's animals with dinosaurs again."

You're missing what I was trying to say. I didn't mean that bone crushing jaws were essential for a predator, I'm only saying that they were an added advantage of T. Rex which only went to further prove that he was a predator.

Anyway, you can't compare modern predators to theropods. The two lived in different ecosystems, and the predators of today are more adept to taking down their prey while T. Rex was more adept to taking down his prey.

Finally, don't talk about how hyenas hunt. That's getting off the subject and I don't really care.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 14, 2001

And who says t-rex can't run?
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

"Maybe because the mammals were so much smaller, weaker and no defenses except speed and agility."

Oh, and I believe the mammals were lion-sized in south america. I forgot whether the had evolved there, or invaded during a connection to another continent. I'll be back with a source, as I remember reading it somewhere....
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

I saw those palastinians on the T.V celabrating over the chaos in the United States and its disgusting! It's pretty obvious that they are their government are the guy's behind all this. George Bush should send fighter plane's to the palastinian's and drop bomb's on them and have their houses burned to the ground! (With them inside of course!)Let's see how they like it.
from Will, age ?, ?, ?, United kingdom; September 14, 2001

Bill, I respect your'e noble cause very much, these events in America have been a shock to everyone in the world (exept those B***ards who did this!) but we must get on with our lives. It is the president's job to track down these little twerps! Not our's! I'm sure we will get to an acceptable conclusion sooner or later.
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; September 14, 2001

"How much does it take for this to get through you people's skulls? This is no evidence of Tyrannosaur being a predator!"

Yeah, sharp teeth and claws is no evidence of the raptors deing carnivores, how much does it take for this to get through your thick skulls?
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

Bill Waterson was always right on the money with his "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoons; it's to be regretted that he stopped doing the strip (though I fully understand and sympathize with his reasons, and do not blame him). In one sequence, Calvin has to write a science paper, and he takes my title above as his subject. Of course, he does no research and ultimately his reason for preferring predator over scavenger is because it just wouldn't be cool if Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger.

Hmph.

I agree with Calvin's conclusion, but I think I can make a better case. This is not really a hot topic in paleontology right now as that Horner dude is facing impossible odds to even consider his case seriously but all of the things I've read about it, on both sides, primarily are the result of studying extant skeletons of Tyrannosaurus and other theropods, trying to make deductions from them.

They seem to be trying to make their deductions based on study of things like bone cross-sections (exotherms and endotherms have much different bone growth patterns) or biomechanical analysis of skeletons, or measurements made of preserved footprints of the theropods.

So far, the evidence appears to be ambiguous. Different researchers have found justification for different conclusions. No consensus has emerged. Though the pro-predator side always makes more detailed and logical arguments. Could it be that the scavenger side is simply trying to see things their way, at all costs?

The theory of evolution implies that a species will evolve to maximize its chance of survival and breeding within the environment in which it lives. Part of that environment is climate and food, but part of it is also predators (or lack thereof) and that will strongly affect the way a herbivore develops over time. Would impalas be able to run as fast as they can if they were not being constantly chased by cheetahs? The impala usually gets away (the cheetah usually requires several attacks to make a kill) but slower impalas are less likely to escape, so survival favors the fast. On the other hand, we know of some species which developed in environments free of predators and they are far, far different. One example is certain flightless birds on certain islands in the South Pacific; they have no effective escape mechanisms and when humans introduced cats and/or dogs onto those islands, the flightless birds were decimated in fairly short order.

There's no reason to believe it would have been any different for the dinosaurs.

It seems to me that we can learn a great deal about Tyrannosaurus and its kin by studying what happened to the other dinosaurs once the large theropods became common, which is to say in the Cretaceous. The theropods would have been part of the environment for cretaceous herbivores, and theropod behavior and capabilities would have affected how the herbivores evolved. If theropods primarily scavenged, that would be much different than if the theropods were primarily active hunters. Note that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. While there do exist species which are exclusively scavengers, such as buzzards, most active predators will also scavenge if the opportunity arises. (Cheetahs are among the very few predators which do not do this, because cheetahs cannot eat carrion. They can only eat freshly killed meat.) So the question is not whether Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger; it's extremely likely that it was because nearly all modern predators are. The question is whether Tyrannosaurus was exclusively or even mainly a scavenger, or whether it also actively hunted.

If you compare the dinosaurs from the Jurassic who were clearly not predators to the non-predators of the late Cretaceous, there is a qualitative change. The first really large theropods such as Allosaurus appear at the very end of the Jurassic.

Apatosaurus (formerly "Brontosaurus") and its relatives were big, slow and probably not very smart. They wouldn't be threatened by scavengers (by definition) but would be easy prey for a large active predator. They flourished in the Jurassic but die out about the time the theropods become common. No sauropods survived into the Cretaceous. Neither do several other similarly slow and unprotected genuses such as Stegosaurus.

The big theropods, however, flourish and spread going into the Cretaceous and appear to be very common right up until the end. If they were active predators, the main animals which potentially would be prey in the late Cretaceous were the hadrosaurs (duckbills), the ceratopsians (primarily the horned dinosaurs), and the ankylosaurs, and as the Cretaceous progresses every one of them shows adaptation whch suggests fear of a big predator. In two cases it's arguable but in one it is in my opinion completely unambiguous.

The duckbills had long muscular hind-legs, a long tail for balance, and shorter fore-legs which may have been used while grazing. However, it's possible they were able to run on just their hind-legs if they needed a burst of speed. Their skulls and jaws are far different and unquestionably identify them as herbivores, but it looks suspiciously as if they were starting take a page out of the book of their main predators so that they could run as fast and potentially escape. They had no obvious way to fight back, so their only defense would have been speed, and they look as if they have evolved near the end to be fast runners. Parasaurolophus, for instance, lived right at the end of the Cretaceous at about the time of Tyrannosaurus.

The ceratopsians take a different approach. Triceratops couldn't possibly outrun a big predator, but it was superbly equipped to fight one. With all four legs being extremely strong, with a very strong neck, and with massive horns, it could have stabbed a predator and gored it badly. The long skull shield possibly served many purposes including that of counterbalancing the skull around the neck, but it also protected the neck which may been a favorite bite-to-kill target for a big predator, or served as a intimidating display. With jaws like a Tyrannosaurus had and as strong as it appears to have been, it could conceivably have severed the spine in the neck with a bite and a shake. But that wouldn't work as well with Triceratops or any of its relatives. If Tyrannosaurus tried for that, it would be blocked and it would have to venture close enough to permit Triceratops to stab and skewer one of the predator's legs. Triceratops would then have fought like a bull: once its horns were in, it would toss its head up or sideways to rip and tear. The resulting horrible damage would have been enough to make the predator fall, at which point its body would be within reach of further attacks by Triceratops. Triceratops looks as if it was completely capable of killing a Tyrannosaurus, and for a prey animal the death of a predator is the ideal outcome. Triceratops isn't built like a runner to flee; it's built more like a musk ox or water buffalo who are slow but strong, and when they are faced with a predator, they fight.

The most important of the three groups for my purpose is the ankylosaurs, because it's the one which I think represents unambiguous proof. Ankylosaurus (picture) is sometimes called the "four legged tank". Its back was covered with armor plates topped by spikes; it had a row of spikes all the way round it on the edge of its body, and it had a flexible tail with a big bony ball on the end which looks suspiciously like a weapon. In fact, it looks like a mace. Ankylosaurus' preferred orientation would have been to face away from a predator, to bring its tail into play. With sufficient strength behind it, the tail weapon should have been quite capable of breaking a leg bone in a large biped careless enough to get within range. For such a predator, that injury would have lead to death through starvation or by being killed while defenseless by some other predator, but in any case it would have slowed it down enough so that the Ankylosaurus could escape. The threat was real and obvious and may have been sufficient to deter attack, which from the point of view of Ankylosaurus would be sufficient.

Ankylosaurus' armor makes no sense except as defense against something big, fast, ferocious and hungry. There isn't any way that an Ankylosaurus could outrun a Tyrannosaurus, but it had adequate defense built in so that it didn't really need to. If attacked by two or more theropods, it would have crouched down and let its armor protect its legs. In such a position it would have been nearly invulnerable.

The real question is this: if there was no big, fast, ferocious and hungry predator, why would Ankylosaurus have evolved such elaborate defenses? All that stuff is a massive metabolic investment; if it served no purpose it would be a disadvantage and natural selection would have selected against it. No dinosaur of the mid-Jurassic has anything remotely like this. On ankylosaurus there isn't just a little bit of it; there's as much armor plate and spikes as can possibly be packed in. We're seeing the end product of a long process of selection which clearly favored as much armor as possible. The only way that could happen is if that armor represented a substantial survival advantage, which means there must have been a big, fast, ferocious, HARD BITING and hungry predator. The only candidate which we've found which fits that bill is Tyrannosaurus and co.

Were the Tyrannosaurus exclusively scavengers, Ankylosaurus wouldn't have needed all that protection. Were the Tyrannosaurus active predators, Ankylosaur would have needed every bit that it had.

I consider the characteristics of Ankylosaurus to be conclusive evidence that Tyrannosaurus was an active predator.
from Rashi Dashi, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

Well, then Jason, if a long stride is not the most efficient way for a biped to maintain higher speeds, what is? The only way that I have read that is more energy efficient than a long stride is "hopping," similar to that of a kangaroo.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

Is there any evidence of Tyrannosaur scavenging either?? All we have is evidence of t-rex eating something, not evidence of it having killed or scavenged it. And the edmontosaur is not full proof evidence of tyrannosaur predation, but its pretty good evidence. The only animal with the proper dentition and size to have inflicted those healed wounds is a t-rex...
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

Jason, your arguments on Tyrannosauridae speeds couldn't be further from the truth, the Cretaceous theropod families Omithomimidae, Tyrannosauridae, Troodontidae, Elmisauridae, and Avimimidae share an unusual condition of the metatarsus. The central (third) metatarsal is greatly reduced proximally, completely excluded from anterior view and nearly to completely excluded in dorsal aspect. This bone forms a wedge shape distally, triangular in transverse cross section, which is buttressed against the more columnar metatarsals II and IV. This morphology forms a tightly bound structure, here termed the arctometatarsalian condition. Morphometric analysis indicates that the arctometatarsalian structure is significantly more elongate and gracile than underived metatarsi, and this structure is associated with relatively elongate distal hind limbs per unit femoral length. When compared with limb proportions of modern and extinct mammals and flightless birds, these limb proportions are seen to be consistent with a hypothesis of enhanced cursoriality in the derived theropods. In some genera, intrametatarsal mobility in this structure may have served as an energy storage system analogous to the snap-ligaments of modern equids. The wedge-and-buttress morphology would have resulted in a more direct transmission of locomotory forces to the epipodium than in less derived theropods. Biomechanical analysis indicates that this type of relatively gracile pes was not significantly weaker than pedes of underived theropods with regards to bending stresses, due to elongation into the parasagittal plane. To the contrary, these metatarsi were well designed to withstand the forces and stresses associated with enhanced cursorial ability. The people holding the hypothesis that Tyrannosaurus rex was fast enough to be predatory are correct in their assertions.
from Levine, age 23, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

"A long stride even with muscular legs won't catch much. And like Horner said, he couldn't afford to fall down. Those arms wouldn't help much. I really haven't seen any evidence pointing towards Tyrannosaur being a predator."

Given the idea that he never achieved a suspensory locomotion state, it's unlikely he fell at all. In any case, falling even while standing still would have dealt a great deal of damage. I'm sure Tyrannosaurus would have been well adapted not to fall. It makes sense, given he was built for speed. It's kinda like saying falcons will kill themselves if they flew into something above 30 miles per hour, thus they limited their speed to below that. That's absurd! We can't limit an dynamic system like an animal via "what ifs" and expect that to be an argument. The only real limit is the absolute biomechnical. biochemistry, or biological limit.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

I see we have resumed somewhat normal functions here after tuesday's shocking events.

"This is nothing more than some idea someone came up with trying to keep Tyrannosaur at the top."

Well, this is certainly not true! This idea only came about after a paleontologist decided to find out exactly how Tyrannosaurus teeth attacked flesh and carried out actual physical tests using Tyrannosaur teeth replicas fixed to a machine. What they found was that as opposed to shark or Allosaurid teeth, which cut the meat rather nicely, Tyrannosaurid teeth tore the meat into "fibers" roughly along the grain, a lot of which was trapped on and in between the teeth. On examination under a microscope, it was discovered that the serrations on Tyrannosaurid teeth were cubular, rather that delta serrations which you would expect from the typical cutting design. Similar adaptations were noted in Komodo dragons and monitor lizards. The serrations were designed to rip flesh roughly, rather then to cut it smoothly, and to trap the meat "fibers" and pieces in between the teeth. Which whould have, after time, made its bite extremely septic. This certianly wasn't just a random idea though up to keep Tyrannosaurus on top. In fact, this feature wasn't even suspected in Tyrannosaurus until recently. This idea is virtually universally accepted, among all paleontological circles.

"How much does it take for this to get through you people's skulls? This is no evidence of Tyrannosaur being a predator!"

On the contray, evidence of Tyrannosaurus attacking an live animal is extremely strong, if not conclusive evidence Tyrannosaurus did exibit predatory behaviour. You could come up with alternative solutions, but they won't be anywhere as likely. I mean, I could say that the WTC incidents were actually a plot by the CIA to boost Bush's popularity, if I choose to look at things in the way I liked it. No, let's stick to the most rational and likely solution here shall we? This piece of fossil evidence is extremely indicative of Tyrannosaurus being a predator. In fact, so indicative that it caused a major ship-jumping incident of paleontologists from Horner's side.

"I don't see hearing playing a large part in hunting, when he has a giant lobe dedicated to smell. His sight isn't important either, he has no need to see large distances. If he was mainly a predator, he would only need to see about 40 meters ahead. Smell obviously plays a much larger part than any other of his senses. Thus he was probably mainly a scavenger. "

To the serious contray, most land predators need very good vision. It would be very advantageous if you could spot prey from a distance. I don't see good ambushers like Lions or Leopards having bad vision, or not needing to see more than 40 meters. In fact, they have exceptional vision capable of seeing for miles. Hearing is extremely good for hunting too. If you can pick up the subtle sounds of your prey from a distance and with directional information, you would make a very good predator. Having a good smell does not make you mainly a scavenger. If not, canids, who have smells as their best sense, as I recall, are not mainly scavengers! As I stated before, you don't really need a high-tech nose to locate a large, rotting carcass! Having a amazing nose capable of sifting out various chemicals from the environment whould be more pratical for following a sent trail. Tyrannosaurus could easily track and follow prey for miles simply by following their sent, better-then-bloodhound style. It's pretty odd and wrong to call an animal mainly a scavenger simply by the nose why all of it's other senses were also exception and above-average. Unless Tyrannosaurus had very poor hearing and eyesight, which he did not, he was most certainly not MAINLY a scavenger!

"Show me an animal that runs very fast with one leg still on the ground, and that has weight focused to the front. Remember, bipedalism isn't the way to go when running very fast for very long. Cheetahs, horses, dogs, lions, flightless birds, all run with all their legs off the ground. Oops, I can't do THAT, comparing modern animals to dinosaurs, CAN I? "

Yup, that's a bad move. Tyrannosaurus never achieved a suspensory locomotion mode, so that's not a valid comparism at all. Besides, large animals like Tyrannosaurus could afford to keep on leg on the ground and still move extremely fast. Why? Mainly because of the biomechnics of his limbs. With an extremely long stride, and with the bent of his gracile lower-limbs "cheating" by adding to his stride, Tyrannosaurus didn't have to take as many steps as smaller animals to move at the same speed. In fact, even by taking steps with half the frequency of that of a racehorse, Tyrannosaurus would have easily kept up with it. Of course Tyrannosaur step frequencies are expected to be slightly lower, but certianly frequent enough to move him very fast. In larger and larger animals, stride starts to contribute more to speed than step frequency. And besides demostrating this point so far is pretty moot, for Tyrannosaurus simply needed to be faster than his potential common prey items to catch them, which I believe, not one of which faster are than him! Moving at whatever speed he could have attained allowed him to catch his lunch pretty well. Also, on the contray, but no biomechnical computer or physical model has determined any speed advantage that can be derived from a four-legged locomotion model. In fact, what they have managed to prove is that being bipedial actually gives you some advantages in speed!

"Wolves, tigers, lions, all the major predators, don't have bone crushing jaws. You might argue that hyenas can hunt as well, true, but have you seen how little they hunt? Aren't very enthusiastic about that are they?
Oops, I compared today's animals with dinosaurs again. "

Heck no, Heynas are extremely enthusiastic hunters, in fact, in certian areas of Africa they actually do most of the killing, even more so than the local lions! I'm pretty puzzled why the "Heynas did not hunt much" myth contuines to persist. Heynas hunt a lot! And besides, I wonder, I have no idea why we keep equating Heynas to Tyrannosaurus in ecosystems where Lions are the top carnivore. Ecologically, relationally speaking, it would be better to observe Tyrannosaurus from the lion's ecological niche'

"A long stride is NOT the best way to maintain higher speeds. "

This is an objective biomechnical problem as speed is derived both from stride length and step frequency, they are physically interlinked and one cannot say which is a better way to maintain higher speed. It all depends on your size really. The larger the animal, the more speed is dependent on stride length. The smaller the animal is, the better stride frequency works for them. The reason lies mainly in the smaller effort it takes to move a small limb, thus a rapid frequency of steps can be taken. Larger and longer limbs require more effort to move, but make up for it with the larger stride derived from the swing of the leg. All in all you get a (P-V)+(B+V)=S speed equation, where the tradeoff is equal. As of such, rawly speaking there is no derived advantage in having a greater stride or better frequency. Speed is determined mainly by the ability of the animal to have the best of both stride length and step frequency. Tyrannosaurus achieves this better than most other dinosaurs of it's weight class by having advanced lower limbs with smaller feet (lighter lower limbs equates to energy savings and increased step frequency), and very long legs (stride length). And throw in a gracility advantage due to the bent knee (enhanced stride by "cheating" of bent foot). Tyrannosaurid limb designs made much better usage of step frequency and stride length to make them one of the fastest around.

On maintaining high speeds, that's mainly a biological matter. But Tyrannosaurus is already onto a good start, with his good limb SPEED adaptations. I suspect he could keep up speed for some distance due to his considerable advantage in chest capacity over your typical diosaur and the posibility of a very avian breathing system. It is possible, contray to popular belief, that this animal could maintain a high speed over long distances. But he in any case would have had more than enough locomotional adaptaions to catch his prey!

"Maybe because the mammals were so much smaller, weaker and no defenses except speed and agility."

Narr...I think we mammals did pretty well. It's just that killers with no arms are second to no other design.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 14, 2001

"I have also heard somewhere that if a T. Rex bit his victim, and it lived to get away (which would have been unusual), some people say that the bite would become infected. This is because that after his last meal, there would still be meat stuck in T. Rex's teeth. As this meat got older, bacteris would form. While this bacteria wouldn't affect T. Rex, when he bit prey the bacteria would enter the wound of the victim and it would become infected. Of course, I'm not 100% sure this is accurate, but it is a possibility."

This is nothing more than some idea someone came up with trying to keep Tyrannosaur at the top.

"Finally, as for the evidence of tyrannosaur predation . . .
Edmontosaur tail, 'nuff said."

How much does it take for this to get through you people's skulls? This is no evidence of Tyrannosaur being a predator!
"His sense of smell was equal if not better than a vulture's, he had steroscopic vision and also had excellent hearing."

I don't see hearing playing a large part in hunting, when he has a giant lobe dedicated to smell. His sight isn't important either, he has no need to see large distances. If he was mainly a predator, he would only need to see about 40 meters ahead. Smell obviously plays a much larger part than any other of his senses. Thus he was probably mainly a scavenger.

"Many palentologists agree that the biomechanics of T. Rex's legs, his stride and his muscular legs would have allowed T. Rex to approach and even exceed speeds of 40 km/h."

Show me an animal that runs very fast with one leg still on the ground, and that has weight focused to the front. Remember, bipedalism isn't the way to go when running very fast for very long. Cheetahs, horses, dogs, lions, flightless birds, all run with all their legs off the ground. Oops, I can't do THAT, comparing modern animals to dinosaurs, CAN I?

"I find it unlikely that a 12ft. tall 40ft. long reptile with a bite force that could crack bone and teeth to handle that force was a scavenger."

Wolves, tigers, lions, all the major predators, don't have bone crushing jaws. You might argue that hyenas can hunt as well, true, but have you seen how little they hunt? Aren't very enthusiastic about that are they?
Oops, I compared today's animals with dinosaurs again.

"A long stride is the most efficient way to maintain higher speeds,"

A long stride is NOT the best way to maintain higher speeds.

"You don't need big arms to be an efficient predator, just look at extinct flightless birds of prey. Not too long ago they dominated South America, having outcompeted the local marsupial mammallians. All without arms, imagine that?"

Maybe because the mammals were so much smaller, weaker and no defenses except speed and agility.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 14, 2001

Hi and i actcilythink you should put somthing more interesting in this site.
from Sarah v, age 8, melburn, victoria, ?; September 14, 2001

I find the comments regarding the debate intriguing, but again, for me, it boils down to the actual size of the creature. Trex was simply too large to be a scavenger. No large land based animal survives on carrion alone. Especial when one considers it was basically the largest, most powerful carnivous dinosaur around, and as Holtz's reasearch indicates, was certainly fast enough to keep up with his suspected favorite prey, hadrosaurs, it really defies logic to assume the animal survived solely on carrion. I saw a program which really shocked me, in which they had a grizzly wheeling around trees and stumps chasing long distance after its prey, a deer. A big grizzly. Now, granted that is not normal behaviour for the animal, but if that was caught on film, proving it would give long chase, then why is it so absurd to think Tyrannosaurus wouldn't chase or hunt its prey? It was certainly equipped to kill its prey with a single bite. No animal if given the choice would eat solely carrion. Hyenas hunt, and so do jackals. The comsumate predators, the lions and tigers, will scavenge if presented with the chance. I think Horner is ignoring the evidence, as he is so fond of saying. Put it simply: The animal was designed to kill, no doubt about it. Again, that is just my veiw on it. But on a side note, I must respond to what some of the people have been saying, particularly Lillian, and how it would be understandable for a mother who has just lost her child to rejoice in her enemies misfortune. I am a parent, and believe me, that is never understandable. NEVER. There comes a time in your life when you have to stop wanting, and actually become the person you want to be...Don't want that. Don't ever rejoice in the death of innocents, be they citizens of your enemy or no. And as for the current expression that America somehow brought this on themselves, I have this to say. Whenever there is a diaster, natural catastrophe, who is there lending aid to that country? When France, Japan, Germany, all of them needed help rebuilding after WW2, who was there? Who has not so much even asked for the interest on the money lent to these countries? My country was, and thru it all, we faced it alone. Not one country has ever lent us aid, even when we were facing natural diasters of our own. I say this. When these countries have contributed to the world community as America has, then they can sit in judgement. Not a moment before though. And, my final statement, no one has the right to rejoice at this. No one. I hope some of you take my words to heart, thanks, and God bless.
from ECTrex, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

"A long stride even with muscular legs won't catch much. And like Horner said, he couldn't afford to fall down. Those arms wouldn't help much. I really haven't seen any evidence pointing towards Tyrannosaur being a predator."

A long stride, and muscular legs, both go a long way to catching prey. A long stride is the most efficient way to maintain higher speeds, while muscular legs help in quick acceleration.

The solution for the "fall down go boom" theory, is very simple. T-Rex just didn't fall down that often. The big flaw with this theory is that it assumes that tyrannosaurus will fall as soon as it attains speeds above 25 mph. It ignores the fact the T-Rex was well balanced and did not "run" often enough to trip and fall, doing so only to pursue prey.

The arm thing is pointless, t-rex's arms atrophied to lessen weight to allow its head to attain massive sizes. You don't need big arms to be an efficient predator, just look at extinct flightless birds of prey. Not too long ago they dominated South America, having outcompeted the local marsupial mammallians. All without arms, imagine that?

Finally, as for the evidence of tyrannosaur predation . . .
Edmontosaur tail, 'nuff said.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

Yes, Jason, I have seen a horse. The shank is NOT much longer than the femur. I am referring to the hind limbs of course, not the fore limbs. And I didn't make this obeservation on my own, this obeservation was made by Gregory S. Paul, whom is an excellent skeletal artist.

Page 143, Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, Mid-2nd Paragraph:

"Tradtionalists wishing to keep T. rex slow have tried to find some sort of slow feature in it. Some say the femur was straight, which it was not. Others point to the "short" lower limb bones, but the shank and foot are as long, relative to the femur, as are a racehorses. Theropod limbs are not exact copies of those of birds or of any other tetrapod, but the limbs of the biggest tyrannosaurs are the same as those of the small, swift ostrich-mimics. This is powerful evidence of their speed, for the engineering principle that tells us that 'machines that are built the same, work the same' shows us that tyrannosaurs with limbs like ostrich-mimics ran as well as ostrich mimics."
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

In his speech George Bush had talked about punishing the places that harboured the terrorists in addition to the terrorists that attacked the World Trade centre and Pentagon.

>From what I've heard, I've come up with a list of places that may have been involved in the terrorist attack:
Afghanistan, Asia: a country currently in a civil war between the north and the south. A poor and backwards country.
Turkmenistan, Asia: this country was formerly part of the Soviet Union and is close to Afghanisatn.
Pakistan, Asia: it's a possibility, though less likely to have been harbouring the terrorists than the other countries in my opinion.
Saudi Arabia, Middle East: another possibility, mainly because it was the birthplace of afew suspects in the crime.
Iraq, Asia: the United States had bombed this country earlier in the year as some of you may remember. Iraq was also against the United States in the Gulf War. This place is certainly a possibility.
Syria, Middle East: this place is also a possibility because it is a neighbour of Israel and houses some palestinians, if I'm correct.
Lebanon, Middle East: this is only one part of lebanon which may be harbouring the terrorists. I'm not sure which.

Well, that's all, I think. I hope they find those cowards soon.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 13, 2001

Who is da besst debatr on this board? I whant to know what eveyone elsee tinks.
from Superdude, age 9, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

Uh...is Sean S. here? I want to know what he thought of my answer to his question.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 13, 2001

Nice poem Steffie.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, ?, Canada; September 13, 2001

"A long stride with muscular legs won't catch much. And like Horner said, he couldn't afford to fall down. Those arms won't help much. I really haven't seen any evidence of Tyrannosaurus being a predator."

Many palentologists agree that the biomechanics of T. Rex's legs, his stride and his muscular legs would have allowed T. Rex to approach and even exceed speeds of 40 km/h. The hadrosaurs, the T. Rex's most common prey, could only reach up to approximately 30km/h. So, if you do the math, Jason, T. Rex could outrun his prey by 10km/h. That means that that long stride and muscular legs will catch much. More than much, even.

You may argue, however, that while moving, T. Rex might trip, and at 40km/h, he would crush himself. With his tiny little arms he would have also been unable to protect himself. However, it is highly unlikely that T. Rex would have tripped, seeing as when he was moving that fast, T. Rex would always have one foot on the ground, as Leonard put it. T. Rex might have not been able to afford falling down, but that doesn't matter when the fact is that it was highly unlikely that he would.

Plus, when catching other prey like ceratopsians and anklyosaurs, T. Rex might not have even required his speed to take them down.

You also argue that T. Rex's arms wouldn't have helped much, in catching prey or in the event of a trip. However, natural selection had discarded T. Rex's arms because they simply weren't essential to his design. T. Rex would have hardly tripped, so he wouldn't have been needed to use them to brace himself for a fall. Next, a Tyrannosaur's jaws could exert a force of 30,000 newtons, so really all he needed was one good bite on his prey and it was dead. He didn't need his arms to rip and tear at his prey as he tried to tackle it. T. Rex had a design which didn't need arms.

T. Rex also had highly developed senses. His sense of smell was equal if not better than a vulture's, he had steroscopic vision and also had excellent hearing. All of these would have come in handy when hunting. As some other's have mentioned, they think T. Rex was a scavenger only because his sense of smell would have helped him hunt down carrion. While this would have helped, there are many other animals which are active predators and have an excellent sense of smell. Bloodhounds, for example.

I have also heard somewhere that if a T. Rex bit his victim, and it lived to get away (which would have been unusual), some people say that the bite would become infected. This is because that after his last meal, there would still be meat stuck in T. Rex's teeth. As this meat got older, bacteris would form. While this bacteria wouldn't affect T. Rex, when he bit prey the bacteria would enter the wound of the victim and it would become infected. Of course, I'm not 100% sure this is accurate, but it is a possibility.

So in the end: DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?! T. REX WAS A HUNTER. You can't just make up your own facts and say that T. Rex was slow, especially not when all the evidence points to an alternate conclusion. You also can't say that T. Rex's arms would have handicapped him. If he needed them to hunt, they wouldn't have been as small as they were. And not only is it that very few animals (if any) are only hunters or only scavengers, I find it unlikely that a 12ft. tall 40ft. long reptile with a bite force that could crack bone and teeth to handle that force was a scavenger. He may have scavenged at times but he was definitely a hunter at times. The only reason you can't find any evidence towards T. Rex being a predator is because you're not looking hard enough.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 13, 2001

"Being a simple people, they have no reason to be jealous about your economy, and having a rich heritage and tradition that spans back thousands of years, their culture is much richer than yours!"

They have no reason, yet they are jealous. Also, to say that one culture is "much richer" than another is strictly subjective. They shouldn't waste their time on trying to kill their enemies, they should think about making their lives better for themselves.

"But they aren't bad or evil people at all."

Then they should stop leaping with joy that thousands just died for no reason. By the way I did not say they were all evil.

"The leg bone proportion arguement by Horner is invalid evidence of T.Rex being an exclusive walker. The shank and foot of tyrannosaurs are as long, relative to the femur, as are a racehorse's."

Have you ever seen a horse? Their shin is much longer than their thigh. Cheetahs have the same feature.

"The point I was trying to get at, though, Is that a tyrannosaur was a fast mover, one of the fastest, actually. So really, it's not only the stride which makes T. Rex fast, but also how muscular his legs were."

A long stride even with muscular legs won't catch much. And like Horner said, he couldn't afford to fall down. Those arms wouldn't help much. I really haven't seen any evidence pointing towards Tyrannosaur being a predator.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 13, 2001

Bill, the answer is simple: George Bush is too stupid to think.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

After the disaster that just happened and seeing all those lives be destroyed,I litteraly went insane for 2 hours yesterday.I almost killed a squrrel,cursed like heck,and tried to break someones car winshield.Thankfully I'm sane again.I don't know what came over me.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

Would everyone please stop talking about the terrorist attacks in America? I know it's terrible, but this a chat room about Dinosaurs not about the recent catastrophe's in New york and Washington D.C.
from Will, age ?, ?, ?, United kingdom; September 13, 2001

Fo you really think that if we ignore the terrorist attack, they won't do it anymore? Are you crazy? That lets them know they can do it anytime they want with no repurcussions.
from Bill, age ?, ?, ?, USA; September 13, 2001

PLs tRy To PaSs My pOeM aRd vIa E-MaiL, ThAnk YoU!

Steffie

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a poem which I've composed myself, entitled - My Last Dawn:

Dawn brought me to work,
Dusk should fetch me home.
But it didn't happen this way,
No, at least not today.

The fireball engulfed my flesh,
The collapse broke my bones.
I didn't expect, I didn't know,
That it was soon time for me to go.

All I want now is to be at home,
To tell my folks I love them.
To see their smiles, sweet as candy canes,
To feel their warmth around me once again.

Mom, Dad, please don't cry,
Hubby dear, revenge's never what I want.
Please tell the kids to be strong for me,
Then will I go in peace.

My last dawn was the prettiest sight,
A pity I could stay no longer.
Alas, Death hath come to fetch me home,
To be beside God, where I belong.

I hope this poem will remind all Americans that revenge is not what their loved ones would have wanted. A mistake was made, don't carry on with it. Like all of u, I was deeply shocked n depressed by the terrorist attack. However, remember what makes us humans different from animals. We have a heart to feel, a brain to think wisely. Violence is not the only solution. We should not be acting rashly like senseless animals. We shouldn't be wanting anymore bloodshed or human sacrifices. I am very certain that all Singaporeans will join hands with everyone else on this planet in condemning such terrorist attacks. Finally, to all the survivors of the attack and the families who have lost their loved ones: I hope all of you will soon find the strength to pull yourself together. Let time heal your pain. Let God heal your soul. May God bless you.
from Steffie, age ?, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; September 13, 2001

It looks like dinosaurs will be a side-topic for some time, but nobody is complianing. This is the one time I wouldn't mind people going deep into a side topic.
from Lillian Tay, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

A hit for one is a hit for all.

As close allies politically, militarily and economically with America, the Singaporean public in general have been very concerned over the happenings in New York and D.C. Two Singaporean nationals who were in the twin towers at the time of the attack are still unaccounted for and this just brings it closer to home. Terrorism is condemmed here entirely and I hope justice will be brought to this terrible, terrible incident.

"They were jealous. Jealous because we had a better economy and flourishing culture."

I hope we can stop making villians out of the Palestians though. It's just a minority that is involved in rejoicing over this incident, let's not prejudiced and judge them. And it's a fact that innocent civillians, even children on their side have been injured or killed in conflicts, not just the millitants. It's understandable that a mother of a young boy killed in the clashes would be happy if such a horrible thing happened to your country, it's just human nature. Being a simple people, they have no reason to be jealous about your economy, and having a rich heritage and tradition that spans back thousands of years, their culture is much richer than yours! But they aren't bad or evil people at all. For some of the chinese in China though, are reacting with glee over this incident, though the majority see it as a tragedy.
from Lillian Tay, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

Why isn't America doing anything about the terrorist attacks? What is Bush thinking?
from Bill, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

Billy Macdraw's Counterstrike is an erily mirror of terrorists willing to cause mass deaths to achieve their aim. Prehaps they should get Sue to sniff the bad guys out here too?
from John, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

I love DINOSAURS like Spinosaurus because he is so big and powerful and smarter than other dinosaurs and even has longer arms than Tyrannosaurus Rex. I cant beleve there was a dinosaur that was that big and strong. Dinosaurs are very intresting to me and lots of people.
from Dallas A, age 16, Omaha, NE, USA; September 13, 2001

I have read the responses from the posts regarding the attack on the Twin Towers, but I thought I might give you the perpesctive of a New Yorker. I remember visitng those towers many times, on field trips from school, and I rememeber one thing about them. No big ape climbing them, but the people bustling about to their cubicles, or to the food court, and whatnot. People, working in a symbol of American power and prosperity. People like myself, who will never get to bounce their child on their knee again, or watch their daddy's little girl go to her prom, or to give their boy their first driving lesson. They were not military personeel, soldiers inherent, accepting the risk. They were people, like you, or I. People who deserved to live out the rest of lives in the pursuit of happiness, but won't now. What strikes at the heart of the American people, to render all but the most numb to such horrors unaffected? Cowardice. So I say to all who may think, nothing, nothing is understandable about this. The splender of the American people will persevere, and overcome. This attack has rallied us, in a way they never thought possible. For those of you have expressed outrage over this, even though you are from other countries, I applaud you, and thank you, on behalf of the American people. You see, my cousin was a security guard at the Twin Towers, and my brother in law worked not more than 20 blocks from there. Thank God, their both all right. But this strikes home for me. It was my home, for most of my life, and I remember vividly seeing the majestic Towers everyday going to school. Now their gone. I believe that the terrorists will learn what the Japanese, and the Germans did, which is you should never awaken a sleeping giant. Thank you again for your kind words, and for the young americans out there that answer these posts, I implore you, don't forget your fallen countrymen. Thank you, and God bless
from ECTrex, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

I have to express similar sentiments with my countrymen. May God be with the victims of this tragedy.
from DW, age 15, Singapore, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

It's a terrible thing that happened in your country, I hope it never happens.
from Nemek, age ?, ?, ?, Palestine; September 13, 2001

Besides, as Honkie said, people who study the "biomechnics" of dinosaur movement calaulated that Tyrannosaurus could easily exceed 40 kilometers an hour (twice as fast as elephants) simply by walking fast. He couldn't and didn't need to run. The same science indicates hardosaurs could at best manage 30 kilometers per hour. The science of dinosaur speed estimates haven't been seriously studied until recently, and the latest physics-based research has turned out a lot of surprising things, for example, Tyrannosaurus were extremely fast for their size and that an olympic sprinter could easily outrun a velociraptor.
from Nemek, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

"Even with a huge stride I am not so sure that Tyrannosaur could hunt very competently. It seems clear that he would not be able to catch anything unless he could actually run faster than his prey."

Going by compairing the anatomy of the various potential Tyrannosaur prey items, it's quite clear Tyrannosaurus could move much faster than any of them. Tyrannosaurids were one of the speediest large dinosaur designs of all time. They had a considerable advantages in speed, there's almost no question about it.
from Nemek, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 13, 2001

The leg bone proportion arguement by Horner is invalid evidence of T.Rex being an exclusive walker. The shank and foot of tyrannosaurs are as long, relative to the femur, as are a racehorse's.
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 12, 2001

The only way the United States of America has made enemies with other countries, Honkie Tong, is because they have been standing up for what is right to fight what's wrong. The U.S. is now enemies with Iraq and Iran. Why? Because Suddam Hussein was trying to take sontrol of Kuwait's oil exports. Had the U.S. not interfered to stop the attack before it took place, Iraq could have stoped exporting oil to many countries. In a sense he could control the world. In World War Two there was also a conflict between the U.S. and Japan. Why? Japan attacked the U.S. for cutting off their oil supply. The U.S. was only trying to slow down Japan without entering war. But they were forced in when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. In Vietnam, and other wars, the U.S was standing up for what is true, right and beautiful. Sure, they made enemies, but that was a small price to pay to enforce the law of goodness and freedom throughout the world. Face it, had the U.S. not in! terfered in the Gulf War Iraq would have won. Had they not fought back against Japan, much more territory would have been lost to the axis. Face it. The Allies were hardly fending Germany off, and Japa gained alot of ground in the Pacific. It was thanks to the U.S. that the axis were out of Africa. Without them D-Day wouldn't have been nearly as effective.

America may have made afew enemies, but that was better than to have evil forces controlling large parts of the planet. Plus, I don't think anyone saw two hijacked planes crashing into the world trade centre and two others in Pittsburg and the Pentagon. Sure, they could have done a better job of protecting themselves but they didn't expect it. They didn't need to. They fear no country, they have no need to.

Those who attacked the World Trade Centre and pentagon are cowards, attacking those who couldn't defend themselves. Some people only look to destroy what is good and pure in the world, like freedom. That is why they attacked the U.S.. They want to bring it down from the inside by hitting key points. But the U.S. will find these guys and punish them and those who harbored them. The U.S. is too strong and proud to be taken down by a cowardly attack on civilian lives. Though we mourn their lives, those who commited the deed will not go unpunished.

Thank You. Long Live America and the free world.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, ?, Canada; September 12, 2001

"Even with a huge stride I am not so sure that Tyrannosaurus could hunt very competently. It seems that he would not be able to catch anything unless he could run faster than his prey."

Actually with that stride I mentioned, and muscular legs, T. rex was able to hunt competently because he was faster than his prey. Plus, some prey like Triceratops or Anklyosaurus would have assumed a defensive position rather than run, though they would have been harder to take down than your run of the mill hadrosaur. The point I was trying to get at, though, Is that a tyrannosaur was a fast mover, one of the fastest, actually. So really, it's not only the stride which makes T. Rex fast, but also how muscular his legs were.
from Skeptic, age 13, ?, ?, Canada; September 12, 2001

I believe that many Palistinians and others hate us so much not only because America is on Israel's side, but simply because North America has such a good economy. They were jealous. Jealous because we had a better economy and flourishing culture.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 12, 2001

I hope you american guys are okay down there. Up here in Toronto they had the CN Tower evacuated incase a similar incident were to occur. Those terrorists deserve to be punished for this horrible crime. I heard somewhere that the death toll has escalated into the thousands.

Here's some other interesting facts/rumors which I heard. The Pentagon has a nuclear reactor in the centre and that's what the terrorists were aiming for when they hit the Pentagon. Also, the plane that crashed near Pittsburg may have been shot down by an anti-aircraft weapon or crashed as a result between the terrorist pilot and a passenger. In the wreckage they also found plans on how to fly in Arabic. The plane which crashed in Pittsburg may have also bee preparing to swing around and head for the White House or camp David, etc.

Anyway, I hope you guys will get bac on your feet, but I'm sure you will because that's why you're the most powerful nation on earth.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, ?, Friendly Canada; September 12, 2001

What a sad thing to happen...
People actually jumping down 50 stories do avoid being melted alive. It's a sad day when things like that have to happen, and even sadder when ignorant people think they have to cause it.
I hope we can recover and get back to talking about dinosaurs again, and I hope our country can return to anything close to "normal."
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 12, 2001

"With a stride of 12 to 14 feet, T. Rex could cover a large distance in a short amount of time. His muscular legs may have also helped him move them faster to increase speed."

Even with a huge stride I am not so sure that Tyrannosaur could hunt very competently. It seems clear that he would not be able to catch anything unless he could actually run faster than his prey.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 12, 2001

Accept my sympathy Hungary is on your side against terrorism.
from Marty, age ?, Budapest, ?, Hungary; September 12, 2001

This incident is worse than any second Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was at least a military target, the World Trade Center is civilian. And look at where Pearl Harbor got the Japanese? And those pallestinians... when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, did you see Americans handing out candy and dancing in the streets?? NO!!!

Anyway... though America may not be invincible, we are way up there at the top. We are the only superpower left in the world, the only country with bases in other countries, the ability to strike anywhere. Our resources are tremendous, our confidence unshakable. Our retribution will be swift, thorough, and brutal. So I say again, we'll get 'em.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 12, 2001

".Aquatic dinosaurs"

Do you want inbformation on aquatic birds, or the famous non-dinosaurian aquatic reptles like plesiosaurs and icthyosaurs?

".Dengerous dinasours"

Any specific type?
from Brad, age 14, Fenelon Falls, ON, Canada; September 12, 2001

I need info about:
.Aquatic dinosaurs
.Dengerous dinasours
Thank you
from lucas, age 13, buenos aires, buenos aires, argentina; September 12, 2001

"Ooooo.... that image of the palestinians dancing and celebrating makes me insanely mad. I wish that a Tomahawk cruise missile slammed into the face of that old lady as the cameras rolled. Splatter that little gathering across their entire country. We'll get 'em. America WILL GET THEM!"

Though it may be rubbing it in for you Americans, their response is understandable. Though the Palestinians are no saints in the way they conduct their political dealings, it is a fact that they have been opressed, killed, injured, crushed, shot, beaten by their opponents in times of conflict, with them usually recieving the worst brunt of the fighting. As some of them view America as one of the strongest supporters of their hated enemy, the Israelis, some of them, particularly those who have lost loved ones in the middle-east crisis, it is entirely understandable that some of them would actually rejoice at such an horrific incident. I don't blame them. Heck, I might be rejoicing if I were in their shoes. They are not evil or malicious people, they are simply responding as they would when they see their hated Americans get hurt. Would I drop LGBs onto them from F-117s? Or snuff out their lives with a cruise missile launched from a Los Angeles 688I submarine? I don't think so. It's not justified to kill these innocent people just because they take a different stand on this incident than we do. It's the people who masterminded and carried this out we should hunt down.

And come to think of it, you Americans had it coming. No, I do not mean you deserve this attack, but I mean that by engaging and taking such a strong stand in middle east politics, it is unavoidable that there is going to be a lot of resentment and hate against your country and people, and sooner or later, somebody is going to be mad enough to carry out such a monstorous act. By making yourselves enemies of so many, it would be logical to step up precautions to prevent such incidents. But as we can see, your counter-terrorism measures have not been effective at all. It was quite obvious that your country was caught napping. This terrible incident should serve as a second Pearl Harbour, a day that will remind you all again that complacency will not suffice, and that any illusions of American invincibility, was just that, an illusion. I hope there'll never be another repeat of this incident.

Thank you.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 12, 2001

On the WTC tragedy, it's a horrific and sad incident. Terrorism cannot be allowed to prevail, terrorism is a cowardly act of terror on innocent lives for a polotical purpose. If the terrorists really believe in their cause, and are willing to shed so much innocent blood for it, their cause isn't worth living for anyway. What kind of "great cause" is this? If you have to shed so much unnecessary blood for it?

In Singapore, we have a "be reasonable" but zero-tolerance stance against terrorists. In our previous and only terrorist incident, we blew all their brains across the aircraft cabin with deadly efficency after they decided to get irrational. They hurt no more people, anymore.

I hope your country recovers fast.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 12, 2001

"Hyenas are mainly scavengers but will hunt when necessary."

Heynas are not mainly scavengers, they actually do as much hunting as any other normal terrestrial predator, like lions or tigers. It's extremely misleading to apply the term "scavenger" to heynas as they are extremely acomplished and competent hunters! In some areas in africa, they actually do most of the killing around, even if there are lions in the area. They have been observed to be extremely adept at attacking and killing zebras, wilderbeasts, antelope, and in rare cases, even lions (though they normally avoid the superpowerful males, who ocassionally kill a careless heyna). And the point that any animal is mainly a scavenger is purely moot as any almost any animal would have gone for dead meat if it came across it! Heynas, nor Tyrannosaurus, do scavenge more than other dinosaurs!
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 12, 2001

Adding to the tradegy of the WTC incident, two-hundred firemen were killed trying to help the injured civillians, but were crushed by debris from the falling buildings. This is truly a saddening and horrific event. I am sickened that whoever did this had the gall to commit this crime. I truy hope that the ones who demolished the WTC and part of the Pentagon are hunted down and punished. I thank those who sent their condolences, and I sympathize with the families of the victims.
Honkie Tong asked what these dispicable acts prove. They prove nothing other than their hatred of everything this nation stands for. For that, I consider those responsible nothing more than sick, insane fanatics, who should be blasted into space in the direction of the sun. Once again, I thank tose who sent their condolences, and sympathize with those who were affected by this truly shocking turn of events. God bless America.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 11, 2001

Ooooo.... that image of the palestinians dancing and celebrating makes me insanely mad. I wish that a Tomahawk cruise missile slammed into the face of that old lady as the cameras rolled. Splatter that little gathering across their entire country. We'll get 'em. America WILL GET THEM!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 11, 2001

It might not be that hard for a larg dinosaur like a Tyrannosaur to swim. Animals like elephants have been know to swim in lakes and rivers.
A larg (or small) dinosaur could probable swim like a crocadilel, or in my apinoun, it would use its tail and hind legs to perpel it foward, and padeled its arms downward to keep its head out of the water. Useing its tail could alow even a very heavy dinosaur like T-rex, and Spinosaurus, to go for a swim. Even larg saurapods and ceratopsiens could use a sort of motion like this.
For an animal like Spinosaurus or Baryonyx, it would only make scents that a fish eating spinosaurid to swim above and below the water.
from KC, age 14, mocksville, N,C, U,S,A; September 11, 2001

Thank you for that measage Skeptic.
I was born in New York, and it won't be the same there with out the Twin Towers.
from KC, age 14, mocksville, N,C, U,S,A; September 11, 2001

"Horner's point about T. Rex being slow might totally be accurate. If the legs weren't built right for speed it still wouldn't matter because of it's stride length. One step could easily carry it 6+ feet, you would not need to move your legs that fast if every footstep took you that far."

Actually T. Rex was fast, in terms of how fast he could move himself rather than how fast he ran. His legs weren't built to run because if he did try running, had he tripped he would have crushed himself. Like Leonard said, T. Rex would move with one foot always on the ground. With a stride of 12 to 14 feet, T. Rex could cover a large distance in a short amount of time. His muscular legs may have also helped him move them faster to increase speed.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 11, 2001

First of all, I want to say that I hope they catch those idiots who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. I hear that Palestinians have been dancing in the streets. That makes me sick. I just want to say that I am truly sorry for what has happenned in your great country of America, and I pray that those thousands of souls who perished in the initial explosion and it's reprecussions.
from Skeptic, age 13, ?, ?, Friendly old Canada; September 11, 2001

I think Jack Horner had some pretty good points. But I think there are no true predators and no true scavengers. Hyenas are mainly scavengers but will hunt when necessary. T.rex would be the same way. Even vultures occasionally kill. T.rex could so easily kill an animal that it is almost redicilous to think he wouldn,t when given the chance.
Horner's point about it being slow might now be totally accurate. If the legs weren't buily right for speed it still wouldn't matter because of its stride length. One step could easily carry it 6+ feet , you would not need to move your legs fast if every footstep took you that far.
from Ben, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 11, 2001

I enjoyed reading about the t-rex.I'm glad I know about this site. You got me an a in Sceince.I had a f,now I have an A. THANKS ALOT FOR YOUR HELP AND THIS SITE.
from Tiria H., age 16, Oak Grove, Lousianna, Oak Grove; September 11, 2001

"And we do have very good evidence, from sauropods doing "handstands" in a trackway made on a long-gone riverbed"

I think I once read somewhere that this is a false interpretation and the sauropod was walking in the normal quarupedal fashion, but I can't remember who said that or where. I'll check my books for dinosaur tracks and get back to you on this.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 11, 2001

Why did thousands of lives have to be destroyed!?!?I hope they destroy whoever was behind this!!!
from Still a very sad Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 11, 2001

The Twin Towers were destroyed today by a Kamacazy mission.The first was hit at 8:30 AM.The second at 9:15.Palastein has taken credit for it.Oh well,these things happen.I liked the Twin Towers.This will be a day long remembered.:o(.P.S.The Empire State Building will now be the 3rd tallest building in the world.
from A very sad Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 11, 2001

Despite being half a world away and it being real late here, I recieved the news of the horrific incidents in your country almost the moment it happened. I've never seen anything quite like it, the Two World Trade Towers are gone, simply gone. And seeing the second civilian airliner slam into the tower and dissappear in a ball of fire and derbis marks the exact moment where the innocent lives onboard the aircraft were snuffed out. It's just horrific, something I've never seen unfold before me. We here in Singapore are shocked and outraged at these sensless attacks and mourn the loss with you. What have those people responsible proved four aircraft and so many innocent lives latter? Nothing, nothing at all. How righteous or holy can they consider themselves if they resort to such tatics? Whatever they hold against your country is now irrevelant as they have sunk to the same level which they considered you. This is sensless, absolutely sensless.

My deepest condolences.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; September 11, 2001

AMERICA HAS BEEN ATTACKED!!!

Just before 6AM (Western time), a commercial liner slammed into one of the World Trade Center towers, then, ten mintues later a second slammed into the other tower. Shortly after, both collapsed. Deaths are estimated to be in the thousands.

Another plane, presumably a Sesna-type plane, slammed into the side of the Pentagon, our Military HEADQUARTERS!!! Currently, one side of it burns and has collapsed.

A fourth plane has reported to crash 80 miles SE of Pittsburgh, and another has crashed into/near the presidential retreat of Camp David.

No-Fly zones are enforced, all airports across the nation shutdown. Five minutes ago I saw fighter planes pass overhead.

All this happened on 9-11, and on the anniversery of the Camp David Accords. The symbolism is clear.

I for one am saddened, and then OUTRAGED at the audacity of such an undertaking. Do they not know of our retaliatory capabilities??? I can't wait to see what Middle-Eastern and religous leaders have to say. This is Pearl Harbor all over again, but these are civilians!!! Thousands of lives!

AAAAARRRRGHHHHH!
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 11, 2001

"Jack Horner, says this person, is nasty-looking, hunched-over hell-bent on winning that was a lousy scientist with mediocre arguments that had spindy little, two-dimentional points that would have been useless in a scientific debate. Even worse, when more evidence is uncovered of Tyrannosaurus hunting, those arguments could do little to dampen the impact of tons of falling nonsensical theory; the all-but-inevitable ridicule and laughter could easily prove fatal."

This is painfully familiar
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 11, 2001

"but those fossils could mean anything."

Anything could mean anything. In fact we can say anything to make our theories fit. I mean even Bakker could argue Brachiosaurus could gallop faster than racehorses. But to make some sense of it, we take to MOST LIKELY explianation from it, that T.rex was a predator, if not, a competent one.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 11, 2001

"I don't see the connection between the damaged hadrosaur fossils and T.rex being a hunter. I'm not saying he wasn't, but those fossils could mean anything. The fossils don't tell anything about the behaviors of animals. They tell the anatomy of the creature, and it is from that we draw conclusions."

Oh dear, you seem to be confusing secimenal fossils with trace fossils. Finding a specimen fossil normally tells us about the morphlogical and anatomical features of the animal, a good example of a good specimen fossil would be an articulated iguanadon fossil. However, trace fossils like footprints, injuries and healed-over bite marks on the other hand tell us very little about the apperance animal but are instead much better at telling us the behaviour of an animal. A trace fossil indicating attack from Tyrannosaurus (of which there are two solid examples, and two possibles), like a healed-over bite mark indicating an attack on a life animal is strongly indicative of at least aggressive behaviour on T.rex's part, and does point very strongly towards predatory behaviour in Tyrannosaurus. In any case, Horner's assertions of Tyrannosaurus being incapable of attacking prey at all are almost certainly discredited by these finds.

On the other hand, we can't prove anything absolutely. In fact, we can't even prove we ourselves exist. Proving something is a scientific impossibility. You can at the very best built up a case based on good evidence that would make your stand the most possible outcome. Horner makes a lot of arguments, but the burdern of evidence is on the side of the opposition.

"Yes, but these are not horses we are talking about. I truly doubt the swimming abilities of an animal such as Spinosaur or Tyrannosaur."

Why so? Even gigantic sauropods over seven times their weight could most likely swim. (And we do have very good evidence, from sauropods doing "handstands" in a trackway made on a long-gone riverbed) though it could be quite safe to say that Tyrannosaurus would have avoided a swim if he could.

"Wanna know something? Triceratops is believed to have the strongest bite force of all dinosaurs."

If you are talking among herbivorous dinosaurs that would be absolutely correct. Ceratopsians have immenensly powerful jaws by herbivore standards desinged to tackle the toughest diets in plant matter. But Triceratops' absolute maximum force (via computer models) of 1,000-2,000 newtons is rather slouchy compaired to T.rex's absolute of 20,000-30,000 newtons. Triceratops simply didn't need to smash bone or rend meat.

"The turkey volture is one of the largest of birds in North America and is still a scavenger."

This is a seriously flawed point based on an oversimplified drawing-of-points between size and scavengery. The Turkey Vulture is still rather small compaired to its potential food items, small enough to make a profit from maximizing in numbers and still having enough scavenge, something Tyrannosaurus could not have done, which makes this point irrevelant.

"Auother argument of T-rex being a hunter is its strong secnes of smell. But its intresting to me that T-rex had the largest porsinal alfactory lobe (sence of smell) of eney animal to ever live exept a turkey volture. (maybe a scavenger needs to find the sairce amount of cairein from far away)."

It's a myth to say that you need a good nose as a scavenging adaptation, which is certainly not true. Carrion, unlike live prey, is quite easy to find even if you had a normal nose. Superspecializing in the nasal department as a ground based animal is not going to give you a significant advantage over normal smellers in decting carrion. Turkey Vultures, being able to fly really high, avoid the sent-messing features of ground termals and terrain and allow them to smell a dead animal from nearly a hundred miles away. Tyrannosaurus, being on the ground, had no such advantage. Tyrannosaurus didn't have that much of a lead over other animals when it came to finding carrion. On the other hand, Tyrannosaurus' super smell gave it an unprecendented advantage in hunting over other animals, giving it the ability to pick up sent trails left by prey on the ground, much like the bloodhounds of today. Tyrannosaurus most likely used his nose more like a bloodhound than a vulture, to follow sent trails rather tahn sniff out static targets.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 11, 2001