Trex abilities

Sounds accurate. I thought I heard the bite was 18 000 PSI. 

The lowest estimation (that is still somewhat accurate) is at 68.000N (6.8 tons) PSI and the highest estimation (the highest that still makes some sense) is at 235.000N (23.5 tons) PSI. I personally think that it was somewhere between 90.000N and 150.000N.

i agree with this, but Rex probably wasn't all that  intelligient. my best guess is somewhere around a puppy, or maybe a parrot? Most dinosaurs probably weren't that smart, except dromeaosaurs maybe.

Quote: also has bacteria

All vertebrates have bacteria in their mouths... And even if it was special to tyrannosaurus, it did not kill with infection

Quote: sences

Gee, really? NO! That's impossible!

Quote: roar

How is this going to be useful as a weapon?

Quote: acrobactic

Uh, no. Most definitely not

Quote: they can feel vibrations

It had nerves, we get it...

Quote: claws

Definitely not a weapon!

Quote: sharp teeth

Weren't really that sharp. They were actually quite dull and blunted to compensate for its powerful biting strength.

Quote: tail

Theropod tails were quite stiff and were only used as balance-beams. Theropods most definitely did not use their tails as weapons!

Quote: talons

Uh, no... Definitely not!

Opinions are opinions, and if we agree with his, so be it. About the vibrations, there was a study on its brain, it could sense vibrations for miles (I saw it in Jurassic Fight Club).

XD quit with your hate. frankly i'm tired of it. we're NOT going to turn this into a debate. MR.Happy and i respect this guys opinions. We aren't gonna go off and go ' well this is wrong and so is this." 

By acrobatic i bet he means athletic or strong. Rex could use it's foot claws(talons) to rip open carcasses for all we know! they weren't there to just look pretty... claws and tail are also possibly weapons... defensive mainly for the tail.

T-rex's teeth weren't sharp Godzillasaurus? Well, let's just look at some pics shall we?

Well I don't know about you, but they seem pretty dang sharp even for having weathered 65 million years of errosion and whatever else the elements threw at them.

I am pretty dang sure that I already realize that, at least in the sense that they were pointed and serrated. BUT, they were not "especially" sharp, if that makes any sense; the originator of the thread seemed to have stated that its teeth were razor-sharp, which they werre not. Unlike spinosaurines, which possessed very finely-pointed conical teeth and many different forms of large theropods, which typically had recurved and very sharply-edged dentition, tyrannosaurus was really structured for crushing and as such were not really "sharp" by the same definition as the first guy was saying. And as such, its teeth were in possession of a quite robust point and thick edge to prevent them from breaking during hunting. So simply, yea, tyrannosaurus' teeth were pointed and serrated, but not necessarily razor-sharp as the originator indicated.

Quote: By acrobatic i bet he means athletic or strong. Rex could use it's foot claws(talons) to rip open carcasses for all we know! they weren't there to just look pretty... claws and tail are also possibly weapons... defensive mainly for the tail.

Probably not

that's a theory bud. dismiss it all you want it's my opinion..or theory...whatever you want to call it.

Tyrannosaurus had serrations on its teeth. if that's the ' razor sharp' you're getting at.

Theories are theories, like them or not.

They were pointed and serrated, that is it. The serrations seem to instead be attributed to the animal's ability to use torsion to rip apart flesh, and were instead quite poorly designed for cutting like we see in allosaurus. The point as well is still present, but it rather appears to be a compensation for the animal's aptitiude for crushing as opposed to piercing deeply and gripping. In spinosaurus, we see particularly slender spike-like dentition that is highly pointed, conical, and unserrated; all of these features indicate that they were not as much reliant on strong biting and instead were used for piercing deeply into the hides of fish without breaking. The morphology in tyrannosaurid teeth was not like that of spinosaurus where it is well designed for simple moderately-powerful, perpendicular, and deep puncturing owing to a strong aptitude for gripping but instead for crushing. It is really as simple as that.

The simple fact of it is, tyrannosaurus\' teeth were pointed, but they were designed to be used for crushing and causing bone-related trauma. Such a fine point as we see in spinosaurus or such a thin shape as we see in allosaurus or ceratosaurus would be ineffective in crushing.

Spinosaurus\' dentition was very well adapted for piercing and gripping solely, not killing (although it can be used for killing with enough precision to impact the spinal cord or wind pipe of a prey animal for example), so naturally this is the primary reason why it was generally quite sharp at the point and were yet rounded in cross-section and unserrated, as they only needed to pierce deeply and retain a strong grip owing to its ichtyophagous ecology. Allosaurus\' teeth were very thin, recurved, and were better designed for cutting and ripping as opposed to gripping and puncturing, less well designed for gripping fish. Naturally, the two tooth morphologies here allow the respective animal to be an effective predator of the animals that they are specialized in taking down (spinosaurus- large freshwater fish; allosaurus- stegosaurs and sauropods), and a better designed tooth structure for crushing events is more necessary for an animal like tyrannosaurus who was evolved to hunt and kill by crushing animals like ankylosaurs for example (which were obviously quite heavily-armored).

we all knew this already.. and this wasn't the point. Respect other people's opinions dude. don't go off and say ' this is wrong and oh so is this'. constructive criticism is better if you're so intent on saying something negative.

In theroy (THEROY-CEPTION) eveything we know about dinosaurs is a theroy. We dont completly know everything, we only know what we know from the bones...

This is a rather interesting disscusion None the less,

I believe you were looking for atheletic? Not acrobatic, Tyranosaur would probably snap the rope and not reach it if it was an acrobat. 

you're pathetic. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT LEAVE! quit COMPLAINING and go. you've lost my respect, and probably most of us here.

I've only claimed your B.S. statements as opinions. not any one elses.

And you never disproved us. Let's NOT get into another debate.

Looks like a typaical bias trex fanboy, prolly 10-12 years old judging by the "facts"

so. what.? you were 12 at one point. and i'm guessing you aren't the typical spino fanyboy?? i mean your profile picture says it all. and 

@godzillasaurus i never said i did? XD