Chicago Hancock Tower On Fire--Does Not Collapse...

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:01 pm

http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/11/22 ... =366412485

Well of course it didn't collapse. Why on earth would a steel-framed building collapse because of a fire? Of course you're thinking of the Miracle In Manhattan, when the three WTC skyscrapers collapsed in perfect free fall due to the fire of burning jet fuel. It was a miracle of course because the kerosene based jet fuel burns at 1500 F, while the alloyed steel of the massive frames melts at 2750 F--and a million gallons of the fuel could have burned for a year and nothing would have melted or collapsed. (thermite burns at 5000 C, and would have cut through the steel like a hot knife through butter :wink: )

Chicago is safe, its firefighters need not worry about being tricked and murdered by the hundreds.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:07 pm

Thank God no firefighters were injured putting out that waste paper basket fire.

T&P, you brave warriors!

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:17 pm

No, willers, I'm just bored by the usual chaff that's floating through. When I want to post something, I do it, and of course I don't care about the cat calls about playing guitar. After all, I know I'm right. But I am willing to post some tunes. i just have to get around to it.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:18 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:24 pm

Spray, give it up. You know LTS would destroy you at Guitar...

...Hero.

Guitar Hero, Guitar Hero II, Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, Guitar Hero World Tour, Guitar Hero 5, Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock, Guitar Hero Live. Pick your poison, bro.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:26 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Pick your poison, bro.

I think he did that...a long time ago...

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:49 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/11/22 ... =366412485

Well of course it didn't collapse. Why on earth would a steel-framed building collapse because of a fire? Of course you're thinking of the Miracle In Manhattan, when the three WTC skyscrapers collapsed in perfect free fall due to the fire of burning jet fuel. It was a miracle of course because the kerosene based jet fuel burns at 1500 F, while the alloyed steel of the massive frames melts at 2750 F--and a million gallons of the fuel could have burned for a year and nothing would have melted or collapsed. (thermite burns at 5000 C, and would have cut through the steel like a hot knife through butter :wink: )

Chicago is safe, its firefighters need not worry about being tricked and murdered by the hundreds.

Yeah, I guess some asshole leaving a cigarette burning or whatever it was that caused damage to a single apartment is roughly equivalent to driving a wide body airliner with a fuel tank of gas into a building at 400 mph.

And I know this has been hammered into your pea brain countless times, but while steel may melt at 2750, it weakens at much lower temps. What is that temp? Don't know. but I would guess that it starts well below 1500.

You really are the dumbest motherfukker on the interwebs, by a fairly wide margin.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:19 am

What do you mean "weaken"? As though it gets buttery? Categorical bullshit. The core of the towers was like a battleship. The so-called "pancake" theory initially trotted out was abandoned by even the 9/11 Commission itself. Do you know what the "official" version even is? Would it surprise you to learn that there is no official version? And that there are no credible engineers that offer any clear explanation? As for the fuel, most of it burned in the initial gigantic fireball, and the rest burned up in ten minutes. Did you know this? And yet you cling to..what exactly? That these massive structures just collapsed--the second in about 45 minutes--because of a fire? Huh? And you're calling people dumb?

Here's the fire collapse explanation thoroughly dismantled
http://conspireality.tv/2014/09/11/the- ... planation/

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:50 am

So someone fell asleep with a cig. Bedroom damaged, redecorating required.

Carry on.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:09 am

You really are the dumbest motherfukker on the interwebs, by a fairly wide margin.

I agree but poptard is giving him a run for his money

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:01 am

Terrific take, stupid fuck.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:24 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What do you mean "weaken"? As though it gets buttery? Categorical bullshit. The core of the towers was like a battleship. The so-called "pancake" theory initially trotted out was abandoned by even the 9/11 Commission itself. Do you know what the "official" version even is? Would it surprise you to learn that there is no official version? And that there are no credible engineers that offer any clear explanation? As for the fuel, most of it burned in the initial gigantic fireball, and the rest burned up in ten minutes. Did you know this? And yet you cling to..what exactly? That these massive structures just collapsed--the second in about 45 minutes--because of a fire? Huh? And you're calling people dumb?

Here's the fire collapse explanation thoroughly dismantled
http://conspireality.tv/2014/09/11/the- ... planation/

I have never once clicked on one of the links you spam this place with until just now.

Note to self: If you want to read The Daily Kos until your eyes bleed, you know where to find it.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:33 pm

War Wagon wrote:

Note to self: If you want to read The Daily Kos until your eyes bleed, you know where to find it.

At The Daily Kos?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:16 pm

Guys, I heard you can find The Daily Kos at...now get this...The Daily Kos.

Am I being fucked with? Is that true?

:?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:18 pm

War Wagon wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:What do you mean "weaken"? As though it gets buttery? Categorical bullshit. The core of the towers was like a battleship. The so-called "pancake" theory initially trotted out was abandoned by even the 9/11 Commission itself. Do you know what the "official" version even is? Would it surprise you to learn that there is no official version? And that there are no credible engineers that offer any clear explanation? As for the fuel, most of it burned in the initial gigantic fireball, and the rest burned up in ten minutes. Did you know this? And yet you cling to..what exactly? That these massive structures just collapsed--the second in about 45 minutes--because of a fire? Huh? And you're calling people dumb?

Here's the fire collapse explanation thoroughly dismantled
http://conspireality.tv/2014/09/11/the- ... planation/

I have never once clicked on one of the links you spam this place with until just now.

Note to self: If you want to read The Daily Kos until your eyes bleed, you know where to find it.

The site I provided isn't spam at all. It's a clear and accurate description of the basic impossibility of the "fire caused" collapse of the WTC towers--based on the physics. If you can refute it, go ahead.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:35 pm

It's spam... say, have you signed up for Draft Kings or Fan Dual yet? If not, better hurry and get your free money while it lasts.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:39 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote: The site I provided isn't spam at all.

Would a Nigerian prince lie about things like this?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:46 pm

What do mean by "spam" in he first place? What part of the info on the site can you refute? Or can you even try? Can you even understand the ideas being discussed and examined as far as the basic physics?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:28 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What do mean by "spam" in he first place?

Selling a certain agenda, endlessly repeating the same tired talking points no matter how many times the door has been slammed in your face. It doesn't matter if the product you're selling is the greatest thing since Scrubbing Bubbles or Febreeze. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong or what your motivation in being a salesman is. I'm not buying. Go peddle your wares to someone who cares.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:08 am

Which is why nobody with a brain believes your shit take that fire brought down WTC7.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:26 am

That it dropped straight down after only forty-five minutes--when the remaining fuel (not consumed in the huge fireball) burned up in ten minutes?

No you don't. You are telling a straight up lie. So...why?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:34 am

Pretty amazing if it was fire that did this...

I'm not a believer in the fire theory.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:34 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What do you mean "weaken"? As though it gets buttery? Categorical bullshit.

Structural alloyed steel will anneal when heat is applied. I don't need an engineering degree to know that. I can prove it with a cutting torch and a hammer. You wouldn't have the first clue about the different alloys that go into making up steel or aluminum. You just buy whatever bullshit you want to swallow and then pass it off as factual on some message board with like 8 people who would actually read it or click the links

The core of the towers was like a battleship.

Like the battleship Arizona that sits at the bottom of Pearl Harbor? That kind of battleship?

As for the fuel, most of it burned in the initial gigantic fireball, and the rest burned up in ten minutes. Did you know this?

How the fuck would you know this? By reading the wack conspiracy theories on whatever wack website you can dig up?

Do you know how many gallons of fuel a fully loaded 767 holds? Don't look it up, just guess. Here's a hint: A lot more than could be burned up in ten minutes.

You just throw bullshit up against the wall hoping to see what sticks. You're a certified lunatic with an axe to grind.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:19 am

88 wrote:I believe it.

Then you need to get your head and your BS degree checked. When was the last time you saw ANY steel structure burn down from a hydrocarbon fire? Try it some time. Try and burn your BBQ down. Pile lots of meat on it if you want. Have you seen any off the "WTC beams" showing up at memorials around the country? Try and burn one down. It's preposterous on its face.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:45 am

Moving Sale wrote:
88 wrote:I believe it.
When was the last time you saw ANY steel structure burn down from a hydrocarbon fire? Try it some time. Try and burn your BBQ down.

You're equating a 110 story building slammed into by a 767 full of JPL with a grill?

You BBQ with propane and wonder why your ribs suck.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:56 am

I did no such thing. Learn to read.
And I BBQ with oak, like any sane person who lives on the Central Coast.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:08 am

You did exactly such a thing, very poorly.

Seriously, you get paid to argue in a court of law?

No wonder the legal system is such a sham.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:28 am

KC Scott wrote:
You don't want your food tasting like furniture

Pretty sure you strip the varnish off before you throw it in the smoker.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:40 am

War Wagon wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:What do you mean "weaken"? As though it gets buttery? Categorical bullshit.
Structural alloyed steel will anneal when heat is applied. I don't need an engineering degree to know that. I can prove it with a cutting torch and a hammer. You wouldn't have the first clue about the different alloys that go into making up steel or aluminum. You just buy whatever bullshit you want to swallow and then pass it off as factual on some message board with like 8 people who would actually read it or click the links

The core of the towers was like a battleship.
Like the battleship Arizona that sits at the bottom of Pearl Harbor? That kind of battleship?

As for the fuel, most of it burned in the initial gigantic fireball, and the rest burned up in ten minutes. Did you know this?
How the fuck would you know this? By reading the wack conspiracy theories on whatever wack website you can dig up?

Do you know how many gallons of fuel a fully loaded 767 holds? Don't look it up, just guess. Here's a hint: A lot more than could be burned up in ten minutes.

You just throw bullshit up against the wall hoping to see what sticks. You're a certified lunatic with an axe to grind.

So what if a few of the millions of beams anneals on two or three floors? What's that got to do with the whole massive structure falling in perfect free-fall collapse?

Wags, you total fraud. What are you defending and why?

As for the battleship-like inner core of the towers, yes, it was designed to withstand an airliner impact--and more. What's your actual take? I mean beside your pissy smears of me?

Here's some serious fuel being burned up in a fireball...how much? what percentage?...take a guess...80%?...90?

What are you defending...and why?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:42 am

Hey gravy guzzler, learned to play over chords yet?

let's consider the events in question...

And really, more to the point, what's that little explosion at the nose of the supposed airliner--just before contact ?

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:12 am

KC Scott wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:And I BBQ with oak
Try applewood for Pork and Mesquite for beef

Smoke from the wood is what gives flavor, not just heat to cook

You don't want your food tasting like furniture

Good Lord...

Red Oak from the Central Coast is one of BEST smoking woods anywhere, I picked some up in Santa Maria today as a matter of fact.
Applewood is good so is grape wood but I guess grape is probably hard to find in flyover country.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:30 am

Ha!

The auto distract post...anything..just put up something. How pathetic.

That's liquid steel..rendered as such by the thermite--which burns at 5000 C

Of course, lots was used..

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:07 am

War Wagon wrote:You did exactly such a thing, very poorly.

Seriously, you get paid to argue in a court of law?

No wonder the legal system is such a sham.

I clearly said WTC7. Again, learn to read.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:24 am

88 wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:
88 wrote:I believe it.
Then you need to get your head and your BS degree checked. When was the last time you saw ANY steel structure burn down from a hydrocarbon fire? Try it some time. Try and burn your BBQ down. Pile lots of meat on it if you want. Have you seen any off the "WTC beams" showing up at memorials around the country? Try and burn one down. It's preposterous on its face.
What do you suppose the weight of the building was above the floors actively burning? Put you barbecue grill in a car compacter and get back to me, Einstein. If you don't believe that heat reduces the tensile strength and load bearing capacity of steel then riddle me this, Bat Genius: Why do they apply fire retardant materials to the steel used in high rise structures? What would be the point of such an exercise if steel is impervious to heat?

Who said steel was impervious to heat? Can you read? The weight of the building and the decrease in strength of steel at 1100• were both known to the engineers when the building was planned. You think they didn't engineer it to carry the load? Are you retatded? Do you even know how a car compactor works? And they apply retardant for conductivity. Any other stupid questions?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:57 pm

The building was designed to take a slow flying jet lost in the fog. It was not made to take one in a kamikaze dive at 400+ knots.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:15 pm

They're talking about Building 7.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:35 pm

You're talking to suckaholic.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Nov 25, 2015 8:30 pm

smackaholic wrote:The building was designed to take a slow flying jet lost in the fog. It was not made to take one in a kamikaze dive at 400+ knots.

A "slow jet"? :) And why would this make a difference? Especially when we saw the giant fireball consume most of the fuel in the air.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:05 pm

A jet flying 400 knots packs a bit more wallop that one flying at 150 knots. Basic physics which is yet another scientific field that you fail miserably at.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu Nov 26, 2015 4:24 am

It's my understanding that the force of the blast cleaned the fire-retardant off the steel and fire-rated drywall was blown to smithereens. The fasteners were the first to fail leading to an uneven load, the fire was fuelled by combustables existing in the building.

All this is available from engineering firms involved in the construction of the buildings, they came to and published their findings independent of government commissions. Why is this being equated?
Nothing forthcoming has been published from messageboards with small armies of LTS's armed with folk-guitar degrees. I recall LTS claiming there was 18" of reinforced, concrete partitions on the main floor of the Pentagon when there is no such thing.

I think before building 7 collapsed, a supporting column was severed by falling debris from the main towers?

It's all out there, in boring-type engineering language rather than political rhetoric.