On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 06:42:25 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2018-09-24 05:34, juan wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:13:36 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
None of which changes the fact the building was designed to withstand three hours of uncontrolled fire
that is a fuckingly stupid lie that neither you nor agent fairbrother can provide a source for.
Liar:
I have repeatedly provided the source, and here it is yet again.
https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
and I added the name of the chapter that paragraph comes from This chapter : 1.2.4 Fire Protection So again and again - and again. There's no source for this fuckingly stupid lie from fairbrother (and you)
Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*.
because the rating of the fire protection is not the same thing as 'time to collapse'
By confusing the rating of the fire protection with some "time to
collapse" of a whole building you should be regarded as semi literate at best. Or as fuckingly dishonest.
If the columns holding up the building are only rated for three hours of exposure to fire,
LMAO!!! - And where did you get that from? - Oh you confused - again - the columns with their fire protection.
then some time not very long after three hours, they are going to stop holding up the building.
So is that why building 7 fell after 8 hours of fire? Because 3 == 8?