On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:16:59 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/09/18 04:01, juan wrote:
[...] Here's what your pal agent fairbigbrother
Eric Blair sometimes called my Dad Fairbigbrother or Bigfairbrother (they were close friends). :)
Really?? I thought my pun was rather lame, but if Mr. Orwell himself used it...
I don't think Big Brother was named after him though.
wrote and you dishonestly ignored as usual :
Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*
So where's the reference FOR THAT claim.
Actually, I wrote:
begin quote"
WTC was rated for 3 hours major fire resistance.
Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*.
It's in the design docs.
"end quote.
Yes, I did quote those three sentences in a previous a message and then the middle entence alone in a couple of other messages.
Now examining the first part of that, I hope you aren't denying that the steel columns in WTC1+2 and WTC7 were rated for some degree of fire protection.
I would word that differently. The *insulation* for the columns (and other parts) was rated, not the columns. So, for the 4th time or so : There was a rating of 3 hours for the insulation under some 'standard' conditions. That doesn't translate at all to "WTC would collapse after 3 hours or so". The data from my previous message that you seem to have ignored. "1 of the towers lasted 56 minutes, the other one 1 hour 40 minutes and building 7 stood for ~7 hours " [stuff deleted]
Another thing you will find there is that the rating is for the resistance of the column and the fire protective material taken together, rather than for the fire protective material alone.
OK - where's the source for that.
Alternatively you can find the Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials here: https://www.astm.org/Standards/E119.htm
I saw that page. You have to pay to get the docs so not available, sorry.
That the steel columns in WTC1+2 and WTC7 were rated for 3 hours
So why is it that none of the buildings lasted 3 hours? It took a lot less for 2 of the buildings and it took a lot more for one of the buildings.
Now for the second part of what I said: it begins "Put that another way" - in other words the next part is my rewriting or conclusion, drawn from "that".
"*it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*" is a valid conclusion drawn from the 3 hour fire protection requirement,
No it isn't. And it just so happens that the both towers collapsed BEFORE 3 hours. And the other building collapsed 4 hours AFTER the 3 hours mark.
as the building would obviously collapse if the main columns failed; and it was presented as such.
The rating is a minimum rating, and the "(or so)" part was included to indicate that.
If I misled anyone into believing my conclusion was in the design docs by the positioning of third part, I apologise. "It's in the design docs" referred to the requirement, not my conclusion about it.
Good =) - At least we got that sorted out... So obviously the requirements for fireproofing were in the design docs.
In my defense, I thought that was obvious. I didn't believe anyone would think it referred to my conclusion (I didn't write the design docs after all) rather than the requirement.
Nor did I think anyone would seriously think the design docs would say "it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration" ... I don't imagine anyone in their position would write that, even though it is true.
Is it?
-- Peter Fairbrother