latest false flag attack?

[juan]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 06:42:25 +1000
jamesd at echeque.com wrote:

> On 2018-09-24 05:34, juan wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:13:36 +1000
> > jamesd at 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?