latest false flag attack?

[Peter Fairbrother]

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). :)

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.


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 hope you are not denying that nowadays the required level for a 
building that size is 4 hours, as you can find in the original reference:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/IBC2018.

Good luck, that's a long task I generally leave to others, particularly 
lawyers. It's a bit like a law - of course it actually is a law in most 
places - this bit refers to that bit, often by number or code or clause, 
you have to start by reading the whole thing then focus on the part you 
want.

Then I suppose you will have to find the externalities like where the 
NYC building codes include the IBC, and whether the Port Authority has 
overridden NYC, and so on, in order to complete the path.

I guess somewhere the 1969 versions of these are available, but I feel 
no need to look for them.

A simple one-page original authoritative ref? Doesn't exist afaik.


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.

Alternatively you can find the Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of 
Building Construction and Materials here: 
https://www.astm.org/Standards/E119.htm



That the steel columns in WTC1+2 and WTC7 were rated for 3 hours rather 
than 4 hours fire resistance, well I don't think it makes much 
difference, and I can't be bothered to plough through garbage to perhaps 
find anything original when there are so many second-hand ref's.

NIST say it was so. So do almost everybody else. Plus if NIST had been 
wrong about that the lawyers would have been all over it like flies. So 
it's pretty likely that's true - and as I said it doesn't matter much 
whether it's 3 hours or 4 hours.



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, 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.

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.


-- Peter Fairbrother