latest false flag attack?

[juan]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:16:59 +0100
Peter Fairbrother <peter at 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