latest false flag attack?
juan.g71 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 14:50:37 PDT 2018
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
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 "
> 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:
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
> "*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.
> -- Peter Fairbrother
More information about the cypherpunks