On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 11:33:55 +1000
jam...@echeque.com wrote:
> > Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> WTC was rated for 3 hours major fire resistance.
>
> On 2018-09-23 04:50, juan wrote:
> > OK - So you don't have any reference for the claim
>
> I just gave you a reference to the claim.
No, you fucking didn't. Here's what your pal agent fairbigbrother 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.
Oh, I know what you both did, either on purpose or because of mental
retardation.
The 3 hr rating is for the *FIRE PROTECTION material* coating the
columns, not the columns themselves, let alone the whole building, like peter
wrongly assumes.
>
> Nist cites pre 9/11 building codes and pre 9/11 work orders.
>
>
> https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
>
"1.2.4 Fire Protection
There were both passive and active fire protection systems
...sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) applied to the structural
steel
The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were
to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the metal deck "
all that talk is about how long the fire protection coating would last,
not how long the fucking building would last.
> If you say they are making stuff up post 9/11, it is your job to produce
> some inconsistent pre 9/11 building codes and pre 9/11 work orders.
You and peter are making stuff up or can't read.
So again, where are the 'design docs' that state
*it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of
major conflagration*
No retards or liars, it was rated so that after 3 hours the insulation
would be damaged, NOT the columns.
