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.