[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

latest false flag attack?



On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 11:33:55 +1000
jamesd at echeque.com wrote:

> > Peter Fairbrother <peter at 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.