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

latest false flag attack?



On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:28:15 +1000
jamesd at echeque.com wrote:

> >> 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 :
> > 
> > 	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.
> 
> What do you think the fire protection material is for?
> 
> If it rated for three hours, this implies that the columns will cease to 
> be protected after three hours.


	Actually, the 3 hours figure is according to some 'standard', some 'parameters', some 'temperatures' and bla bla bla  - a set of conditions which you don't know if they existed. 

	But obviously as the protection wears out the steel exposed to fire would get hotter. Duh.

	Now, WHERE THE FUCK is the source for this claim :


> Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 
> (or so) hours of major conflagration*

	HEY, can you READ? Where the FUCK is the source that says "structure will collapse after 3 hours of 'major' 'fire'" 

	

	

	














> 
> That steel columns in tall buildings need a fire protection coating, 
> need fire protection material implies, that if allowed to get too hot, 
> the steel will soften, and the building will fall.
> 
> World Trade Center Building Seven fell in large part because fires raged 
> uncontrolled for seven hours.  Steel frame buildings just are not 
> designed to handle really prolonged fires.  This is a well known issue 
> that people who build tall buildings talk about and design around all 
> the time.
>