Question for the twoofers about why NIST is wrong

Here are some examples of conductivity.

Note that carbon steel has inferior conductivity to both wrought iron and iron. It is marginally superior to lead and marginally inferior to bronze. Cast iron, iron, brass, aluminium, gold, copper, and silver all have superior thermal conductivity to carbon steel. Synthetic diamond is between 37 and 69 times more thermally conductive than carbon steel.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Here are some examples of conductivity.

Note that carbon steel has inferior conductivity to both wrought iron and iron. It is marginally superior to lead and marginally inferior to bronze. Cast iron, iron, brass, aluminium, gold, copper, and silver all have superior thermal conductivity to carbon steel. Synthetic diamond is between 37 and 69 times more thermally conductive than carbon steel.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Point?

Not many people use synthetic diamond in their everyday lives.

Steel is a very good conductor as NIST state themselvesa in the quote I posted earlier.
 
Wizard said:
No I haven't. I have only ever had CD's. So I ask again, why do NIST claim steel is a good conductor of heat?
Click to expand...


I thought NIST were all full of lies? :confused:

Don't they claim things that defy physics? Heck, if we're defying physics, what's a little excessive heat conduction between friends?

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
I thought NIST were all full of lies? :confused:

Don't they claim things that defy physics? Heck, if we're defying physics, what's a little excessive heat conduction between friends?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

So you admit NIST is all lies. At last we are making progress.

Are you going to admit your claim about steel is BS?
 
Wizard said:
Its what the wtc was made of.

Oh and it effects how quickly a particular portion of steel can reach a temperature that causes a problem
Click to expand...


But only the trusses caused problems because of heat.

-Gumboot
 
Wizard said:
So you admit NIST is all lies. At last we are making progress.

Are you going to admit your claim about steel is BS?
Click to expand...



No that's not how it works.

Either NIST is full of lies, and therefore streel is not a good conductor of heat, or NIST is entirely accurate and you accept the official version of the WTC collapse.

I'll even let you choose.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
No that's not how it works.

Either NIST is full of lies, and therefore streel is not a good conductor of heat, or NIST is entirely accurate and you accept the official version of the WTC collapse.

I'll even let you choose.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

There is a third option. NIST gets some things right and some wrong.

Now tell me what you believe. Is NIST right or wrong? Why do they disagree with you about the conductivity of steel?
 
Wizard said:
There is a third option. NIST gets some things right and some wrong.

Now tell me what you believe. Is NIST right or wrong? Why do they disagree with you about the conductivity of steel?
Click to expand...



I believe whatever Alex Jones tells me. Did you know a famous filmmaker cast Timothy McVeigh in his film five years after McVeigh was supposedly dead?

It's true! :)

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
I believe whatever Alex Jones tells me. Did you know a famous filmmaker cast Timothy McVeigh in his film five years after McVeigh was supposedly dead?

It's true! :)

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


So you won't answer the question. What cowardice lol

You got it wrong kid. Come to terms with it.
 
My first problem is with your source's first few sentences.

Steel is NOT a good conductor of heat. This is a common myth. Sure, it might be a better conductor of heat than, say, playdough, but compared to other metals, steel is not fantastic. That's why you don't use steel as a heatsink for computers etc...

Secondly, the conductability of the columns is irrelevant. The collapse was not caused by heated core or exterior columns. It was caused by heated floor trusses. These have thin steel with large surface area, and each floor is an isolated system.

Even were the floor trusses made of metals with exceptional heat conduction, they still would have sagged, because there was nowhere for them to conduct the heat TO, and the amount of heat they were exposed to was enormous.

Thus, once again, you are talking BS.
Click to expand...

I love this quote from you Gumboot.
 
Wizard said:
I love this quote from you Gumboot.
Click to expand...


If you had any reading comprehension skills you'd realise that those first remarks were an aside. The guts of my post was to point out that heat conduction was irrelevant as the floor trusses had nowhere to conduct the heat to. The floor trusses didn't have the advantage of being thick steel 1300ft long, nor of being on the outside of the building with wind and plenty of air. They were in a relatively sealed environment, were an isolated steel system of thin metal, exposed to extensive heat across their entire area.

Infact even if the trusses has the heat conductivity of synthetic diamond it would make no difference.

-Gumboot
 
With all due respect Wizard, perhaps you should take your issues with NIST to a competent structural engineer or perhaps a metallurgist who could elaborate.

IMO, if there were indeed all these glaring mistakes in the report, the world's experts would kind of be upset about that.

Unless of course you think experts around the world haven't bothered to read the report, and are just taking NIST's word for it. I am under the impression that the WTC collapses, and the NIST report, are being studied in minute detail in engineering classrooms around the globe. But I may be wrong.

What in your opinion is the reason why the report is accepted as the most logical explanation of the events leading up to the collapse by professionals?
 
Nice point twinstead,

Why aren't any structural enginners coming out against the NIST report?

Don't bring up Kevin Ryan because we all know he's not an engineer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom