Question for the twoofers about why NIST is wrong

Ok thats enough. I can't take anymore of it. All it is is typical CT deception. For example, he talks about how no other buildings have collapsed due to fires, but yet leaves out that minor little fact that none of those other buildings have ever been hit by a fully fueled jet liner moving at speeds above 500mph.

He also states numerous times that the the official story says that the steel melted. It does not say that, it says that the steel was weakened. Very big difference.

He then talks aobut how the towers were designed to withstand jet impacts, failing to factor in the high speeds that the jets were moving at that actually hit the towers.

He takes quotes from all different sources completely out of context to make a point.

Never addresses that squibs could be from the immense pressure created by the collapsing floors.

Takes out of context quotes from eyewitnesses.

Never states what "researchers" call for an analysis of demolition possibilities.

The list could go on and on about the garbage in that video.
 
Wizard what would be more reasonable is if you could state a specific topic from that video for me to "debunk" that would be great. I don't have the time to prove him wrong on the whole thing. (Although that would not be too hard, seeing how it is all garbage.)
 
Quad4_72 said:
Wizard what would be more reasonable is if you could state a specific topic from that video for me to "debunk" that would be great. I don't have the time to prove him wrong on the whole thing. (Although that would not be too hard, seeing how it is all garbage.)
Click to expand...

Ok heres my first problem:

NIST apparently ignored thermal conduction within its model of the steel structure. Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected, their massive steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire. The Report describes a model of "The Fire-Structure Interface", and describes the computation of heat transfer between the air and the steel structure, but it does not mention the conduction of heat along spans of the steel structure. (p 131-2/181-2) The suspicion that NIST simply ignored the conduction of heat within the steel is corroborated by the Report's disclosure that they used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model. (p 134/184)
Click to expand...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
 
Well, I thought we were going to discuss the video, but oh well. But anyways, what is the relevance of conduction with regards to the collapse of the towers? Just because heat can move throughout steel does not mean that the heat source itself is going to somehow become less intense. It also does not mean that the steel being directly exposed to the heat is going to be any less damaging. That statement does not make sense or add up. Next.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Well, I thought we were going to discuss the video, but oh well. But anyways, what is the relevance of conduction with regards to the collapse of the towers? Just because heat can move throughout steel does not mean that the heat source itself is going to somehow become less intense. It also does not mean that the steel being directly exposed to the heat is going to be any less damaging. That statement does not make sense or add up. Next.
Click to expand...

Conduction is very relevant. In order to heat a portion of steel it must be subjected to the source for a period of time. If the heat is going to be conducted away then that time is increased. So the model is flawed from that point of view alone
 
Wizard said:
Ok heres my first problem:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
Click to expand...
the issue is not how fast steel can conduct heat, the issue is the ratio of conduction to absorbtion

why does 9/11 research ignore THIS?

another thing to remmeber is that conduction is not perfect, a fire on the 80th floor isnt goign to conduct any measurable heat down to the first floor, so the 90,000 tons of thermal mass is overstated
 
Last edited:
Heres another problem you might like to dismiss without debunking:
NIST continues in the tradition of Core Denial, with a number of misrepresentations, including, apparently, in the computer models that it supposedly used to simulate collapse initiation. Figure 6-9 shows sections of the global model for both the North and the South Towers. Both show the core columns to be thinner than the perimeter columns. But we know that the perimeter columns had outside dimensions of about 13.5 by 14 inches, and that most of the core columns had much larger dimensions. The outer row of core columns in each Tower apparently measured 56 by 22 inches for most of its height. We might forgive NIST for skimping on the dimensions of the core columns at the 100th floor of the North Tower, since the box columns apparently transitioned to smaller H-columns around the 100th floor, but their use of tiny core columns on the 85th floor of the South Tower is clearly in error.
st_floor_core.jpg
[SIZE=-1]This is a zoom-up of Figure 6-9 (p 96/146), which shows the "multifloor global model" for WTC 2, in which the top floor (pictured) is the 85th floor. Note the miniscule size of the core columns (the short, toothpick-like rods in the central area of the floor). [/SIZE]
Click to expand...
 
defaultdotxbe said:
the issue is not how fast steel can conduct heat, the issue is the ratio of conduction to absorbtion

why does 9/11 research ignore THIS?
Click to expand...

I was just about to say that. Also, for conduction to occur, the amount of heat must be significant. Though heat would be conducted away, it does not change the fact that the core columns would still reach a critical level.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
the issue is not how fast steel can conduct heat, the issue is the ratio of conduction to absorbtion

why does 9/11 research ignore THIS?
Click to expand...
Your quote uses the sentence
NIST apparently ignored thermal conduction within its model of the steel structure
Click to expand...
Do you know what "apparently" means? The author doesn't know if they did or not. Did he ask them? Now you say
why does 9/11 research ignore THIS?
Click to expand...
Did you ask them or are you just parroting words you believe in? Do you have any integrity at all?
 
Wizard said:
Conduction is very relevant. In order to heat a portion of steel it must be subjected to the source for a period of time. If the heat is going to be conducted away then that time is increased. So the model is flawed from that point of view alone
Click to expand...

First of all, you can't wave your hands and talk about conduction without giving numbers. What are your calculations for the heat transfer along the beams? Do you even know the thermal conductivity of the type of steel that was used?

Another often overlooked point here is contact resistance. The towers were not built out of extremely long continuous beams. The beams were 30 feet long or shorter, and were fastened together. Such a connection creates a contact resistance, and any fastener connection (and even weld connections) create contact resistances that are much larger than the resistances in the materials themselves. The result is a signifficant immediate temperature drop accross such a connection and a decreased ability of the structure to draw heat away (which manifests itself as a higher temperature near the spot where the thermal load is applied).
 
Last edited:
Is the starter of this thread going to address the size of the core columns in NISTs simulation?
 
Wizard said:
Ok heres my first problem:
Click to expand...


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.

Keep up!

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Steel is NOT a good conductor of heat.
Click to expand...

Really? Well why does NIST say it is?

To easily mesh the rod geometry and to avoid
modeling the weld contact between the rod and
the chords, the cross-section of the rod is modified
to a square cross-section instead of the round
cross-section, without changing the cross-sectional
area. The high thermal conductivity of steel
allows this simplification to be made with negligible
loss in accuracy.​
Click to expand...

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05181.pdf

I think NIST has debunked you this time. Please keep up the pseudo science BS​
​
​
 
Wizard

Stick one hand in a tub of boiler water, and one in a tub of iced water.

Now by your reasoning, your body should be happily conducting heat from one to the other and you'll be fine.

What? What's that? Severe burns and scalds? Surely not!
 
Architect said:
Wizard

Stick one hand in a tub of boiler water, and one in a tub of iced water.

Now by your reasoning, your body should be happily conducting heat from one to the other and you'll be fine.

What? What's that? Severe burns and scalds? Surely not!
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware the wtc was made of flesh.
 
If steel were such a good conductor, how could you ever weld it? That implies local hot spots.
 
gumboot said:
What is the relevance of the thermal conductivity of steel?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom