Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[tfk]

Guys,

This is an invitation to one of the AE911t engineers to come aboard & discuss some of his ideas.

Derek, I hope that you join us. If you do, I suggest that you restrain any accusations of moral or ethical corruption on the part of those who disagree with you. I suggest that you stick to the engineering.

Guys, I've sent Derek a note telling him about this thread. I've asked him to join us. Derek can introduce himself if he does. He's a young engineer, 3 years out of UTA.

Play nice...


Tom

 

[Scott Sommers]

How come all these guys are mechanical engineers?

 

[tfk]

How come all these guys are mechanical engineers?

Embarrassing to me.

I don't see that there are "all these guys". I see a couple dozen.

And only one (Tony Sz) who has published anything. And that in JONES.

And in the most bizarre aspect of that paper is that the mechanical engineer is second author to a professor of religious studies. Go figure that one...?!

I'm going to try really hard to give Mr. Johnson the benefit of the doubt. The reason that I brought up this subject has only a little to do with him personally.

I am very concerned, however, about an 8 year stretch of young, impressionable engineers who were in college between 2001 & 2009. Engineering students go thru the very same adolescent angst that all kids do. They hate anyone that they perceive has authority over them. A natural part of life.

They were also such technical neophytes that they were mostly unequipped to parse out the nonsense of Jones, Griffin, et al.

I think that it is shameful on the part of their engineering professors that they did not confront this issue straight on, and left the kids to flounder around on their own. Any engineering professor that cannot IMMEDIATELY see the glaring flaws in the 911T engineering claims should be fired.

The result of this is that we've now got a bunch of newly minted engineers, who - like all of us at that age - think that they know everything. And are going to get co-opted into groups like AE911t. And go out into the public with their shiny new diplomas & bloviate as if they knew ***** from shinola.

They are going to do severe damage to their own careers They are quite capable of doing damage to the public perception of the gov't & the issues of 9/11. Because the public thinks that "an engineer is an engineer is an engineer". Interchangeable cogs. (Just like some misguided personnel do when it comes to hiring them.)

And they are completely capable of doing grave damage to the public perception of the engineering profession in general.

THIS is what this whole thread is about in my mind. This potential lost generation of baby engineers.

I've mentioned it before. New graduates don't appreciate that they are the youngest members of a fraternity, a society, that goes back a couple hundred years. That there is a lineage. That each generation learns from the previous several, and then, in their turn, become mentors of the next generations.

They also have not the slightest clue about all the stuff that is never covered in class. And the level of expertise that resides in the bodies & brains of all those old farts running around, looking just plain frumpy.

When I started writing Mr. Johnson, I was just puzzled with the fact that here was a Mechanical Engineer in the 911 group. I guessed (correctly) that he was very young. There are lots of very young engineers there. And a fair number of retired engineers too. What you don't see are too many that are working now.

What you absolutely don't see are ANY working structural engineers who have a long, successful history of working in the tall structures business that have published anything. Nothing. Nada. And like all science & engineering, publishing is the official, formal way of communicating within the fraternity. And competent, peer-reviewed publication is the standard way of getting a stamp of approval from the fraternity.

As I started to say, when I first ran across Mr. Johnson's presentation, I was just bemused. You can find it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=142Ati4GEJQ

Very quickly, I got annoyed that he was talking little mechanical engineering, and buckets of Richard Gage woo. Verbatim. Even took a bunch of the big Dick's slides. Politics, Polls, Wars, Constitution. The usual crappola. I thought he'd be talking engineering.

The very few things he did mention were the usual, utter nonsense. "Molten steel". "Free fall SPEED". I ***** you not. He must have said each about 30 times!

Then he got to this point, in the 6th part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyXTiqUN7Gs#t=7m18s

This is the classic John Gross confrontation with the punk kids about "molten steel". The interpretation of Mr. Johnson that "well, we showed him. A lotta people showed him" was all that I could take.

This kid actually thinks that he "showed up" Dr. Gross. Priceless. Classic shoot yourself in the foot. Dr. Gross is old school. You can see it in his presentation. He doesn't brook nonsense. And that style just grates on kids.

(Which, to a HUGE measure, explains exactly why we use it.)

That's about as far as I got in his presentation. I'll try to finish it some time soon. As soon as my annoyance level has abated.


Tom

 

[beachnut]

Engineer fires torpedos at the 9/11 lie

20,900 hits of stupid at google. Should read Engineer exposes lack of knowledge supporting idiotic delusions. What school did this fail idea believer get a degree? They made a mistake.

 

[tfk]

20,900 hits of stupid at google. Should read Engineer exposes lack of knowledge supporting idiotic delusions. What school did this fail idea believer get a degree? They made a mistake.

Now, now...

We were all young &, uh, "impulsive" at certain points in our lives. Probably even you, beach...

Let's first attempt to give young Mr. Johnson the benefit of our kind wisdom. If that don't work, then we can sic the Rottweilers on him.



Tom

 

[Scott Sommers]

Interesting thing to me about engineer johson's presentation is that of the six parts to it, Part 1 has over 4,000 hits, Part 6 has 812 hits.

I presume that most of the 4000 hits are coming from people not interested in the entire presentation - maybe even hits from debunker sites.

 

[Algebra34]

That's some invitation.

 

[Architect]

Guys,

This is an invitation to one of the AE911t engineers to come aboard & discuss some of his ideas.

Derek, I hope that you join us. If you do, I suggest that you restrain any accusations of moral or ethical corruption on the part of those who disagree with you. I suggest that you stick to the engineering.

Guys, I've sent Derek a note telling him about this thread. I've asked him to join us. Derek can introduce himself if he does. He's a young engineer, 3 years out of UTA.

Play nice...


Tom

That seems very reasonable and I shall watch with an eye to participation, if Mr. Johnson joins us.

Lads, let's keep the usual guff out the way for a change, eh?

 

[AZCat]

I think any young engineer who falls for the "free fall speed" crap should automatically trigger an ABET investigation into his/her alma mater. Or maybe we should start adding more basic physics questions to the EIT/PE exams.

 

[Thunder]

an honest and intelligent truther, would never show his face on JREF.

they would be too busy investigating 9-11, then to participate in a silly internet forum debate.

 

[AZCat]

an honest and intelligent truther, would never show his face on JREF.

they would be too busy investigating 9-11, then to participate in a silly internet forum debate.

I could understand if someone wanted to use the internet (and internet forums) as a resource in an investigation, but such use should be ancillary to an investigation, not the entirety of it. I was watching "The First 48" (or something) the other day and saw an episode where Dallas police posted on an internet forum because they were trying to identify a person who was murdered. Their attempt was successful, but it was only a small part of a larger investigation.

 

[Thunder]

I was watching "The First 48" (or something) the other day and saw an episode where Dallas police posted on an internet forum because they were trying to identify a person who was murdered. Their attempt was successful, but it was only a small part of a larger investigation.

that's how an honest truth-seeker would act.

those 9-11 truthers who limit their "search for the truth" to being annoying and provocative on JREF, really don't care about the truth.

 

[Horatius]

Tom

I've often wondered at the point of threads such as these, but I think you've made a very good point here. Let's see if anything useful comes out of it.

 

[tfk]

Good News,

Mr. Johnson has accepted our invitation and will be joining us shortly. He did not specify when.

This is the note that I received from him. I'm posting it because he requested that I do so.

Tom tfk at JREF,

I think it would be safe to say that my religion would absolutely approve of this. I agree with you though, I believe that I would find myself under a religious, as well as professional & ethical, obligation to get my facts straight, you're right on target Tom tfk at JREF, and I will try to do this...put that in the bank.

Your insults, however, do not explain acceleration-observed collapse(s), nor do they explain the presence of molten metal. If you think that ARA "FEA" or Purdue "FEA" is actually "FEA", then yes, absolutely we need to talk, Tom tfk at JREF, we definately need to talk. A debate between you and me, or the entire slew JREF 9-11 official lie believers and me would be wonderful. Maybe they could use all their experience and the accumulatde knowledge of man to explain how Newton's law was violated.

While we are at it, how did dozens of witnesses, including the site cleanup engineer witness molten metal for weeks after the fact? Would office fire of normal combustibles or kerosene jet fuel melt metal and keep it molten for weeks?

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3).

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

These quotes, above, are all lies? Yes or no Tom tfk at JREF? Your answer please.

As far as I know, I will speak in a few months in Atlanta. If we could debate (1) the NIST report after or before that presentation as well as the (2) collapse initiation and acceleration, (3) the FEA "work" that has been done, as well as the (4) molten metal witnessed. This would be taped in front of the audience and published to youtube. I think that would be most instructive for those on the fence or who have no opinion, and you could even link to it at your little tfk at JREF web site. Of course your camp will probably not be moved in the least by what I say, the questions I ask or what I may point out with regards to 1-4, and those of my persuasion of the 9-11 official lie may not be moved by your excuses for the shoddy FEA, the witnessed molten metal, or the acceleration-videod building collapse(s). But I am about learning Tom tfk at JREF, and I'd absolutely like to learn the short cut to make buildings suddenly collapse. I could make much more money on the free market's division of labor armed with this short cut than I can in building structures.

Now go ahead at post this e-mail at your little tfk at JREF web site.

Best regards,
Derek - a very young engineer

P.S. If my presentation is full of lies, then reply where and why and I will revisit each "lie" and double check with what you have given me as well as what is availible to me. I'm not trying to repeat lies, I'm trying to figure out why I've been lied to. I hope you are right, I hope Al Qaeda acted alone in doing ALL of this...no person alive will be more relieved than me.

......Ridicule has become a substitute for Reason.

As you can see, he found insulting some of the things that I said. I believe that he was referring to some hard comments that I made to him about his comments on his interactions with John Gross.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyXTiqUN7Gs#t=7m18s

I found his comments about Dr. Gross to be insulting to Gross. And intentionally misleading regarding what Gross actually said. But the most damning part to me was the fact that, when presenting his case in his lecture, Derek clearly chose his words WAY too carefully. That is, I believe, intentionally misleadingly. He did not say that Dr. Gross denied that there was "molten metal" or "molten steel".

He said that "John Gross knew absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses, nobody who has produced ... any of that."

It is my strong feeling that, if Derek is going to blatantly imply that Dr. Gross is lying, it is Derek's OBLIGATION to be perfectly clear on what Gross said AND meant. He is obliged to go to Dr. Gross and ASK him what he meant by his statements. Not to TELL others what Gross meant by Gross' statements.

Regardless of the above, let's try to keep this civil. Derek has an engineering degree. If he is really a thinking individual - and he seems to me to be honest & thoughtful, if misguided - then he can be swayed with compelling arguments.

Or he can be alienated with insults.

Let's not go down the second path until we've exhausted a good, honest effort with the first, OK?

Thanks,


Tom

 

[tfk]

I'm going to make a strong recommendation here. And a request to the other posters.

These discussions wander all over the map, and get way too chaotic.

I've asked Derek to assemble the 5 - 10 single pieces of OBJECTIVE, verifiable facts that prove to him ... whatever he believes.

It seems to me that he does not think that the towers could have collapsed in the way that NIST says they did.

It seems to me that he believes that the reports of molten steel under the towers indicate there were some nefarious actions involved.

But, beyond that, I'll let Derek state his own beliefs. (And correct me if the above statements are wrong.)

But let's let Derek state his strongest evidence and stay focused on that. Take it one piece at a time. And not get distracted by the 1000s of bits of small stuff.

Hopefully, as we dismantle the big chunks, Derek will start to see the clear patterns of how they were assembled in the first place.

Thanks,

Tom

 

[DavidJames]

So what exactly does his claims have to do with his education? Sounds like your basic, garden variety 9/11 CTist to me. Do we really need the same **** regurgitated again? The same **** that's been talked about here for 5 years (or more)?

 

[DavidJames]

I'm going to make a strong recommendation here. And a request to the other posters.

These discussions wander all over the map, and get way too chaotic.

I've asked Derek to assemble the 5 - 10 single pieces of OBJECTIVE, verifiable facts that prove to him ... whatever he believes.

It seems to me that he does not think that the towers could have collapsed in the way that NIST says they did.

It seems to me that he believes that the reports of molten steel under the towers indicate there were some nefarious actions involved.

But, beyond that, I'll let Derek state his own beliefs. (And correct me if the above statements are wrong.)

But let's let Derek state his strongest evidence and stay focused on that. Take it one piece at a time. And not get distracted by the 1000s of bits of small stuff.

Hopefully, as we dismantle the big chunks, Derek will start to see the clear patterns of how they were assembled in the first place.

Thanks,

Tom

If this happens, I agree. With so many people responding, it's easy for the morons to pick and choose which posts to respond. Rest assured I won't participate

 

[tfk]

If this happens, I agree. With so many people responding, it's easy for the morons to pick and choose which posts to respond. Rest assured I won't participate

LoL.

Thanks, Dave.

We'll consider you one of the Rottweilers. We'll get you a collar, and put you on a leash.

If it should eventually come down to it, we'll toss Mr. Johnson a bloody steak & let you go...



Just kidding. You're one of the best posters around here. Ask your questions. Make your observations.

Just play nice with the new kid in class. Otherwise, you'll get a "time out".


Tom

 

[TruthersLie]

Tom.

Just a simple question from an "almost engineer." Do they not teach full engineers that there are easily 10 very common metals used in buildings and offices around the world which melt at under 1000C?

Do they also not teach them that it is very hard to determine exactly what molten material is by looking at it for the untrained?

Both of which completely and utterly destroy this baby engineers complaints.

Of course I'd also like him to explain how thermite/thermate/super duper do your laundry and clean up your room nanothermite can stay burning and hot enough to keep metal molten for 100 days... Or how underground fires work since he seems completely and utterly ignorant of them...

those would be my simple questions. I doubt he will make it to my hard questions.

ETA: I'd also like him to enumerate on which of Newtons laws was broken...

But hey, if he can manage to actually write a complete paper and get it peer reviewed it would be ground breaking. Why isn't he doing that? I mean any engineer who can PROVE that NIST is full of crap would never have to worry about working again. Harvard, columbia and MIT would hire him and tenure him immediately. I eagerly await his thesis.

 

[Architect]

I await the chap's arrival with interest and in the meantime would again support the suggestion that we "play nice"; ripping the pish out of him, as we say here, isn't conducive to sensible discussion.