• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

scott.in.taiwan said:
And that's exactly why only a handful of people here care if he shows up or not. Who cares if his degree in mechanical engineering really does materialize. If we'd get the same answer asking you, then why waste the time talking with Engineer Derek?
Click to expand...

Now now Scott. Don't go shooting the messenger now will you ? I just think that I see where Derek is going with this and as you may be aware I have a somewhat integrated theory that covers most of the methods and mechanics involved in explaining the symptoms we see at the WTC.

I am sure you could not object to me playing doctor here. If I am wrong I am wrong and what harm done ?

We can measure the response by the degree of shrillness the replies (f any) show. Something a bit similar in to the underlying whininess in T's recent posts if you know what I mean.
 
NIST did not revise their report in any meaningful way. Their original report was consistent with the "two seconds of freefall" crap. They just didn't call attention to it, since only a lunatic would care.

NIST also explains why that period of "freefall" is consistent with their collapse hypothesis, no explosives required. But that requires reading for context, something Truthers have trouble with.
 
bill smith said:
Now now Scott. Don't go shooting the messenger now will you ? I just think that I see where Derek is going with this and as you may be aware I have a somewhat integrated theory that covers most of the methods and mechanics involved in explaining the symptoms we see at the WTC.

I am sure you could not object to me playing doctor here. If I am wrong I am wrong and what harm done ?

We can measure the response by the degree of shrillness the replies (f any) show. Something a bit similar in to the underlying whininess in T's recent posts if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

This 911 Truth thing has become very strange to me. There are no meaningful members. There is no public voice. Everyone who talks about it gets ignored and laughed at - then fired from their job. Why would anyone want to have anything to do it - much less pretend that there is any potentcy left in it?

Yes, yes, we are all waiting for the 911 Truther's Revolution. Personally, I would find it embarrassing to be laughed like this. Perhaps you feel it's OK because it's the Internet, so we can't see your face.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is really hard to take what you are saying here seriously as one would have to think that the NIST performed a stringent review of David Chandler's work on the acceleration of WTC 7. Afterall they revised their report agreeing with him that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration, and nobody admits a mistake without heavy scrutiny of the criticism which caused them to admit to the mistake.
Click to expand...

Tony, I am not an enginner and have little technical knowledge about the structure of buildings. But the way you talk, it should be obvious to anyone with this knowledge that there was something more than planes that hit the WTC. Sure, you can tell us there are hundreds and thousands of engineers and architects who belong to the newest, hippest revolution to sweep the nation. But I just don't see it.

I belong to all these groups that protest in the streets about 911. I don't see the engineers or construction industry professional. They're just not there. You're not even there. No one is there. The only place they are is here, chatting with me and my JREF friends. And while this is a lot of fun for all of us, I no longer take it seriously. I doubt anyone here does anymore.

There's a point where standing alone becomes foolishness. Neo is character is a movie. I turn off my TV and his heroic stand against the Matrix disappears.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
This 911 Truth thing has become very strange to me. There are no meaningful members. There is no public voice. Everyone who talks about it gets ignored and laughed at - then fired from their job. Why would anyone want to have anything to do it - much less pretend that there is any potentcy left in it?

Yes, yes, we are all waiting for the 911 Truther's Revolution. Personally, I would find it embarrassing to be laughed like this. Perhaps you feel it's OK because it's the Internet, so we can't see your face.
Click to expand...

Well As long as you are spending so much time telling us we don't exist I guess I'll stick around. We couldn't ask for stronger validation than that. Some of my sources tell me that hundreds of thousands of Truthers are only hanging on to see what Scott might say next.
 
R.Mackey said:
NIST did not revise their report in any meaningful way. Their original report was consistent with the "two seconds of freefall" crap. They just didn't call attention to it, since only a lunatic would care.

NIST also explains why that period of "freefall" is consistent with their collapse hypothesis, no explosives required. But that requires reading for context, something Truthers have trouble with.
Click to expand...

There is no need to rehash this. We already have NIST by the short and curlies on this one. I guess those 1,000 scientific lunatics at ae911truth,org are looking for scientific exactitude from NIST, the fount of scientific discipline in the US. Your statement of 'They just didn't call attention to it, since only a lunatic would care.' does not count as scientific.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It is really hard to take what you are saying here seriously as one would have to think that the NIST performed a stringent review of David Chandler's work on the acceleration of WTC 7. Afterall they revised their report agreeing with him that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration, and nobody admits a mistake without heavy scrutiny of the criticism which caused them to admit to the mistake.
Click to expand...

Thats not another lie is it Tony?
 
Mashuna said:
This seems reasonable. However, knowing when you're wrong isn't one of your strong points.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you guys will tell me. It's just a matter of whether I find you convincing enough. Let the readers decide.
 
bill smith said:
I have a somewhat integrated theory that covers most of the methods and mechanics involved in explaining the symptoms we see at the WTC.
Click to expand...

Would you be willing to state, clearly and succinctly, what this theory is?

Or are you afraid that if you see it in print you will realize how crazy it is?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is really hard to take what you are saying here seriously as one would have to think that the NIST performed a stringent review of David Chandler's work on the acceleration of WTC 7. After all they revised their report agreeing with him that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration, and nobody admits a mistake without heavy scrutiny of the criticism which caused them to admit to the mistake.
Click to expand...

Tony,

NIST didn't "revise" anything.

Regardless of that straw man, are you an engineer or not?

If you're an engineer, as I know you are, you don't need to rely on quotes from NIST, or anyone else, regarding Chandler's "revelations". This is position, velocity, acceleration. It is high-school level physics.

The collapse mechanisms & dynamics are freshman level engineering.

You have seen both NIST's and Chandler's analyses. You know (or should know) the assumptions, derivations and approximations attendant to each.

Are you an engineer or not?
___

So, let's summarize.

There was a 2 second period of NEAR free-fall.

Of the external walls.

After a 2 second slow, non-free fall. Of the external walls.

After the internal structure of the building had been collapsing for over 8 seconds.

Now, please tell me, Tony, what does it mean to you that the outer walls of the building with the vertical columns to which they were attached, say 330' wide by 610' tall by 2 to ?? feet thick, fell near free fall for those 2 seconds?

Do you think that a 330' wide x 610' tall x 2 to ?? foot wide wall (with mangled structure attached) is going to crush down the structures below it in pure compression as it falls?

Or do you think that those impossibly tall, narrow structures below might just buckle for about 10 lower floors & get out of the way?

And how much resistance do you expect those buckling thin walls to transmit to the upper sections to slow their descent?

Please feel free to elaborate on any of your answers.


Tom
 
I got a reply from David Chandler to the note that I sent to him & AE911T.

It was, in entirety:

David Chandler said:
Boringly predictable response. Bug off.
Click to expand...

To which I replied:
tfk said:
David,

Perhaps you could answer the one most significant question:

To whom, which competent engineers, have you presented your work for review?

Tom
Click to expand...


His reply:
Chandler said:
Don't expect further replies from me.
Click to expand...

I felt that this was worthy of a serious response.

My offering:

tfk said:
>Don't expect further replies from me.
> --David Chandler


David,

"If you're going to ask embarrassing questions, I'm taking my ball & going home."

This is the sort of childish behavior that I would expect from a 13 year old.

Not from an adult.

And ESPECIALLY not from a teacher.

And MOST ESPECIALLY not from a science teacher.

This is not how science or engineering works, David. Or are you one of those "scientists" who decides that it's OK to cut corners. That the corrective, self-regulating requirements of the scientific method, such as peer review, are only necessary for others.

This matter, and it's presentation to a generation of young impressionable minds is FAR more important than your delicate ego or my tendencies to make snarky comments to technically careless people.

I would treat some bozo who claimed to have his "can't miss" perpetual motion machine exactly the same way that I've treated you from day one. Politely at first. Suggesting that he consider the fact that there are some other fairly clever people in the world who have looked at this exact problem.

And as that person proceeded to ignore my suggestions, not validate his claims, not provide his raw data, not subject his claims to critical review, then he will have exposed himself as a shyster.

Once he started to claim that my suggestions were a politically motivated, and continued to hawk his snake oil, then all of my concern for his delicate sensibilities would fly out the window.

Especially if he was targeting children.
Especially if the message to his snake oil was "your country is run by, and teeming with, traitors & murderers."

You are making heinous accusations against thousands of people in this country. People who do not deserve that treatment from you.

If you have any honor left, David, you OWE IT to your country to make every effort necessary to make absolutely certain that the analysis upon which you base those accusations are not completely, utterly, fatally flawed.

The owe it to the same country that nurtured you & your family. The same country that allowed you to get a higher education & a degree. The same country that allows you to speak your unmitigated crap in public with zero fear of reprisal.

You owe it to all the people that you've horribly disparaged - NIST, the engineering community, the scientific community, the criminal investigative community, the military community. You even owe it to folks you may despise, such as certain politicians. You owe it to everyone that you've accused.

You owe it to people that you have not accused, such as your fellow citizens, your family, & your students.

Most of all, you owe it to yourself & the tattered remains of your reputation amongst sensible adults.

The conclusion that you need to validate is not within your field of expertise, David. It is not "how fast the building fell". Although publication of your raw position data & the performance of a competent error analysis would go a long way towards rehabilitating your academic reputation in some peoples' eyes. Others are likely, and understandably, to never forgive your carelessness & recklessness.

The conclusion that you need help in validating is "does this collapse time prove, or even suggest, that the building was demolished?"

Get thee to some experienced structural engineers, David.

I told you all of the above over a year ago, David. You didn't listen then. I have zero expectation that you'll listen now.

You'll probably take your ball & go home.

In which case, you will have chosen once again to remain within the ranks of snake oil salesmen.

Because of years of academic sloppiness, you have earned, will receive, and well deserve, all of the disdain that thoughtful, sensible people heap upon those charlatans.

What a shame.


Tom

PS. Had you decided to re-engage the discussion, the entire tone of this note would have been "welcoming you back into the fold". (Yeah, yeah. "Not that you care." I get it.)

I also get that technical people, who know that their ducks are tightly in a row, never fear critical examination.
Click to expand...

I don't expect any significant response.


Tom
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
I got a reply from David Chandler to the note that I sent to him & AE911T.

It was, in entirety:



To which I replied:



His reply:


I felt that this was worthy of a serious response.

My offering:



I don't expect any significant response.


Tom
Click to expand...

You seem smaller somehow T. Perhaps it's the whining. Serious question. do you think Derek J. actually reads this thread ?
 
tfk said:
I don't expect any significant response.
Tom
Click to expand...

Coming from Chandler that's not surprising. He generally doesn't engage in critiques about his work - period - regardless of the merit in critiquing it.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Coming from Chandler that's not surprising. He generally doesn't engage in critiques about his work - period - regardless of the merit in critiquing it.
Click to expand...
He doesn't even allow comments on his youtube videos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom