• 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

While I agree with the general comment....I don't agree that the collapse mechanisms are freshman level physics.....very few freshman would be able to read and understand bazants paper.

I've read the paper several times and I wouldn't call it trivial.



Usually there is 2-3 semesters of undergrad physics courses and mathematics before an ME takes statics and dynamics.
Although I'm not sure if MEs have to take the 3rd physics course....the ones I know did not...

You are exactly right that physics, calculus and differential equations need to be taken before statics and dynamics. And then statics needs to be taken before dynamics.

My mechanical engineering curriculum had a third physics course. They were three 3 credit courses though and some curriculums other than the electrical engineering curriculums might do two 4 credit courses.

Statics and dynamics are not taught in freshman year of any engineering curriculum I know of.
 
Last edited:
I took advanced standing in statics but decided to take dynamics for a refresher. Both were first year classes. I think it depends on how the cirriculmn is broken up. Materials science is offered in second year.

There's certainly not much presented in the paper that can't be understood by a freshman. I suppose if you haven't learned any dynamics you might be at a disadvantage, but you should be able to catch on to what Bazant is doing IMHO.
 
I've seen irrelevant topics before, but this one may take the cake...

But I guess this thread is dead anyway. Derek Johnson has decided to continue to sell his nonsense. Because he doesn't have the time (or initiative) to bother...

(Lame...)

So, my piece on this.

Statics and dynamics are generally taught sophomore year. (As I've already conceded. So, if CE wants to chalk this up as a big win for the truther team, be my guest. Your wins are so few & far between, far be it from me to deny you this one.)

I confess that I said that a student could understand it with freshman level engineering education... and in reality it would probably take a mediocre student until the sophomore year.

And I have to concede one more thing as well. This is probably one of the strongest, most robust proofs of "... inside job ..!" the twoofs have. Way to go, CE?
___

However, before you get too giddy, let's take a little closer look. Let's look at what if really required.

There are two pieces of knowledge required to understand the fall of the walls of WTC7. The first is freshman year calculus.

Specifically, one would have to know how to integrate, twice, the exponential function given by NIST that describes the height vs time graph. With his student version of Mathematica, my girlfriend's 16 year old senior high school student can do that. And he knows what the processes of differentiation & integration mean. (While not yet "mission-critical" reliable. (Then again, look at Tony's track record...!)

As soon as one did that, you'd see that the drop is not a free fall. That, in fact, it looks very little like a free fall.

Here's the class at my old alma mater:

1XXX courses generally taken freshman year.

Cornell Engineering Handbook said:
MATH 1910 Calculus for Engineers (MQR)

Fall, spring, summer. Prerequisite: three years high school mathematics including trigonometry and logarithms and at least one course in differential and integral calculus. Due to an overlap in content, students will receive credit for only one course in the following group: MATH 1910, MATH 1120, MATH 1220.

Essentially a second course in calculus. Topics include techniques of integration, finding areas and volumes by integration, exponential growth, partial fractions, infinite sequences and series, and power series.


The second course of study is an introductory course in structures. In essence, statics is all that's necessary to understand why the wall (not the building) collapsed.

Note well that I said "understand". Not "figure out". Those are two entirely different tasks.

This is also a freshman class. But it is an introductory class.

Cornell Engineering Handbook said:
Modern Structures (CEE1160) for both civil & mechanical engineering students.

Introduction to structural engineering in the 21st century... Using case studies of famous structures, students learn to identify different structural forms and understand how various forms carry load—using principles of statics, mechanics, and material behavior. ... Case studies of failures are used to explain how structures fail in earthquakes and other extreme events, and students are introduced to analytical and experimental approaches ... to quantifying loads on structures subjected to extreme events. Types of structures considered include skyscrapers, bridges, aircraft, and underground structures.

Who'd like to wager that they discuss the WTC collapses.
___

Here's the standard Engineering Dynamics, 2XXX = sophomore year.

Cornell Engineering Handbook said:
ENGRD 2030 Dynamics (also TAM 2030)

Newtonian dynamics of a particle, systems of particles, a rigid body. Kinematics, motion relative to a moving frame. Impulse, momentum, angular momentum, energy. Rigid-body kinematics, angular velocity, moment of momentum, the inertia tensor. Euler equations, the gyroscope. Laboratory experiments demonstrate basic principles of dynamics.
___

And, finally, they also have some courses for high-achieving younger students... like this one for junior & senior high-school students.

This isn't directly aimed at structures or calculus, but it shows that, for students that know what they want early & show promise, educators open doors wide to welcome them.

Cornell Engineering Handbook said:
ENGRG 1060 Exploration in Engineering Seminar

Summer. Designed for junior and senior high-school students.

Introduction to several engineering fields, such as bioengineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, computer science, earth sciences, electrical and computer engineering, engineering physics, materials science, mechanical engineering, and operations research. Hands-on experience in weekly labs, as well as design projects to introduce concepts of the engineering design process.
___

Last comment. In the early 1980s, I taught a class called Engineering Dynamics at Palomar College in San Marcos, CA (just north of San Diego).

I had 17 students. 14 (IIRC) were sophomores, 1 was a junior, and 2 were freshmen who had placed out of a couple freshman level courses. And were well on their way to graduating in 3 years.
___

There is a wide spectrum of interest, hard work & achievement. The really good teachers will nurture their good students, and challenge them with all that the students can handle.

The comment that "they'd never let freshmen close to dynamics" was ludicrous.


Tom
 
I typed two sentences. You made a big deal out of it including posting my PM. I hit right at the heart of it. Boom.

That guy Derek is certainly well advised to spend his time with his family instead of wasting it here.
 
I typed two sentences. You made a big deal out of it including posting my PM. I hit right at the heart of it. Boom.

That guy Derek is certainly well advised to spend his time with his family instead of wasting it here.
That is true since he has the same evidence to support his ideas on 911 as you do; zero. Good advice you should have taken years ago.

If he had evidence to support Gage's delusions, he would be a Pulitzer Prize winner since Gage's and all the other so called leaders are too busy spreading moronic lies to apply for the Pulitzer Prize they can't earn anyway. So Derek needs to take his evidence to earn a prize. not sure what you do with zero evidence but it has not stopped you from supporting 911 truth with hearsay and failed opinions. good advice
 
I took advanced standing in statics but decided to take dynamics for a refresher. Both were first year classes. I think it depends on how the cirriculmn is broken up. Materials science is offered in second year.

There's certainly not much presented in the paper that can't be understood by a freshman. I suppose if you haven't learned any dynamics you might be at a disadvantage, but you should be able to catch on to what Bazant is doing IMHO.

Look.....not to derail the thread but I find your last comment to be inaccurate.

Freshman calculus and physics is mainly canned problems and solutions...as it should be.

The first two physics courses that cover basic Newtonian mechanics (with little calculus) and then some circuit theory and basic electrostatics, magnetostatics, and then a bit of electrodynamics toward the end are just a basic overview of these principles.

The paper "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" by Bazant, Greening, Le, and Benson would be challenging to most freshman starting on page 4 with the very first equation of motion..(not to mention the development of the other 32 equations in that paper).

The basic principles aren't that difficult I agree....but the development of the equations and reasoning is not something most freshman are familiar with.

I do agree with Tom's last post though...the point is hardly relevant to the bigger picture of why the truthers do not have science or engineering on their side. I'm not arguing just to argue.....it's just that if I see something I find inaccurate on either side and no one else chimes in, then I will.

But this is all really a side show to the bigger issue....Derek can not defend his position against someone like Tom.

Has Derek ever said EXACTLY what he found to be "wrong" with the FEA performed by NIST or others? I've heard him whine about it but I've never seen him present any good reasons for his complaint.

***Edited to add: I'm sure there are exceptions to this among freshman, this is just from my experience for the last 10 years or so.....if anyone wants to argue this further I'm content to let them have the last word since it really doesn't matter much to me beyond a few posts on the topic.***
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XH...83DB2E7EB&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

Hi Tom,

Good news! You're featured in this presentation, just click on the link above! There were quite a few engineers there, and your ideas...molten tin, lead & aluminum theories were not shared by any of them.

Btw, remember this?

Tom, to Derek:

"ROUGHLY:
1/3rd of everything that everyone tells you will be simply, utterly wrong. Even coming from "reliable" sources.
("2 + 2 = 373" level of wrong.)

1/3rd will be correct, but will be irrelevant & misleading to the specific topic under discussion. For example, it will have nothing to do with what you asked the person.
(Q: "How hot was it?" A: "Steel melts at ~2500°F.")

1/3rd will be both correct and relevant to what you are discussing.

You'll learn to calibrate people & their credibility. Defend your own credibility like it's the single most valuable thing that you own. Because it is."


or this?

"I know that NONE of those folks have the expertise to distinguish molten aluminum, from molten lead, tin or steel. A TRAINED METALLURGIST would have extraordinary difficulty doing so visually. Because they were NOT 99% pure alloys."

or this?

"There was little or no molten steel. There was likely molten tin, lead & aluminum."

or this?

"None of these people have any expertise in distinguishing molten steel from other metals."

Hmm? I do, and it earned you time in a presentation I gave recently in Austin. I did use your points to scrub my mistakes from last time. Thank you sir.
 
Last edited:
Come on derek, what do you call someone who quietly molests steel columns?
a metalophile? how do they do it?
 
Would Derek be the first to hit upon the idea that the smartest way to CD a building would be to attack the weakest members - bolts and welds?

Or why do real demolition experts still use INSANELY LOUD EXPLOSIVE CHARGES to cause structural failure and a gravity-driven progressive collapse?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XH...83DB2E7EB&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

Hi Tom,

Good news! You're featured in this presentation, just click on the link above! There were quite a few engineers there, and your ideas...molten tin, lead & aluminum theories were not shared by any of them.

Sorry, but I baled out half way through the second segment having seen nothing that showed any indication that it was a relevant technical presentation by an engineer and no clue as to how long it would take to get to anything that would make this presentation any different from any other AE911 boilerplate.

One piece of advise to Derek is that he should always respect the time of the audience and get to the point.
 
Come on derek, what do you call someone who quietly molests steel columns?
a metalophile? how do they do it?

LOL! I suspect metaphiles and general metalphilia in and around WTC 7.

How do such strong built up columns become so vulnerable?
 
Would Derek be the first to hit upon the idea that the smartest way to CD a building would be to attack the weakest members - bolts and welds?

Or why do real demolition experts still use INSANELY LOUD EXPLOSIVE CHARGES to cause structural failure and a gravity-driven progressive collapse?

So, if no LOUD EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, INSANELY LOUD EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, then everything is fine. Got it.

Nevermind that the 1/2 billion pound building fell at the acceleration of gravity for 100 ft....that's normal. Happens all the time, especially when there is an "office fire" and a "walking girder" between column 79 and column 44.

And the molten metal wasn't really molten steel, not really there at all, and those silly fire fighters (among others) were just plain mistaken, right?
 
Sorry, but I baled out half way through the second segment having seen nothing that showed any indication that it was a relevant technical presentation by an engineer and no clue as to how long it would take to get to anything that would make this presentation any different from any other AE911 boilerplate.

One piece of advise to Derek is that he should always respect the time of the audience and get to the point.

BigAl:

Sorry you didn't like the presentation. You bailed out at the wrong time, because half way throught the second segment is where it takes off. If you would have hung on a bit more, you would have heard about my communication with members of this amazing forum....TFK.

Tom TFK, molten Al, Tin, Lead...Tom?
 
BigAl:

Sorry you didn't like the presentation. You bailed out at the wrong time, because half way throught the second segment is where it takes off. If you would have hung on a bit more, you would have heard about my communication with members of this amazing forum....TFK.

Tom TFK, molten Al, Tin, Lead...Tom?

What was seen coming out of one of three towers was most certainly AL and possibly lead, both of which melt in an ordinary trash fire which is what WTC was. For the sake of discussion, we can agree to posit molten AL in the pile for as long as the fires lasted and it doesn't help your case for controlled demolition in any way.

As a young engineer you need to learn to respect the time of your listeners and keep it short, relevant.
 
This October will be my first attempt. TBPE isn't generous with work experience if not DIRECTLY under the supervision of a PE.

Thanks for asking.

Did you watch the presentation then?

Most state boards are not very flexible about work experience, and are less-so about education. I have some friends without degrees (but many years experience) who can't even take the EIT in most states, although California lets you appeal to the board for a waiver of the EIT if you have substantially more experience than they require.

Nope, haven't watched the presentation. What are the salient points?
 
And the molten metal wasn't really molten steel, not really there at all, and those silly fire fighters (among others) were just plain mistaken, right?

Name one person that says they saw any molten metal on the pile first-hand and we can then discuss how they knew what kind of metal it was.

I know of no fireman that says anything like "I saw ..."
 
And the molten metal wasn't really molten steel, not really there at all, and those silly fire fighters (among others) were just plain mistaken, right?

How would a firemen know if it was molten steel? Did they take samples and have them analyzed? If not, there is zero evidence to call it "steel". As others have point out there would have been tons and tons of other metals with much lower melting points in the towers when they collapsed.

And even if it was steel they had seen that may simply been a result of building a "furnace" out of a 1000ft high building and having it burn for weeks. I would not bet on what temperatures that may have arisen in hot spots without replicating the conditions.

BTW I am a Mech. Engineer with 27 years experience :D
 
So, if no LOUD EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, INSANELY LOUD EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, then everything is fine. Got it.

Nevermind that the 1/2 billion pound building fell at the acceleration of gravity for 100 ft....that's normal. Happens all the time, especially when there is an "office fire" and a "walking girder" between column 79 and column 44.

And the molten metal wasn't really molten steel, not really there at all, and those silly fire fighters (among others) were just plain mistaken, right?

Written language lacks some of the nuances of spoken, so I might be mistaken if I hear a tone reminiscent of ... condecension? Mockery? Am I wrong? I hope so. because that would not be the way to construct a valid and convincing argument, would it?


I am quite serious: Real demolition experts use explosives to demolish buildings because of the following reasons:
- They can be timed very precisely
- They are effective in terms of applying their stored chemical energy to effect the desired severances
- They have experience with that stuff

You seem to suggest the following:
- It was an intentional destruction
- Explosives were not used
- Lots of molten steel a long time after the collapse were a direct result of the demolition method used
Is that a fair description of your proto-hypothesis?

Then I would like to learn what you hypothesis is:
- What method was used?
- How does that method explain the apparent synchronicity of the collapse?
- How does that method explain the alleged pools of molten steel?
- Can this method be reconciled with all the other observattione we have about the incident, such as fire chiefs predicting collapse, no sounds, uncontrolled fires on many floors, ...?
 

Back
Top Bottom