Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Scott Sommers]

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?

I'm a little confused. I'm not an engineer, but in the video (1:14), you introduce your as the "Central Texas chapter of professional engineers president". I can't understand this. How is this possible without being a 'professional engineer'? And what exactly is this organization? Do they have a website? I could find no reference to a central Texas chapter of the TBPE. But I'm sure this is all just my carelessness and lack of knowledge.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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?

Aside from the hyperbolic and well-poisoning word "silly", this statement is more correct than Mr. Johnson is giving it credit for:

1. No molten steel was ever reported as being recovered. There was some molten aluminum recovered, and it was in fact put on display at the Tribute WTC Visitor Center at one time. But I've yet to see any similar molten and recooled steel pieces even testified about, let alone recovered. If you know of any, let us know.
2. In the case of the main towers, steel from the collapse initiation zone was recovered, and all of it shows that mechanical force, not melting, was the cause of the failures in that zone (see NCSTAR 1-3C for further information).

On top of all of that, seeing molten anything in the debris pile is not proof of metals having been molten within the towers themselves prior to collapse. The steel and any other metals present were exposed to far harsher conditions for far longer in the debris piles than they would've been in the standing towers. Yet, for some odd reason, conspiracy peddlers want to tie in molten fill-in-the-blank in those debris piles with conditions in the towers. That's leaping to a conclusion, especially given the findings in NCSTAR 1-3C as well as the lack of sound evidence from the truther side. All we have is testimonies about molten steel, which ignores the fact that

1. None of the observed "molten" flows was ever actually tested to establish that it was in fact steel instead of any of the other possible metals available in abundance in the towers, and
2. Off the cuff observations to begin with, not formal, rigorously supported fact.

People here are well aware of the witnesses statements regarding what they thought was molten steel. But we are also aware of the facts above.

Again, as I said in the other thread:

• http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
• http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/groundzerocleanup,freshkillssortingopera

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

In my school one only needed calc I&II for statics and dynamics. During the vibrations portion of the class we were pretty much assumed to learn the necessary DiffEQ on our own.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Aside from the hyperbolic and well-poisoning word "silly", this statement is more correct than Mr. Johnson is giving it credit for:

1. No molten steel was ever reported as being recovered. There was some molten aluminum recovered, and it was in fact put on display at the Tribute WTC Visitor Center at one time. But I've yet to see any similar molten and recooled steel pieces even testified about, let alone recovered. If you know of any, let us know.
2. In the case of the main towers, steel from the collapse initiation zone was recovered, and all of it shows that mechanical force, not melting, was the cause of the failures in that zone (see NCSTAR 1-3C for further information).

On top of all of that, seeing molten anything in the debris pile is not proof of metals having been molten within the towers themselves prior to collapse. The steel and any other metals present were exposed to far harsher conditions for far longer in the debris piles than they would've been in the standing towers. Yet, for some odd reason, conspiracy peddlers want to tie in molten fill-in-the-blank in those debris piles with conditions in the towers. That's leaping to a conclusion, especially given the findings in NCSTAR 1-3C as well as the lack of sound evidence from the truther side. All we have is testimonies about molten steel, which ignores the fact that

1. None of the observed "molten" flows was ever actually tested to establish that it was in fact steel instead of any of the other possible metals available in abundance in the towers, and
2. Off the cuff observations to begin with, not formal, rigorously supported fact.

People here are well aware of the witnesses statements regarding what they thought was molten steel. But we are also aware of the facts above.

Again, as I said in the other thread:

• http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
• http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/groundzerocleanup,freshkillssortingopera

Don't forget that they simultaneously say that no steel got above 250C and that the steel was molten.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

I do have to agree a little with Derek here......if there was only one or two key columns that needed to be removed it may be "possible" to precut them enough so that localized heat from a chemical reaction would reduce the strength enough to get them to fail. However given the evidence from the NYFD that the building had been heavily damaged by WTC1, on fire for hours and visibly out of alignment before the collapse, there is no reason to suspect foul play. To accuse dozens of firemen of being complicit in the murders of hundreds of their colleagues and thousands of others is ludicrous.

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.

It happened the one and only time such conditions have existed. ie it happened 100% of the times that a building of slightly unusual design was damaged by the collapse of a 1000 neighboring building and allowed to burn for hours. The Data set of such incidents is so small that one cannot reasonably conclude that the collapse of any of the WTC buildings was improbable in any way.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Don't forget that they simultaneously say that no steel got about 250C and that the steel was molten.

Yeah, I know. In their endless quest to prove that NIST was just wrong somehow, truthers all too often try to have it both ways. Which leads to some pretty silly contradictions. But you're right: They can't on the one hand make their claim about NIST's temperature determinations (which, as you and I know all too well are waaaaaay misrepresented) and at the same time claim molten steel.

 

[Oystein]

I do have to agree a little with Derek here......if there was only one or two key columns that needed to be removed it may be "possible" to precut them enough so that localized heat from a chemical reaction would reduce the strength enough to get them to fail...

This fails to acknowledge the very reason why WTC7 is seen as the smoking gun in the first place: That CTers can't imagine that a single-pont failure could trigger a collapse, let alone the CD-like global and near-simultaneous collapse that we all know from videos.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

Firefighter's are not qualified to look at some type of molten metal and decipher it's makeup.

 

[twinstead]

I'm always amazed at this whole "molten steel" thing every time it comes up. Some day I'm actually going to hear a good reason how, even if it were molten steel, it would be indicative of an "inside job".

 

[RedIbis]

Firefighter's are not qualified to look at some type of molten metal and decipher it's makeup.

But they are qualified to look at a bldg with a few scattered fires and determine it's going to collapse. Got it.

 

[Scott Sommers]

But they are qualified to look at a bldg with a few scattered fires and determine it's going to collapse. Got it.

Where did you read this? The Washington Post...I mean Times...I mean Post. It doesn't matter anyway. They're the same thing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But they are qualified to look at a bldg with a few scattered fires and determine it's going to collapse. Got it.

What an extraordinarily stupid piece of irony. Do you understand what foremen actually do? Since part of their job is to determine whether a fire can safely be fought, assessing whether a burning building is likely to collapse is a much more crucial skill than visual metallurgical analysis.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

What an extraordinarily stupid piece of irony. Do you understand what foremen actually do? Since part of their job is to determine whether a fire can safely be fought, assessing whether a burning building is likely to collapse is a much more crucial skill than visual metallurgical analysis.

Dave

Are all firemen foremen? No, of course not. And it wasn't these foremen who came to this conclusion. It was the OEM and you know that.

 

[tsig]

I'm always amazed at this whole "molten steel" thing every time it comes up. Some day I'm actually going to hear a good reason how, even if it were molten steel, it would be indicative of an "inside job".

I've always wondered how you can have a pool of molten steel under other steel. Wouldn't all the steel melt? It would seem to be like trying to build an ice bridge above water.

 

[Bell]

Are all firemen foremen? No, of course not. And it wasn't these foremen who came to this conclusion. It was the OEM and you know that.

Then why the hell did you bring it up

But they are qualified to look at a bldg with a few scattered fires and determine it's going to collapse. Got it.

 

[RedIbis]

Then why the hell did you bring it up

Because posters here have often tried to assert that qualified ffs on the scene had determined that the bldg was about to collapse, but this is false. As has been proven over and over again, word of WTC 7's imminent collapse came from the OEM.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Then why the hell did you bring it up

Because I typo'ed "foreman" for "fireman". Red, please re-read with "foremen" replaced by "firemen", and my apologies for that minor error.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because posters here have often tried to assert that qualified ffs on the scene had determined that the bldg was about to collapse, but this is false. As has been proven over and over again, word of WTC 7's imminent collapse came from the OEM.

Except for the testimony of firefighters who commented that they could see apparent structural movement, hear noises coming from the structure of the building, and felt it unsafe to go inside it because of the danger of collapse. But feel free to ignore any such testimony if it doesn't support your argument; we'll all understand.

Dave

 

[sylvan8798]

I've always wondered how you can have a pool of molten steel under other steel. Wouldn't all the steel melt? It would seem to be like trying to build an ice bridge above water.

Not the best analogy, but we get what you are trying to say:



Niagara with the ice bridge over the river, still running underneath.

 

[RedIbis]

Except for the testimony of firefighters who commented that they could see apparent structural movement, hear noises coming from the structure of the building, and felt it unsafe to go inside it because of the danger of collapse. But feel free to ignore any such testimony if it doesn't support your argument; we'll all understand.

Dave

And what percentage of those ffs said that they were told the bldg would collapse? I know you won't answer this with sincerity since it would destroy your premise.