Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[funk de fino]

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.

I see the bird is back to spreading his lies again despite running from a thread discussing this.

Do you still contend the "higher ups" spread lies about whether the building would collapse? Are they part of the inside job?

 

[DC]

Then simply answer:

3. Was the ARA/NIST FEA done with due diligence?

Help me out on these 3, would ya?

Thanks...

yes

 

[BigAl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk&feature=player_embedded

also, please watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuSAR3dR_Gk

Thanks Al, as well as all others for the replies.

I asked for one name, not two videos. I can't read the citations for your quotes off the video. You did provide sources for your quotes, no?

So far, I'm familiar with those claims and none of the people say anything like "I saw molten steel".

A presentation done to professional standards needs a handout of the slides. If you post a link to yours I'm look to see if you've found a new witness.


None of the temps you report are sufficient to support claims of molten steel.

Note that molten aluminum or lead or anything but molten steel is completely uninteresting and irrelevant for the purposes of claiming CD.

 

[BigAl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk&feature=player_embedded

also, please watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuSAR3dR_Gk

Thanks Al, as well as all others for the replies.

The firemen in the firehouse looking at an aerial photo deserves special mention.

Not only do they not say anything like "I saw", a transcript of their words starts with "you'd see" which sounds second hand. Why did the person that cherry-picked those 13 seconds excluded the preamble and didn't identify the source? Maybe it's because the firemen are calling what someone told them about "rivers"silly. Look at the video. They appear skeptical to me.

Here's the clip. (13 SECONDS)
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2018739670

 

[BigAl]

1. Don't know for sure, but the box cutter wielders did REALLY well if they pulled all that off without on the ground help. Allah was surely smiling on them that day.
2. Explosions were heard, but I didn't hear I firecracker chain as one hears on most, if not all CDs.
3. Yes
4. Don't know, but something very drastic was done to many columns
5. The synchronicity is my main source of heartburn, along with molten steel/iron
6. With the volume of statements positive for molten metal/steel/iron, the two must relate, but I only defer to FEA as an exploratory method for discovering the abuse that WTC 7 could withstand, and where are those contract docs? Where are NIST/ARA's FEA inputs and IGES files and why is that a matter of "national security"?
7. Maybe, but that's well beyond my scope of the presentation I gave last month

You have yet to make a case for the existence of molten steel. Second-hand tellings don't cut it.

 

[Scott Sommers]

The firemen in the firehouse looking at an aerial photo deserves spacial mention.

Not only do they not say anything like "I saw", a transcript of their words starts with "you'd see" which sounds second hand. Why did the person that cherry-picked those 13 seconds excluded the preamble and didn't identify the source? Maybe it's because the firemen are calling what someone told them about "rivers"silly. Look at the video. They appear skeptical to me.

Here's the clip. (13 SECONDS)
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2018739670

You're right. It looks like he's telling a story that someone told him that he thinks is silly. I'd like to see the rest of the clip. Does anyone have it? Is this and Steven Jones' photoshopped picture the only evidence these guys keep throwing up?

 

[RedIbis]

I'll answer it with perfect sincerity: I really don't care.

Of course you do or you wouldn't keep asserting falsehoods. You want to believe that all the ffs on the scene came to these conclusions based on their experience and expertise.

When someone such as myself asserts otherwise, you make the false allegation that I'm suggesting these ffs are unqualified. That's a false choice fallacy and belies your desperation. It's a simple matter, but few ffs came to the conclusion that WTC 7 would collapse on their own.

Presumably, if someone at the OEM knew WTC 7 was going to be demo'd, they would spread word of its imminent collapse to the street to make it seem more plausible.

 

[BigAl]

Of course you do or you wouldn't keep asserting falsehoods. You want to believe that all the ffs on the scene came to these conclusions based on their experience and expertise.

When someone such as myself asserts otherwise, you make the false allegation that I'm suggesting these ffs are unqualified.

Red's post is off-topic on this thread. Could he be looking for attention?

One more time; NYC firemen are trained in the risks of fire in steel structures for their own protection if nothing else.

 

[twinstead]

Presumably, if someone at the OEM knew WTC 7 was going to be demo'd, they would spread word of its imminent collapse to the street to make it seem more plausible.

And presumably, if someone at the OEM knew that the WTC 7 was going to collapse because of fire and damage, they would spread word of its imminent collapse to the street because it's their job.

So what's your point?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

When someone such as myself asserts otherwise, you make the false allegation that I'm suggesting these ffs are unqualified.

A piece of advice, RedIbis, that I'm sure I've given you before: when you tell lies, try not to tell ones that anyone can detect just by scrolling up the thread.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

A piece of advice, RedIbis, that I'm sure I've given you before: when you tell lies, try not to tell ones that anyone can detect just by scrolling up the thread.

Dave

Your childish misrepresentation of my position went like this:

your bizarrely stupid assertion that firemen, whose lives depend on this skill, are completely unable to make a judgement on whether a burning building may collapse without being instructed in detail on what opinion they should hold.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But you admit, surely, that you were suggesting they were unqualified? It's impossible to read your sarcastic response any other way. And since we must presume you're aware of your own mental state, your claim that I made a "false allegation that [RedIbis is] suggesting these ffs are unqualified" is a statement that you made while knowing it to be untrue. Rational people refer to this as a lie. Hence my advice: when lying, try to make it harder to get caught.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

But you admit, surely, that you were suggesting they were unqualified? It's impossible to read your sarcastic response any other way. And since we must presume you're aware of your own mental state, your claim that I made a "false allegation that [RedIbis is] suggesting these ffs are unqualified" is a statement that you made while knowing it to be untrue. Rational people refer to this as a lie. Hence my advice: when lying, try to make it harder to get caught.

Dave

You went from:

firemen, whose lives depend on this skill, are completely unable to make a judgement on whether a burning building may collapse without being instructed in detail on what opinion they should hold

to:

you were suggesting they were unqualified

If you think these two statements are the same and that you are arguing in good faith, you are delusional and any further attempt at discourse would be irrational.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you think these two statements are the same and that you are arguing in good faith, you are delusional and any further attempt at discourse would be irrational.

I freely admit that my statement was an exaggeration of your position for comic effect, which is in fact the only benefit to be derived from discussing this matter with you. It's clear, however, that your statement that "you make the false allegation that I'm suggesting these ffs are unqualified" is a blatant lie on two counts: firstly, by your own assertion, that's not the allegation I made; and secondly, from your own statement, had I in fact made that specific allegation, it would have been an entirely accurate one. Like I said, try a bit harder not to get caught next time you lie.

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

You can hardly blame the guy for these mistakes. He's a little bit out of his field. My advice to Red is to stick to the things he knows the most about. Didn't you tell me you're an expert on the media, or something like that?

 

[RedIbis]

You can hardly blame the guy for these mistakes. He's a little bit out of his field. My advice to Red is to stick to the things he knows the most about. Didn't you tell me you're an expert on the media, or something like that?

Nope.

 

[RedIbis]

I freely admit that my statement was an exaggeration of your position for comic effect, which is in fact the only benefit to be derived from discussing this matter with you. It's clear, however, that your statement that "you make the false allegation that I'm suggesting these ffs are unqualified" is a blatant lie on two counts: firstly, by your own assertion, that's not the allegation I made; and secondly, from your own statement, had I in fact made that specific allegation, it would have been an entirely accurate one. Like I said, try a bit harder not to get caught next time you lie.

Dave

All that's necessary to restate at this point is that you don't care how many of the ffs describe being told of WTC 7's imminent collapse. That's candid of you, so I hope you will avoid suggesting that all, or at least the vast majority, had come to this conclusion on their own.

 

[Dave Rogers]

All that's necessary to restate at this point is that you don't care how many of the ffs describe being told of WTC 7's imminent collapse. That's candid of you, so I hope you will avoid suggesting that all, or at least the vast majority, had come to this conclusion on their own.

I'm perfectly happy not to state things authoritatively as fact that I don't know, or at least believe, to be true. Yet I'm the one arguing against the 'truth' movement. Funny, that.

And yet, when we get to the heart of this, it's as irrelevant as any of your non-claims. You're claiming that none of the firefighters came to this conclusion on their own, and your evidence for this is that some of them were warned by the OEM that the building might collapse; and you're then speculating that the only reason for the OEM to believe that the building might collapse was that they were in on a conspiracy to demolish it using explosives. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that people who had just watched two massive skyscrapers suffer severe impact damage, burn for between one and two hours, then collapse, couldn't possibly be intelligent enough to foresee the possibility that a third massive skyscraper, having just suffered severe impact damage and burned for much longer, might also collapse. The appeal to stupidity is yet another innovative fallacy of the truth movement, and this is a perfect specimen.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

I'm perfectly happy not to state things authoritatively as fact that I don't know, or at least believe, to be true. Yet I'm the one arguing against the 'truth' movement. Funny, that.

And yet, when we get to the heart of this, it's as irrelevant as any of your non-claims. You're claiming that none of the firefighters came to this conclusion on their own, and your evidence for this is that some of them were warned by the OEM that the building might collapse; and you're then speculating that the only reason for the OEM to believe that the building might collapse was that they were in on a conspiracy to demolish it using explosives. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that people who had just watched two massive skyscrapers suffer severe impact damage, burn for between one and two hours, then collapse, couldn't possibly be intelligent enough to foresee the possibility that a third massive skyscraper, having just suffered severe impact damage and burned for much longer, might also collapse. The appeal to stupidity is yet another innovative fallacy of the truth movement, and this is a perfect specimen.

Dave

Let's isolate the wrong:

I never said "none," one of the towers collapsed in less than an hour after being struck, and the ff's intelligence had nothing to do with my description.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let's isolate the wrong:

I never said "none," one of the towers collapsed in less than an hour after being struck, and the ff's intelligence had nothing to do with my description.

Admitted that you never said "none", and that one of the towers burned for a little less than an hour. But your description of the firefighters as unqualified to examine critically the state of the building and the warnings of its collapse is central to the non-argument you're presenting. Having seen two buildings collapse, who would not at least consider the possibility of a third? And therefore, your claim that this is evidence that someone in the OEM must have been in on the conspiracy is groundless.

Dave