• 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

Here we go again discussing semantics instead of the actual issue, RedIbis. I'm amazed that all the debates you enter in to, red, wind up like this.
 
RedIbis, do you think that you are better qualified to judge the situation than firefighters who were on the scene?

(I predict that RedIbis, as usual, will not be answering this question.)
 
Still chirpin and burpin

can the dirty lying bird tell us if it was the OEM or the fire department who put a transit on the building and determined that it was in danger of collapse?
 
RedIbis said:
Dave must feel relief that the calvary has finally arrived.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Your logical fallacies and vapid speculations posted on an obscure Internet forum were about to goad the Obama administration into sponsoring the new investigation you've always wanted, but justice will be averted now that there are a few more people pointing out that your arguments have no substance. It was a close thing, but we just about got away with it... this time...

Dave
 
I thought the best part of Derek's show was the introduction. The way that kid introduced him like a rock star and the you couldn't hear any applause was classic. I might have to save a copy of that just that for kicks. :D
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even if true, so what?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
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:
Click to expand...
Molten/melted steel is often reported in fires. Nothing is really that shocking about the claims. During the Oakland fires in 1991 98% of the structures were claimed to have melted steel. Yet no one claims inside job. This thread is all LONG debunked garbage. Again nothing new. But I do enjoy reading tfk's posts from time to time.

http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/TheLessonsOfOakland.pdf
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
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.
Click to expand...

3. Metaphorical or hyperbolic use of the word "molten" when describing any piece of bent steel found in a fire.
 
tfk said:
My reply to Derek:

I've sent him a note and asked him to read my reply here.




I already responded to this in the link I sent you. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5487304
Did you not read it?

I took the time to make some suggestion for you to get this issue answered for you by acknowledged, neutral experts. Did you bother to follow, or even read those suggestions?

Or am I completely wasting my time here?



No, they did not. They fell, not at a "pure" (i.e., constant) acceleration.
They did not fall "at free fall acceleration".

You don't understand about "buckling" failures.

I already responded to this in the link I sent you. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5487304

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



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

There were ZERO "river of molten metal". This AIN'T "Ghostbusters". WHERE did the solidified rivers of metal go to, Derek?

I explained this in my previous post. Did you bother to read that? Or was it a complete waste of my time?



Your expert is Dr. Jonathan Barnett.

You do realize, don't you, that the very expert, whose words your are attempting - and failing - to twist, thinks that your stance is utter rubbish.

You do realize, don't you, that Dr. Barnett was the lead author on the FEMA's BPAT on buildings 4, 5 & 6?

And that with Ronald Biederman and Richard Sisson, wrote the famous paper that, contrary to your presentation, does NOT say that any steel "evaporated". Although a cursory, amateur reading of that paper might conclude that it says that steel melted, that is also not true.
Click to expand...
TFK is correct. Having e-mailed Barnett many years ago I confirmed he was indeed talking about the same steel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: XXXXXXXXXXX
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:57 PM
> To: Barnett, Jonathan Ross
> Subject: Question about building 7 steel?
>
> Dear Mr. Barnett,
>
> I wanted to double check that these links were the "partly evaporated"
> steel you referred to within your
> 2001 interview. Also what was your guestimate as to the source of the
> sulfur within the samples.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Scott Sleeper
>
>
>
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
> http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html



- "Barnett, Jonathan Ross" <XXXXXXXX> wrote:

> These are the correct links. Possible sources of enough sulfer:
>
> -Heating oil (extr high probability)
> -Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust (extr high
> probability) -environmental sources such as acid rain (high)
>
> Hope this helps! Bottom line is that this is an area that needs
> further study
>
> Dr. Jonathan R. Barnett, Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, WPI
> XXXXXXX
> XXX XXX XXXX AIM:
> XXXXXX, Yahoo: XXXXXXX, MSN: XXXXXXXXXX
 
Stundie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RedIbis said:
Dave must feel relief that the calvary has finally arrived.
Click to expand...
Our resident Strunk & White master made the biggest goof of 'em all.

I think you mean cavalry. Calvary is the place Jesus was crucified.

:dl: :dl: :dl:
 
WTC7 Demo Button on Larry's Desk Placed Next to Button That Opens And Closes Curtains

Originally Posted by Oystein

You seem to suggest the following:
<snip>
3. Lots of molten steel a long time after the collapse were a direct result of the demolition method used
<snip>
Click to expand...


Derek Johnson said:
<snip>
3. Yes
Click to expand...


1. Thermite burns completely and for a short period of time.

2. The underground fires that continued for weeks is proof these fires were not thermite burning.

3. The fires that continued for weeks were the combustible office contents such as plastics from carpets, fabrics, furniture, electrical wiring and light fixture lenses, vinyl wallcovering, furniture , open landscape partitions, computers, copiers; paper and wood. (600 -1000 C underground).

4. Fires engulfed the initial collapse floors. The precollapse fires at WTC1,2 and 7 hour WTC7 would have melted the wiring and fuses required to set off, by the time of collapse, the thermite charges, preventing detonation. Unburned thermite doesn’t ignite at temperatures under 2200 C, far above underground fires temperatures.
http://www.search.com/reference/Thermite

5. The “WTC Meteorite” that truthers claim is melted steel is actually compressed building materials, not burnt melted steel. We know this because papers and carpet are sticking out of this “meteor” and the exposed surface is jagged, not melted..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swH1WaIMkNc

6. The structural engineers combing through Fresh Kills for interesting steel members to save for analysis did not find signs of melted steel or demolition.

Therefore, Thermite was not a component in purported CD before the collapse nor burned for weeks after the collapse.
.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

You seem to suggest the following:
1. It was an intentional destruction
2. Explosives were not used
3. 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:
4. What method was used?
5. How does that method explain the apparent synchronicity of the collapse?
6. How does that method explain the alleged pools of molten steel?
7. 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, ...?
Click to expand...



Derek Johnson said:
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
Click to expand...

1. Do I hear irony (i.e., no argument at all), incredulity (i.e., no argument at all), or is this supposed to be an argument and I missed it? If so, please elaborate!
2. This remains vague and unclear. Are you saying that explosions of unknown provenience, unusually timed, were part of a CD scenario, or can we rule them out and state that no explosives were used to CD the building? Do you have any opinion at all on the matter?
3. Ok. So somehow, something released such a huge amount of energy at the moment of collapse initiation that such enormous amounts of steel were plain molten that significant amounts of it did not cool below melting point for days or weeks, or the collapse initiation method triggered a fire of a kind (hot! high energy release!) that never happens in ordinary trash heaps, and that burned for days and weeks? Ok, noted.

4. Ok. I note: You do not have a hypothesis, and you don't have a method, to explain anything at all.
5. Wait! In 4. you admitted to knowing nothing about any method whatsoever! How can this lack og hypothesis explain anything? Please note that I specifically asked for an explanation. You know, science? Theory explains observations - that kind of explanation?
6. Ah! You are saying, if coincidence is noticed and reported by many, this coincidence becomes causation? Wow!
7. Sure. You did not present any hypothesis at all as to the method, therefore there is nothing that can be falsified.

Do you realize that you have, in fact, nothing?
 
Derek Johnson said:
Oystein said:
Would 81 W14 x 740 columns with another 700 lb/ft or so of welded double flange to flange A36 built up offering no collapse resistance for 100 feet or 2.25 seconds maybe have something to do with it?
Click to expand...

No. Read the NIST report.
You are aware that a good portion of the core columns must have been severed several seconds before the fassade even started to fall, right?
What have you learned in your college years about the importance of lateral support?
Click to expand...
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because I typo'ed "foreman" for "fireman". Red, please re-read with "foremen" replaced by "firemen", and my apologies for that minor error.

Dave
Click to expand...
Wow, RedIbis really thinks there's a rank called "foreman" in the FDNY! :p
 
A W Smith said:
Here's an interesting video especially at 1 minute 10 seconds, when making up a long unsuported length of 900#per lf extra heavy column

Click to expand...
They cut it right before the s00per-nan0-thermite paint is applied!1!!!1111!!!1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom