• 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

A W Smith said:
Derek Johnson said:
Cmon Derek. Tell us, How many feet was column 79 left unbraced after floors surrounding it collapsed? And do those core columns support the perimeter shell which went into its 2.25 seconds of free fall long after the complete inside of the building collapsed? care to mention the initiation of the east penthouse movement Derek?
Click to expand...

Pleae tell me more about that subpenthouse initiation, because Dr. Kirkpatrick was less than helpful when I tried to get specifics from him. Seems to me that his IGES geometry would be subject to transparancy...

And how did those surrounding floors "collapse". There was a tremendous amount of lateral and diagonal bracing at that location in the building. This too, Dr. Kirkpatrick was mum to answer. But please, indulge me, I'm here to learn all about it.
Click to expand...
 
Derek Johnson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6Uu...layer_embedded

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

Glass. Good one. All those who witnessed glowing red, orange, steel/iron/metal really meant glass. They all goofed. Got it. This keeps getting better and better.
Click to expand...
Dude, what's with the youtube links?

Aren't you the leader of a super-elite group of professional engineers? And you're dumping youtube links? Seriously?

A youtube link can be helpful to support an argument, but you're actually using a youtube video to "prove"... something.

Is this really all you have?
 
Last edited:
Derek Johnson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6Uu...layer_embedded

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

Glass. Good one. All those who witnessed glowing red, orange, steel/iron/metal really meant glass. They all goofed. Got it. This keeps getting better and better.
Click to expand...

"glowing red, orange," isn't "molten". The temps necessary for those colors are found in any ordinary fire.

So far you have yet to provide a name of someone that says anything like "I saw molten steel."
 
Last edited:
Derek Johnson said:
Pleae tell me more about that subpenthouse initiation, because Dr. Kirkpatrick was less than helpful when I tried to get specifics from him. Seems to me that his IGES geometry would be subject to transparancy...

And how did those surrounding floors "collapse". There was a tremendous amount of lateral and diagonal bracing at that location in the building. This too, Dr. Kirkpatrick was mum to answer. But please, indulge me, I'm here to learn all about it.
Click to expand...


WTF is wrong with you? I posted a direct link to the NIST report which shows the girder layout of the initiation floors. You can see plain as day that there is nothing to restrain the west face of the beam connecting 44 to 79 from thermal expansion of the row of girders terminating on the east face of that beam. It doesn't even need to be pushed off its seat. All it has to do is be deflected enough to become eccentric and it will rotate off its seats and collapse. There is even an animation showing the mode of failure of this key connecting beam. Are you being deliberately obtuse to promote an agenda? or are you truly that ignorant? In part seven of your "presentation" you assert that the columns themselves have to fail first , "the bolts. the connections". When that's not true at all.

wtc7floorfailure.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ok, someone messed up the quote function somewhere and it's making this thread difficult to follow. Whoever quotes next, can you make sure you have it right? Thanks.
 
Oystein said:
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?
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XH...83DB2E7EB&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

Where in this presentation did I try to prove, or form a hypothesis? Although, 20+ seeing molten steel/iron/metal seems strange to me. Does this seem strange to you?

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

Tell me, did these people really see molten iron/steel or did they say what they said mistakenly are really they meant something else, but didn't realize their error? If something else, what?

What I can stand on is that the built up columns in this structure would not allow a 100 ft unopposed drop at the acceleration of gravity. Is so, how? NIST does not explain this in any level of detail on their 2008 report. You would think that ARA's finite element survey would support this "walking girder" theory, but no, they attempt to FEA the whole structure and give a half baked "collapse initiation" model (obtained via FOIA) to support tie their FEA to their root cause.

One view of this NIST collapse initiation model is plenty enough to ruin the creds of their efforts. My favorite part is the spinning and floating beams to the right. You can do anything with computer models, but NIST's model renders little, no renders no resemblance to any of the collapse videos. Why? Please explain this.

Full NIST WTC 7 FEA based collapse model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzNOGciZrBY&feature=related

at 7:43

and the NIST WTC 7 FEA based collapse initiation model

at 9:39

Y’all all believe that this collapse initiation model shown in the video (linked above) at 9:39 and the full WTC 7 FEA-based collapse model (7:43) are reasonably accurate, yes or no?
 
Derek Johnson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6Uu...layer_embedded

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

Glass. Good one. All those who witnessed glowing red, orange, steel/iron/metal really meant glass. They all goofed. Got it. This keeps getting better and better.
Click to expand...

Did anyone get close enough to get a sample? What alloy was it? Can they tell weather it's Steel, Aluminum, Copper, EMT pipe, Glass, glowing from over 100 yards away? What kind of school did you go to where submitting youtube links to the professor is appropriate? Is this the new generation of lazy boy learning? Let me give you some advice boy blunder. Transcribe your videos. Convert them into the form of a paper with math, diagrams, text, comments, charts, your thesis if you will. Something you would be proud to hand over in academia. Not a video with a bunch of cheering tweens and twentysomethings in a room filled with twoofs cheering you on. Present it here. THEN we can discuss, point by point. So far all you have presented is incredulity.
 
A W Smith said:
Derek Johnson said:
WTF is wrong with you? I posted a direct link to the NIST report which shows the girder layout of the initiation floors. You can see plain as day that there is nothing to restrain the west face of the beam connecting 44 to 79 from thermal expansion of the row of girders terminating on the east face of that beam. It doesn't even need to be pushed off its seat. All it has to do is be deflected enough to become eccentric and it will rotate off its seats and collapse. There is even an animation showing the mode of failure of this key connecting beam. Are you being deliberately obtuse to promote an agenda? or are you truly that ignorant? In part seven of your "presentation" you assert that the columns themselves have to fail first , "the bolts. the connections". When that's not true at all.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wtc7floorfailure.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

A beam with zero degrees of freedom can thermally expand and "walk off" its support (which is longer that the theoretical amount of expansion, btw)...where has this happened before or since?

Oh, that's right, it hasn't...never mind.

And when has this ever been a "design consideration"?

Oh, that's right, it hasn't...never mind.
Click to expand...
 
Derek Johnson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XH...83DB2E7EB&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

Where in this presentation did I try to prove, or form a hypothesis? Although, 20+ seeing molten steel/iron/metal seems strange to me. Does this seem strange to you?

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

Tell me, did these people really see molten iron/steel or did they say what they said mistakenly are really they meant something else, but didn't realize their error? If something else, what?
Click to expand...

What people? You have yet to give us a name and a source we can fact check.
 
BigAl said:
"glowing red, orange," isn't "molten". The temps necessary for those colors are found in any ordinary fire.

So far you have yet to provide a name of someone that says anything like "I saw molten steel."
Click to expand...

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

So far you have yet to watch me name 15-20 or so in this link posted above. Not all say molten steel, that is true...and I stated what they did.

However, there is more than one such account, in fact, there are many (who are named w/links provided) who specifically said "I saw molten steel." They didn't really see molten steel, correct?

Thanks BigAl

Do not post a link to the same video over and over again. This is considered flooding or spamming. See Rule 6.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Derek Johnson said:
A beam with zero degrees of freedom can thermally expand and "walk off" its support (which is longer that the theoretical amount of expansion, btw)...where has this happened before or since?

Oh, that's right, it hasn't...never mind.

And when has this ever been a "design consideration"?

Oh, that's right, it hasn't...never mind.
Click to expand...
more incredulity. "it hasn't" Very weak Derek. Are you talking about the beam between 44 and 79 "walking off" or the girders terminating into its east side and their thermal expansion? Did you even look at the girder/beam layout? Do you see whats missing of the west face of that connecting beam?
 
Derek Johnson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuSAR3dR_Gk

So far you have yet to watch me name 15-20 or so in this link posted above. Not all say molten steel, that is true...and I stated what they did.

However, there is more than one such account, in fact, there are many (who are named w/links provided) who specifically said "I saw molten steel." They didn't really see molten steel, correct?

Thanks BigAl
Click to expand...

Until you produce such, it's hypothetical.

Don't give me 20. Give me one name, make it your best case.
 
Derek Johnson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuSAR3dR_Gk

So far you have yet to watch me name 15-20 or so in this link posted above.
Click to expand...
Screw the video. Name them here, in writing. Present your case.

Your next post will surely include 15-20 of these witnesses, and all quotes will be linked to a source* with which they can be verified, yes?

*eta: "source" means original source, not a link to some truther web site.
 
Last edited:
Derek Johnson said:
A beam with zero degrees of freedom can thermally expand and "walk off" its support (which is longer that the theoretical amount of expansion, btw)...where has this happened before or since?

Oh, that's right, it hasn't...never mind.

And when has this ever been a "design consideration"?

Oh, that's right, it hasn't...never mind.
Click to expand...
Yes it has.
"Structural Conditions Observed Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted--some as much as three feet--under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places."
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf
 
Derek Johnson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuSAR3dR_Gk

So far you have yet to watch me name 15-20 or so in this link posted above. Not all say molten steel, that is true...and I stated what they did.

However, there is more than one such account, in fact, there are many (who are named w/links provided) who specifically said "I saw molten steel." They didn't really see molten steel, correct?

Thanks BigAl
Click to expand...

What does it matter WHAT material they think they saw. Did they sample it? How could they have known it was steel and not something else molten? Unless you produce solidified pools of molten steel in the locations where it was "seen" you have nothing. Is that clear to you? You're a welder. How long does the bead remain molten when you remove the arc? Do you not understand that what they saw days later COULD NOT HAVE BEEN molten steel?
 
Last edited:
Derek Johnson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XH...83DB2E7EB&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

Where in this presentation did I try to prove, or form a hypothesis? Although, 20+ seeing molten steel/iron/metal seems strange to me. Does this seem strange to you?
...
Click to expand...


I wasn't referring to your presentation at all. I asked you directly: What is your hypothesis?

Is it fair to say that you have NO hypothesis whatsover? You offered none in your presentation, you offered none in your previous reply.

Is it fair to say that,in the world of science, that when you have NO hypothesis whatsover, you can't explain anything whatsoever?


Do you realize how utterly you have failed yet?


You bring up anecdotal (and mostly failed) references to alleged molten steel - and yet you offer not the slightest clue whatsoever - none! nothing! zilch! - what this supposed molten steel has to do with the collapse?

Isn't that - pathetic??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom