• 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

WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL! Start with the source he thought best to single out in his presentation against TFK's posts; Allison Geyh who is a public health investigator repeating claims of molten steel she never saw. LOL! :eye-poppi

"I personally saw open fires, glowing and twisted I-beams. I was told, but do not remember by whom, that the workers were finding molten steel."
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
His presentation is just a cut and paste from truther websites.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Derek, please stop link-spamming your video presentation.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. The joker spammed my e-mail with that stupid video, and basically identical messages, four times over a 13-day period. And I've never even heard of the guy.

The less one has, the more one must repeat it -- we see this replayed over and over again in the Truth Movement. Of course, he has some way yet to go to catch up with the all-time spam kings, Craig and Waldo... :rolleyes:
 
I'm confused about all of this. What exactly is the claim? Is the claim that something strange happened on 911? Is the claim that engineers and scientists who investigated the collapse of the WTC buildings did not explain everything? I am not an engineer or construction specialist, but I would not find either of these surprising.

Is there a claim that substantial evidence points to WTC buildings collapsing from a controlled demolition? Are you saying a large number of qualified people understand this to be the case?

There have been hundreds of scientific papers and related books written on technical aspects of 911. Outside of a journal established by Steven Jones for the sole purpose of publishing these papers, there is no mention of controlled demolition. In the numerous civil engineering,
steel structure design and high-rise construction, or thermite there is no mention of this controlled demolition. There is no mention of this in the thousands of related courses taught in engineering programs throughout the USA and the world.

Seriously Derek, if I am wrong and you have textbooks used in your classes or have had professors who talk about the controlled demolition of the WTC in class, let me know so I can verify the claim.

There is no discussion of this controlled demolition going on in the professional associations that oversee the training and qualification of the various types of construction professionals. There have been no papers at the conferences of these various associations. And as I have said, members of these associations and professions have been conspicuously absent from any public demonstration connected to these ideas.

So we have a 26-year-old welder from central Texas posting Youtube videos on the JREF. Pardon me for saying the obvious, but who cares? Your friends may think this is cool and it may make you a leader in what ever version of Christianity you practice, but you can't possibly think your arguments have any merit. Or are you also suggesting that the entire world of professional construction engineering is somehow terrified or paid into silence?
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
I'm confused about all of this. What exactly is the claim? Is the claim that something strange happened on 911? Is the claim that engineers and scientists who investigated the collapse of the WTC buildings did not explain everything? I am not an engineer or construction specialist, but I would not find either of these surprising.
Click to expand...
In typical truther fashion, he doesn't state his hypothesis. We've seen the no-claimer cowards here several times. You know, those people who think that playing the "they can't debunk the claim I didn't make" card gives them the logical highground. Here he is bragging about it.
Derek Johnson said:
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...
George Bush put thermite in the towers and that's what made them collapse, not the impacts and fires. Same ****. Different idiot.
 
apathoid said:
I could care less about the rest of your tripe, but this stood out to me:



Personally, I'd like to think you are bending the truth here(something we've seen repeatedly here over the years), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What are you and your truther engineer buddies doing besides making youtube videos and posting on message boards? Wouldn't publishing in a respected engineering journal, say the Journal Of Engineering Mechanics be a better way to challenge the "Official Story"? Makes it seem like you are preaching to the choir.



A good a place as any to start with your paper. Good luck, I can't wait to read it...but I won't hold my breath.

Also, any thoughts on why AE911 and their "thousands of architects and engineers" can't get published either? Bushco in charge of the ASCE/ASME now?
Click to expand...

Would transparancy with NIST's subcontracted FEA work put all of this to rest?

So why not? I'm not asking for too much am I?
 
Derek Johnson said:
Would transparancy with NIST's subcontracted FEA work put all of this to rest?
Click to expand...


No.

So why not?
Click to expand...


Judging by history, any transparency by any government agency is faced with either denial, or a quick shift of the goalposts by various CTists.

I'm not asking for too much am I?
Click to expand...


I would say all you are doing is asking. I have asked several times how you came to your conclusions, but have received nothing but silence in return. And no, your videos do not address the math or reasoning behind your assertions, limited FEA analysis be damned, so don't bother linking again in response to this post.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
I'm confused about all of this. What exactly is the claim? Is the claim that something strange happened on 911? Is the claim that engineers and scientists who investigated the collapse of the WTC buildings did not explain everything? I am not an engineer or construction specialist, but I would not find either of these surprising.

Is there a claim that substantial evidence points to WTC buildings collapsing from a controlled demolition? Are you saying a large number of qualified people understand this to be the case?

There have been hundreds of scientific papers and related books written on technical aspects of 911. Outside of a journal established by Steven Jones for the sole purpose of publishing these papers, there is no mention of controlled demolition. In the numerous civil engineering,
steel structure design and high-rise construction, or thermite there is no mention of this controlled demolition. There is no mention of this in the thousands of related courses taught in engineering programs throughout the USA and the world.

Seriously Derek, if I am wrong and you have textbooks used in your classes or have had professors who talk about the controlled demolition of the WTC in class, let me know so I can verify the claim.

There is no discussion of this controlled demolition going on in the professional associations that oversee the training and qualification of the various types of construction professionals. There have been no papers at the conferences of these various associations. And as I have said, members of these associations and professions have been conspicuously absent from any public demonstration connected to these ideas.

So we have a 26-year-old welder from central Texas posting Youtube videos on the JREF. Pardon me for saying the obvious, but who cares? Your friends may think this is cool and it may make you a leader in what ever version of Christianity you practice, but you can't possibly think your arguments have any merit. Or are you also suggesting that the entire world of professional construction engineering is somehow terrified or paid into silence?
Click to expand...

Scott, you're over-reacting a bit, but thanks for your thoughtful reply. Since you're interested in my motivation, quals etc I'll sum it up, and you and others can judge all you want.

I signed Richard's petition in 07, got a call in 09 to do a presentation in Plano, TX. I rehashed Richard Gages' slides, pretty much the slides that focused on the "too" fast WTC 7 drop, 100 ft unopposed seems excessive, considering built up W14x740 were used all the way up. And I cherry picked the molten metal/iron/steel slides. The presentation was ok, I guess, and TFK nitpicked it and showed me the crap. Your TFK. This last time around I went into an area I know a little bit about: founding steel. If those witnesses hadn't have made it to the media and the WTC 7 structure wouldn't have fallen the way it did and such a rate, I'd be right beside you wacking conspiracy theorists over the head as soon as they pop up.

As far as other truther engineers, architects, contractors, trade hands, etc…sorry to disappoint the JREF forum, but they do exist, and from time to time I get it throw at me. I don’t usually say too much, but I don’t certainly don’t argue against truthers and defend the NIST woo. I just try to listen. I’m listening now. But, I think that NIST, FEMA and the 9-11 commission dropped the ball and are full of it with many aspects of their “reports”. All I want is that my inquiries stated above get put to rest by the community, and JREF is one such. If you can point me to independent FEA of WTC 7 resolving the 100 ft drop, I’d be happy and open minded enough to consider making a complete 180, if their FEA surveying effort was done with due diligence exploring a reasonably wide range of “what ifs”.

Also, I did some, not much, but some homework with the ARA subcontracted FEA work. Dr. Kirkpatrick simply told me he modeled and simulated the whole building. Huh? Who does that? And how do you do that, and can all the computing power available to man handle such a simulation? There are far too many requisite iterations to simply dump a massive structure with the many construction means and methods mistakes and anomalies to jump to one array of arbitrary event inputs and expect good results…garbage in garbage out. And Dr. Kirkpatrick should have just come clean when I asked him why they didn’t simulated the root cause events individually instead of swooping an entire building event, which is far, very far from possible without incrementally approaching it column by column, connection by connection, floor by floor. If you or anyone here has spent a lot of time with structural FEA, and I’ve spent some, you would know this well. And his attitude was not exactly open or transparent. Does this mean 9-11 was an inside job, of course not, but it would be nice if others could review what ARA did, because the NIST models based on their work leave much to be desired. If you’ve seen them in my presentation or elsewhere, you can’t look at me with a straight face and nod your head with their models (collapse initiation and total collapse), their models are a new low in model simulations.

If the community, and by that I mean all but NIST, ARA etc come to a consensus that there was a critical WTC 7 design error (beyond the nonsense they are peddling in the 08 “final”), material submittal errors, means & methods mistakes with the contractors and a reasonable explanation of the molten _______, great, big relief. I’m booted of Richard Gage’s “approved” presenters over my profession of faith and Jesus talk, so I have absolutely no stake in this. However, without the points I’ve made above resolved with a modest amount of due diligence as opposed to more ARA/NIST woo, I’ll continue to be suspect that there is much more to 9-11 WTC 7 than 19 hijackers.

Thanks for reading all this!
 
Hokulele said:
No.

I would say all you are doing is asking. I have asked several times how you came to your conclusions, but have received nothing but silence in return. And no, your videos do not address the math or reasoning behind your assertions, limited FEA analysis be damned, so don't bother linking again in response to this post.
Click to expand...

I'm not concluding, solving, proving, hypothesizing, or playing Clue.

I'm just asking about the witnessed molten steel/iron/metal and 100' WTC unopposed drop. I'm also asking about NIST's goofy "models" and the unviability of the root causes of their 2008 so called "report".

Is this asking too much?
 
Derek Johnson said:
snip

Also, I did some, not much, but some homework with the ARA subcontracted FEA work. Dr. Kirkpatrick simply told me he modeled and simulated the whole building. Huh? Who does that? And how do you do that, and can all the computing power available to man handle such a simulation? There are far too many requisite iterations to simply dump a massive structure with the many construction means and methods mistakes and anomalies to jump to one array of arbitrary event inputs and expect good results…garbage in garbage out. And Dr. Kirkpatrick should have just come clean when I asked him why they didn’t simulated the root cause events individually instead of swooping an entire building event, which is far, very far from possible without incrementally approaching it column by column, connection by connection, floor by floor. If you or anyone here has spent a lot of time with structural FEA, and I’ve spent some, you would know this well. And his attitude was not exactly open or transparent. Does this mean 9-11 was an inside job, of course not, but it would be nice if others could review what ARA did, because the NIST models based on their work leave much to be desired. If you’ve seen them in my presentation or elsewhere, you can’t look at me with a straight face and nod your head with their models (collapse initiation and total collapse), their models are a new low in model simulations.

snip
Click to expand...

what exactly are you missing in the WTC7 FEA ?
what would you have done better?
 
Derek Johnson said:
I'm just asking about the witnessed molten steel/iron/metal
Click to expand...
George Bush put thermite in the towers and the thermite was still burning the steel weeks after the attacks.
Derek Johnson said:
and 100' WTC unopposed drop. ?
Click to expand...
George Bush put explosives in the tower
Derek Johnson said:
I'm also asking about NIST's goofy "models" and the unviability of the root causes of their 2008 so called "report".
Click to expand...
George Bush paid NIST to cover up his putting thermite and explosives in the towers.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
George Bush put thermite in the towers and the thermite was still burning the steel weeks after the attacks. George Bush put explosives in the tower George Bush paid NIST to cover up his putting thermite and explosives in the towers.
Click to expand...

lucky for me a few months back there were more serious posters around, i would have never been convinced by such nonsence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom