• 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

DC said:
lucky for me a few months back there were more serious posters around, i would have never been convinced by such nonsence.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you saw the light. Welcome back to the subforum too.
 
R.Mackey said:
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:
Click to expand...

Quite true Ryan, actually I was attempting to get TFK to weigh in and CC'd you each time...since I know you and Tom are both engineers, but please, fire off your own "ideas" on the molten metal/steel/iron testimonies and 100' unopposed drop of building 7.

Also, do the NIST models bear any resemblance to the video?
 
Derek Johnson said:
...
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.
Click to expand...

You have been asked several times to back up this claim by naming at least one (1) such person. You fail again.

Derek Johnson said:
...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”.
Click to expand...

What makes you think so? By what critical line of reasoning (hypothesis, observation, premises, reasoning, conclusion) did you arrive at this thought? Please note that not liking the result, or incredulity do NOT count here. You MUST have a hypothesis and test the hypothesis against observation, otherwise you pull this out of the blue.


Derek Johnson said:
...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”.
Click to expand...

What or who do you think NIST depended on, and how was that dependence established?

Derek Johnson said:
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
Click to expand...

AHA!
So what else do you have? So far I see nothing.

Derek Johnson said:
...
If the community, and by that I mean all but NIST, ARA etc
Click to expand...

This exclusion of respected and qualified bodies appears to be highly arbitrary and chiefly motivated by the fact that you don't like their result.

Derek Johnson said:
...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.
Click to expand...

You really should motivate the community by stating at least an initial hypothesis on how an alleged observation of molten _____ a long time after the event could be construed as having been caused by the same process that initiated the collapse. So far, all we have is your wild belief. That will not do.

Derek Johnson said:
...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....
Click to expand...

For the last time: What, besides incredulity, is the basis for this suspicion? What observation falsifies which hypothesis, and which alternative hypothesis would explain that observation, along with all the others, better?
 
Derek Johnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who can see the inconsistency between these two paragraphs? In the first, you're saying that an FEA of WTC7 that shows the 100' drop at close to 1G will convince you that there's nothing to see here, folks. In the second, you're saying that a simulation of the entire building is impossible, and hence any attempt to do one is worthless. Therefore, any simulation presented to you will either be rejected because it doesn't do a thorough enough job by not simulating the entire building, or rejected because it does simulate the entire building and is therefore too complex to be valid.

We've seen this too many times before. It's a classic roadblock when truthers claim that their theories have falsification conditions, but then admit that those conditions are impossible to meet. It's just another example of RedIbis saying he'll never believe WTC7 wasn't a CD unless he can see analysis of the condition of column 79 post-collapse, in full knowledge that column 79 couldn't even be identified post-collapse. It's pseudoscience masquerading as science, and I have no respect for it.

Dave
 
Derek Johnson said:
I'm not concluding, solving, proving, hypothesizing, or playing Clue.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are in the wrong forum then. JREF is kinda dedicated to critical thinking (including such things as concluding, solving, proving, hypothesizing).
Maybe you should look for a forum that is dedicated to uncritical thinking.

Derek Johnson said:
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".
Click to expand...

Yeah, the old "I am just asking" meme. Kid, 8 years after the event, truthers should start formulating at least a candidate hypothesis. You will never get all possible questions fully answered. Ever. Deal with it. "Just asking question" is NOT a method acceptable to critical thinkers.

Derek Johnson said:
Is this asking too much?
Click to expand...

Yes. You need toi motivate us by explaining why these observations have anything to do with the cause of collapse.
If your incredulity tells you that a 100' unopposed drop is physically impossible, then what CD-scenario would turn that impossibility into a possibizy? Do you suppose for example that somehow the bottom 100' vanished completely so that the top part could fall freely? Is that what you think must have happened?
Or do you suppose that ALL support elements and joints in the bottom 100' were destroyed simultaneously by some sort of CD?
Please offer a candidate hypothesis.
 
Derek Johnson said:
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!
Click to expand...

And what's your take on the rest of the morning?
 
Derek Johnson said:
Unopposed for 100' seems a bit fast, considering what is below.

But you're ok with it?
Click to expand...

ISTM that if I kick your chair out from under you, you'll fall to te floor with an acceleration of G and that's essentially what happened to WTC7 when a critical beam failed.
 
BigAl said:
ISTM that if I kick your chair out from under you, you'll fall to te floor with an acceleration of G and that's essentially what happened to WTC7 when a critical beam failed.
Click to expand...

the lower part of the building was not kicked away.

bad example you took
 
DC said:
the lower part of the building was not kicked away.

bad example you took
Click to expand...

Not for the collapse as a whole, just the collapse of the penthouse and the first 3 seconds.

I defer to any real engineer that wants to coment.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's just another example of RedIbis saying he'll never believe WTC7 wasn't a CD unless he can see analysis of the condition of column 79 post-collapse, in full knowledge that column 79 couldn't even be identified post-collapse.
Click to expand...

You have this enormously tedious habit of misrepresenting my position. Where have I said that I'll never believe WTC 7 wasn't a CD unless I see a specific piece of evidence?

For the fiftieth freakin' time, my objection is premising NIST's hypothesis on a piece of evidence they don't have. This is not the same as saying it then must be a CD.

I've never said that.
 
RedIbis said:
You have this enormously tedious habit of misrepresenting my position. Where have I said that I'll never believe WTC 7 wasn't a CD unless I see a specific piece of evidence?

For the fiftieth freakin' time, my objection is premising NIST's hypothesis on a piece of evidence they don't have. This is not the same as saying it then must be a CD.

I've never said that.
Click to expand...

You never say anything of substance. You are known far and wide for this attribute.
 
Derek Johnson said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you're that curious, why not educate yourself so you can get your own answers? As a bonus, you may also get a marketable skill out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom