• 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:
what part of the way?
Click to expand...

Depends on how and where the legs break.

If, say, they break 15cm above the ground in such a fashion, that the lower part of the legs are offset to the side, then the upper part will fall freely for the first 15cm, until the remainder of the legs hit the ground.
 
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...

There is lots of evidence about the WTC7 collapse and the NIST report is consistent with what we do have and there is no other proposed hypothesis that fits any of it.

Your rhetorical trick of asking for an item you know doesn't exist is old and tired and demonstrates that you have no interest in understanding how WTC7 collapsed.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Depends on how and where the legs break.

If, say, they break 15cm above the ground in such a fashion, that the lower part of the legs are offset to the side, then the upper part will fall freely for the first 15cm, until the remainder of the legs hit the ground.
Click to expand...

and that happened at WTC 7?
 
RedIbis said:
This:
Me:my objection is premising NIST's hypothesis on a piece of evidence they don't have.
Click to expand...


There is lots of evidence about the WTC7 collapse and the NIST report is consistent with what we do have and there is no other proposed hypothesis that fits any of it.

Your rhetorical trick of asking for an item you know doesn't exist is old and tired and demonstrates that you have no interest in understanding how WTC7 collapsed.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Can I suggest you just cut-and-paste the above as a general response to any subject whatsoever? It's almost impossible to characterise your position accurately, as you invariably refuse to take one.

Dave
Click to expand...

How about you just quote me when I say

This:
Me:my objection is premising NIST's hypothesis on a piece of evidence they don't have.
Click to expand...
 
Why do I have the feeling I've read all this before?
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...

Absolutely. Judy Wood has a PhD in material engineering and she believes ray guns in space turned the WTC buildings into dust. There are people on this cite claiming to be medical students who advocate this claim. That's not my point. There are nut cases who believe in all kinds of things: UFOs, ESP, that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life. Timothy Leary had a PhD from UC Berkeley and taught at Harvard. But there is no professional problem with the idea that the WTC buildings collapsed because of planes and fire. As I said Derek, there are hundreds of technical papers that address aspects of the WTC collapses. There are no textbooks and no professors anywhere teaching what you are talking about. It is not a professional issue. 911 Truth is the not most devisive issue in America. There is no murmmer of doubt about 911 among construction professionals.

So Derek what exactly is that you're saying engineering departments aren't teaching their students about 911? What exactly is it that engineering journals aren't publishing? That rivers of molter steel were flowing underneath the WTC for weeks? Tell me how you know this? Tell me why this is important? Otherwise you just get chucked into that garbage heap of stuff that people have said before and got ignored because it was meaningless. But then, maybe you don't care.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
There is lots of evidence about the WTC7 collapse and the NIST report is consistent with what we do have and there is no other proposed hypothesis that fits any of it.

Your rhetorical trick of asking for an item you know doesn't exist is old and tired and demonstrates that you have no interest in understanding how WTC7 collapsed.
Click to expand...

(with carousel music)

What physical evidence did NIST rely on for their collapse hypothesis?
 
DC said:
the lower part of the building was not kicked away.

bad example you took
Click to expand...

8 stories of columns failed nearly simulteanously. This mostly has to do with the loss of lateral support provided by the floors. This turns the columns into what can fairly accurately be called "wet spaghetti noodles". They do not provide much resistance at all to the building above.

If someone could provide me with the AISC column shapes and the floor to floor heights I could show the reduction in capacity of the columns with some math that no one will understand ;)
 
RedIbis said:
(with carousel music)

What physical evidence did NIST rely on for their collapse hypothesis?
Click to expand...


So because there was no physical evidence they should not even have tried to come up with a collapse hypothesis? It was a waste of time? You do know who made the most noise about them actually coming up with one don't you?

A hypothesis is only acceptable if there is physical evidence available?
 
funk de fino said:
So because there was no physical evidence they should not even have tried to come up with a collapse hypothesis? It was a waste of time? You do know who made the most noise about them actually coming up with one don't you?

A hypothesis is only acceptable if there is physical evidence available?
Click to expand...

All red has to do is come up with a better hypothesis if he has such a problem with the one NIST did. Simple, no?
 
Newtons Bit said:
If someone could provide me with the AISC column shapes and the floor to floor heights I could show the reduction in capacity of the columns with some math that no one will understand ;)
Click to expand...

I once read through the Wiki bit about a column's strength dropping to a quarter if unsupported length doubles.
That and a curve showing steel's remaining strength as a function of temperature was sufficient 9/11 study for me.:)
 
Newtons Bit said:
8 stories of columns failed nearly simulteanously. This mostly has to do with the loss of lateral support provided by the floors. This turns the columns into what can fairly accurately be called "wet spaghetti noodles". They do not provide much resistance at all to the building above.

If someone could provide me with the AISC column shapes and the floor to floor heights I could show the reduction in capacity of the columns with some math that no one will understand ;)
Click to expand...

i still find it a bad example, one that is not convincing at all.
even wet spaghetti are a better example :)

and for you calc, bah, i can also do some math that no one will understand ;)
especially considering no one here understood the WTC 7 collapse FEA.
 
Last edited:
Derek Johnson said:
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?
Click to expand...

You're a serial spam artist with nothing to say. You do not merit a response. All of the "issues" you're complaining about have been beat to death here dozens of times, if you bothered to look.

Over a year ago I clearly set out the threshold of interest that a Truther has to meet to gain my attention. I am not optimistic about your chances of passing this test. Good luck to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom