• 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

Toke said:
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.:)
Click to expand...

That seems right to me. Both the strength dropping by a quarter on a doubled unsupported length and this plus strength per temperature as a sufficient 9/11 study.
 
DC said:
and that happened at WTC 7?
Click to expand...

After all core support had gone and floor trusses no longer provided any lateral support for the perimeter columns, these failed around uhhhh I don't recall precisely, somewhere between the 7th and 14th floor (yes, nearly simultaneously due to their being interconnected), whereupon the entire fassade above that floor lost all support and fell close to free fall for about that height.

I am sure this is an imprecise summary of the NIST findings. Just to suggest a general mode.
The core lesson: The perimeter columns were the last vertical support left standing, and when they failed something like 100' above ground, the structure dropped 100'. Similar to what a chair would do if you take out the legs halfway.
 
DC said:
the lower part of the building was offset to one side? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

No. You know that typical materials and dimensions of chair leg materials have little in common with the behaviour of multiton steel constuctions.

But all you need for the free fall to commence is any scenario where columns are severed at some height above ground. Once columns bend or break, the top part does not rest on the bottom part, and will start to fall.
 
Oystein said:
No. You know that typical materials and dimensions of chair leg materials have little in common with the behaviour of multiton steel constuctions.

But all you need for the free fall to commence is any scenario where columns are severed at some height above ground. Once columns bend or break, the top part does not rest on the bottom part, and will start to fall.
Click to expand...

yep i know, thats why i think its a bad example and a very unconvincing one.
lucky i am convinced alread :)
 
RedIbis said:
(with carousel music)

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

All available video and pictures.

Granted, their scenario is, to some degree, speculation, for no evidence exists as to what happened inside the building. There was no camera that filmed the girder between columns 79 and 41 (or what was it) as it walked off its support.

The value of the analysis is that it showed we need not add to our theory any assumed entities beyond those that we already know to have existed (fires, building layout) to explain the collapse.
Any rival theories put forward to this day must assume entities that we do not know to have existed there (explosives, thermite, hydraulics...).
So, by Occam's Razor, NIST has a good theory.
And you do not.
 
DC said:
yep i know, thats why i think its a bad example and a very unconvincing one.
lucky i am convinced alread :)
Click to expand...

It is not a model, only a simile.
Showing that things tend to fall freely when you take away support.
My example did not aim at illustrating the failure mode, only the free-fall part.
 
Yes. You need to 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 possibility? 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.
Click to expand...


Good post. :cool:
 
Oystein said:
No. You know that typical materials and dimensions of chair leg materials have little in common with the behaviour of multiton steel constuctions.

But all you need for the free fall to commence is any scenario where columns are severed at some height above ground. Once columns bend or break, the top part does not rest on the bottom part, and will start to fall.
Click to expand...

Even severing is not required. A column that buckles will give no support at all almost instantaneously.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Even severing is not required. A column that buckles will give no support at all almost instantaneously.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I wish I was organized enough, and gave a damn about debunking troofs enough anymore to have links that discuss these engineering principles.

This is the killer for the whole "freefall" in 7 garbage. IIRC, in one of Bazant's papers, he describes how buckling columns that enter the plastic hinge phase ( my also garbage rememberance ) give only about 1% resistance to a falling mass.

Troofs don't agree with that though, since Google has taught them to such a degree that they have the expertise to refute anything Bazant, or a member of the CTBUH, or other such professional organization has to say, with a simple, "it doesn't look right to me."
 
I found this little piece of information concerning Derek's video(s) telling as to the impact of his presentation.


Views Part #
1=2886
2 =1185
3 =798
4 =647
5 =671
6 =480
7 =496
8 =442​

It's obvious he lost his viewers attention as the presentation progressed but, what is significant is the number of viewers that didn't skip ahead to the end to see what he had to say in conclusion. This is the equivalent to people walking out.

Derek, I hope you can see the significance in this and maybe translate this into the relevance of what you feel happened on 9/11.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I already know the answer to that.
Click to expand...

Now, thanks to me, you know the answer to the place where Jesus was crucified. Your embarrassment is well-deserved. You refuse to correct the English of truthers who torture the poor language (like ULTIMA1 and the HI socks) and yet, you gloat over one minor debunker syntax error. You earned your stundie nomination, "calvary" boy.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Now, thanks to me, you know the answer to the place where Jesus was crucified. Your embarrassment is well-deserved. You refuse to correct the English of truthers who torture the poor language (like ULTIMA1 and the HI socks) and yet, you gloat over one minor debunker syntax error. You earned your stundie nomination, "calvary" boy.
Click to expand...

Check that thread. Spelling errors don't fare well in the illustrious Stundies.
 
I wonder how much evidence RedIbis has that WTC7 was blown up for some mysterious reason.
 
Hokulele said:
How on earth do cosmologists and astrophysicists who study large scale structures manage to come up with hypotheses and theories? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You're comparing space with the collapse of a building in lower Manhattan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom