Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[R.Mackey]

Is it then, oh mighty mighty 9-11 debunking tutelary?

You respond like this, and wonder why no one takes you seriously?

I thought you were an engineering student? You can learn quite a lot from folks here, myself included, if you drop the blinders and the attitude.

 

[Hokulele]

2. 100' unopposed drop of building 7, bottom line.

What exactly do you mean by unopposed? How fast should it have dropped and why? Please show your math.

 

[Derek Johnson]

You respond like this, and wonder why no one takes you seriously?

I thought you were an engineering student? You can learn quite a lot from folks here, myself included, if you drop the blinders and the attitude.

Ryan, no problem, dropped. And one of those persons I will surely learn from is you. My apologies, seriously.

Please read my respond to AW above, if you'd like, and if I'm out of bounds...please show me my error. Same for my presentation if you have the time.

Thanks bud...and to the rest.

 

[DC]

*bows to Ryan*
*bows to Ryan again*
*bows to Ryan again, and again and again*

not worthy, not worthy, not worthy...

1. Molten metal/steel/iron testimonies, man up Ryan.
2. 100' unopposed drop of building 7, bottom line.
3. NIST models bear any resemblance to the video

Good luck on these 3 questions, oh mighty and exalted debunking prime mover.

steel is a metal and so is Iron.
is there any indication that the spottet metall is steel or iron?
does anyone know what kind of metal those people saw?

molten metal is not unusual. molten steeel would. but was it steel? if yes, how do you know it is steel?

 

[Derek Johnson]

What exactly do you mean by unopposed? How fast should it have dropped and why? Please show your math.

The WTC 7 100' drop fell (accelerated) at very close to the acceleration of gravity (for roughly 2.25 seconds). This means roughly 8 floors offered no opposition to this change in downward velocity...it increased speed for 100 feet, not decreased speed. How is that even possible?

This frames an important consideration, what are the range of possible events that could cause such a thing? This is why the WTC 7 FEA should be far from finished.

It would be really nice to have an agreed upon IGES set (which ARA and NIST won't divulge because of "national security"), and explore the NIST claims as well as the range of possibilities that could cause about 63 million pounds of structure to offer nelgigible resistance to the 100' downward collapse (t=0 at the roofline drop, not the E & W penthouse descent). It would be nice if the community outside of NIST and ARA could substantiate or challenge the NIST/ARA claims...their root cause is something that is a bit skeptic inducing...as a welder, as a sand crab and as an engineer.

 

[Scott Sommers]

You respond like this, and wonder why no one takes you seriously?

I thought you were an engineering student? You can learn quite a lot from folks here, myself included, if you drop the blinders and the attitude.

It seems Derek realizes he hasn't said anything that anyone can take seriously. This reminds me of Kevin Barrett out looking for the living suicide pilots. When he started, it was appeals to religious authority and statements about honesty. When he couldn't find anyone, it all became a joke.

 

[Hokulele]

The WTC 7 100' drop fell (accelerated) at very close to the acceleration of gravity (for roughly 2.25 seconds). This means roughly 8 floors offered no opposition to this change in downward velocity...it increased speed for 100 feet, not decreased speed. How is that even possible?

What is "very close to the acceleration of gravity"? If it is "very close to the acceleration of gravity" doesn't it imply that it wasn't actually the acceleration of gravity? Doesn't this imply that there actually was some sort of opposition? This is the number I want you to quantify and explain how this number is in any way surprising based on the properties of the structure, the structural steel, and the conditions of each.

And why the heck would the speed decrease^*? Was gravity supposed to turn itself off for a few seconds?



* - Meh, this is starting to remind me of Mr. Szamboti and his confusion between velocity and acceleration.

 

[DC]

The WTC 7 100' drop fell (accelerated) at very close to the acceleration of gravity (for roughly 2.25 seconds). This means roughly 8 floors offered no opposition to this change in downward velocity...it increased speed for 100 feet, not decreased speed. How is that even possible?

This frames an important consideration, what are the range of possible events that could cause such a thing? This is why the WTC 7 FEA should be far from finished.

It would be really nice to have an agreed upon IGES set (which ARA and NIST won't divulge because of "national security"), and explore the NIST claims as well as the range of possibilities that could cause about 63 million pounds of structure to offer nelgigible resistance to the 100' downward collapse (t=0 at the roofline drop, not the E & W penthouse descent). It would be nice if the community outside of NIST and ARA could substantiate or challenge the NIST/ARA claims...their root cause is something that is a bit skeptic inducing...as a welder, as a sand crab and as an engineer.

this behavior of a collapsing building, is this usual for CD's of such buildings?
what CD's have you studied in contrast of the WTC 7 collapse?

 

[Derek Johnson]

It seems Derek realizes he hasn't said anything that anyone can take seriously. This reminds me of Kevin Barrett out looking for the living suicide pilots. When he started, it was appeals to religious authority and statements about honesty. When he couldn't find anyone, it all became a joke.

Scott, nobody has to take me seriously here, but unfortunately these 3 questions do have merit.

Is anyone here or elsewhere is strong enough to answer them?

1. Does the molten metal/steel/iron testimonies have a lucid explanation?

2. Does the 100' unopposed drop of building 7 have a reasonable explanation?

3. Do the NIST WTC 7 models and animations bear any resemblance to the videoed collapse of WTC 7?

Please turn you attention away from me, and onto these 3 questions Scott, thanks bud.

 

[DC]

Scott, nobody has to take me seriously here, but unfortunately these 3 questions do have merit.

Is anyone here or elsewhere is strong enough to answer them?

1. Does the molten metal/steel/iron testimonies have a lucid explanation?

2. Does the 100' unopposed drop of building 7 have a reasonable explanation?

3. Do the NIST WTC 7 models and animations bear any resemblance to the videoed collapse of WTC 7?

Please turn you attention away from me, and onto these 3 questions Scott, thanks bud.

Do you still argue/hit/rape your girlfriend?

what evidence is there to support the /steel /Iron after the molten metal? found

 

[Oystein]

^...
1. Molten metal/steel/iron testimonies, man up Ryan.
2. 100' unopposed drop of building 7, bottom line.
3. NIST models bear any resemblance to the video
...

It is not clear at all how answer to this question would bear at all on the question how the WTC7 initiated.
1. How does molten steel prove it didn't fall due to uncontrolled fires?
2. How would any other initiation mode but uncontrolled fire explain the 100' unopposed drop?

It would be extremely helpful if you could provide us with a hypothesis, so we have something to test and discuss.

You do realize that progress in science is achieved by advancing new theories to improve on old ones?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Scott, nobody has to take me seriously here, but unfortunately these 3 questions do have merit.

Is anyone here or elsewhere is strong enough to answer them?

1. Does the molten metal/steel/iron testimonies have a lucid explanation?

2. Does the 100' unopposed drop of building 7 have a reasonable explanation?

3. Do the NIST WTC 7 models and animations bear any resemblance to the videoed collapse of WTC 7?

Please turn you attention away from me, and onto these 3 questions Scott, thanks bud.

1. Molten metals are easily explained by your own earlier post where you showed eyewitness comments about the hot fires inside the pile.

2. I'll leave that to the competent enginners that we have here.

3. The NIST animations show what was going on inside the buildings. Adding the exterior cladding would obscure the very thing that they were trying to show. Even I as a non engineer can understand that simple concept.

 

[Derek Johnson]

What is "very close to the acceleration of gravity"?

You have frames of video and there is a finite amount of them. Comparing frames is how NIST and others arrived at what is close to a 9.8 m/s^2 (32 ft/s^2) acceleration, which matches gravity, or significantly so.

If it is "very close to the acceleration of gravity" doesn't it imply that is wasn't actually the acceleration of gravity?

The fact that it is close to gravity releases a sudden awareness that the columns didn't just buckled as NIST claims, worse still, these columns either got out of the way (somehow) or went into a complete brittle failure mode (somehow). A36 steel does not behave like that.

Doesn't this imply that there actually was some sort of opposition?

Like what, marshmallow columns?

This is the number I want you to quantify and explain how this number is in any way surprising based on the properties of the structure, the structural steel, and the conditions of each.

A36 W14x740 w/the built up shown here (link to it below please) on 96 of 275 (report page 36) is suggesting 500-700 lbs of built up on figure 2-24 "typical built-up column details". This column in AISC's Steel Construction or Engineer's Toolbox will give you a Pcr (critical buckling load) of 20,000,000 lb for this particular built-up column arrangement...easy, and Euler's classical eq based on the modulus (stress/strain ratio) and 2nd moment will go higher still, the pinning was under 12 feet, rendering the slenderness ratio favorable to resisting such drastic things like a total collapse at the acceleration of gravity. Bottom line, this means that only 3, certainly 4 such columns will theoretically statically hold the roughly 63,000,000 lbm 8-story section(s) that allowed the structure to collapse unopposed for 100 feet. Since there are 81 columns…not 4... "factor of safety" comes quickly to mind.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf

And why the heck would the speed decrease^*? Was gravity supposed to turn itself off for a few seconds?

Are structural steel, reinforcing steel, electrode filler and concrete highly compressible? Then how could the downward movement pick up speed as videoed?

Anyone?

 

[Oystein]

...
It would be really nice to have an agreed upon IGES set (which ARA and NIST won't divulge because of "national security"),

Would you care to substantiate this accusation by citing a reference?

...and explore the NIST claims as well as the range of possibilities that could cause about 63 million pounds of structure to offer nelgigible resistance to the 100' downward collapse (t=0 at the roofline drop, not the E & W penthouse descent). It would be nice if the community outside of NIST and ARA could substantiate or challenge the NIST/ARA claims...their root cause is something that is a bit skeptic inducing...as a welder, as a sand crab and as an engineer.

It would be nice if the truther community could at least formulate a hypothesis that would explain the 100' drop, and make testable predictions.

 

[DC]

i can understand his trouble with the FEA of WTC7, it really doesnt fit the video observation of the collapse to well.

 

[Derek Johnson]

1. Molten metals are easily explained by your own earlier post where you showed eyewitness comments about the hot fires inside the pile..

How did these molten metals melt?

2. I'll leave that to the competent engineers that we have here.

So will I...

3. The NIST animations show what was going on inside the buildings. Adding the exterior cladding would obscure the very thing that they were trying to show. Even I as a non engineer can understand that simple concept.

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

Scroll over to about 6:30. I show the NIST animation (w/structural damage modeled I think) of WTC 7. As a engineer or non engineer, can you see the resemblance to the video collapse just to the right...I showed this as well immediately afterwards? Same thing, right?

 

[DC]

How did these molten metals melt?

how do you usualy melt metals?

 

[Oystein]

...
The fact that it is close to gravity releases a sudden awareness that the columns didn't just buckled as NIST claims, worse still, these columns either got out of the way (somehow) or went into a complete brittle failure mode (somehow). A36 steel does not behave like that.

How about: The columns bend and break? Like at the 8th floor?
What would then keep the upper 38 floors suspended in air and stop them drom falling at free fall speed?

...
...Bottom line, this means that only 3, certainly 4 such columns will theoretically statically hold the roughly 63,000,000 lbm 8-story section(s) that allowed the structure to collapse unopposed for 100 feet. Since there are 81 columns…not 4... "factor of safety" comes quickly to mind.
...

Huh? Are you saying 4 columns would have sufficed to hold the building up?? Nonsense much?
Are you saying we need not consider dynamic loads? Ignorance much?

Are structural steel, reinforcing steel, electrode filler and concrete highly compressible? Then how could the downward movement pick up speed as videoed?

Anyone?

Again, once perimeter columns bend and break several floor up, all that's above them will fall with g.
This is really easy to understand.

 

[Oystein]

How did these molten metals melt?
...

What could possibly cause a collapse AND result in molten metals very long after the end of collapse?
Is there any hypothesis at all?

I am sick of truthers "just asking questions" but being too lazy to come up with answers!

 

[Derek Johnson]

how do you usualy melt metals?

With petro coke and min. 200 cfm air through four 2.5" tuyeres into 9.5" ID after several hours of preheat.

Anything close to this happen inside WTC?