Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Derek Johnson]

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!

I am sick of debunkers not answering questions.

1. 100' unopposed drop
2. Molten steel
3. NIST models = video

 

[Oystein]

...these 3 questions do have merit.

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

If you want to do away with the incumbent theory, whose job is it to answer these questions? Why do you ask us? Why can't you come up with candidate answers youreslf? It is your job to formulate a better theory if you don't like the one we have!

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

Why would they need one? It is not at all clear that the occurance of molten anything under the rubble pile long after the event has anything at all to do with collapse initiation, unless you propose a theory that we can then scrutinize!

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

Are you saying the 100' unopposed drop is impossible? Because after collapse initiation there is still building substance underneath the top portion providing resistance?
Then obviously you must propose a theory that would explain how that substance and resistance could get removed. Once you spell out such a theory, we can talk.

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

I think you said earlier that realistic FEAs would be too complex and impossible to do. So why are you even surprised? Do you really want answers along this line?

 

[Oystein]

I am sick of debunkers not answering questions.

1. 100' unopposed drop
2. Molten steel
3. NIST models = video

You have not demonstrated that answers to these questions would be at all relevant to the cause of collapse!

 

[GlennB]

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.

Brilliant evasion technique, Derek Johnson.

Mackey makes a valid point.
You respond with willful pig-ignorance.
Later you apologise.
His point is lost in the noise and you avoid addressing it.

So, why not address it?

 

[DC]

I am sick of debunkers not answering questions.

1. 100' unopposed drop
2. Molten steel
3. NIST models = video

nothing supports your claim of molten steel.......

 

[Derek Johnson]

How about: The columns bend and break? Like at the 8th floor?

All this column bending and breaking of members over well over 1000 lb/ft did not oppose the drop. Amazing!

What would then keep the upper 38 floors suspended in air and stop them drom falling at free fall speed?

What would suspend them in air, and how? You realize there are 81 built up columns well over 1000 lb/ft and each has a Pcr of about 20,000,000 lbf? How do they buckle in the first place? Explain.

Huh? Are you saying 4 columns would have sufficed to hold the building up??

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.

Statically means what?

Nonsense much?
Are you saying we need not consider dynamic loads? Ignorance much?

Of course not, that's why I used the term "statically", but slow down cowboy, before we get to that dynamic business we need to resolve the initiation. Tell me then, what was this "initiation"...thermally expanded walking girders? Yes?

Total context:

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




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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Derek Johnson]

nothing supports your claim of molten steel.......

#491

 

[DC]

What would suspend them in air, and how? You realize there are 81 built up columns well over 1000 lb/ft and each has a Pcr of about 20,000,000 lbf? How do they buckle in the first place? Explain.

take 2 empty Beer cans (Drink the beer after the experiment) one is a small 0.33l can and on is a big 1l can. both are made of Aluminium. take care the "walls" of the can are straight and not damaged.

now take the small one and stand on it slowly. should not "buckle" even if you slowly move up and down. Now do the same with the big 1l can. and see how it buckles much faster than the small can.

do you know why this is?

 

[DC]

#491

so some guy seeing molten metall looking like lava and they are able to see what kind of metall it was. was thee any testing done to the recovered molten "steel"?

 

[ref]

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.

I haven't been paying attention to this thread, but you seem to make a mistake there.

If the roofline drop is determined T=0, the "free fall" happened between T=1.75 to T=4.0 seconds, NOT at T=0. So when the roofline started to drop, it wasn't instant "free fall". How does any conspiracy theory explain that first 1.75 seconds of slower fall? How does fire not explain that?

Anyway, I have always wondered why people are so obsessed with WTC7. Any demolition scenario would require damage to the building. There would be no damage to WTC7 if the twin towers didn't collapse. Conclusion: they had to demolish the towers in order to justify the WTC7 demolition. And not only demolish, they had to hope that some pieces would somehow hit 7, otherwise it would be all for nothing. Quite a risk there already.

If that's not enough, the demolition of the towers requires a lot more. Fireproof and damageproof devices, that are able to remain functional in the columns of the exact floors that were hit, stay functional even after the plane crashes and the fires.

If that not strange enough for you, there's more. They had to know exactly which floors would be hit by planes in order to wire the right floors. No real pilot can be trusted to hit an exact floor, so that would require remote control (you also have to believe this kind technology existed and would be able to hit an exact floor). The alternative to this is wiring the entire towers, so that which ever floor is hit, there would be devices in place.

Conclusion: If you are suggesting that WTC7 was demolished, you are also suggesting that either the planes were remotely controlled by some strange technology, or both twin towers were wired from top to bottom.

Have you ever thought of that?

Well, it doesn't end there either (isn't that funny!).

I suppose you didn't come up with this WTC7 stuff all by yourself. I suppose you were like all others, including Gage, Steven Jones, Griffin, who originally believed there was nothing wrong with the so-called "official story".

The first person who was able to make WTC7 conspiracy theories more mainstream was Jim Hoffman with his WTC7.net site. He founded the site in 2003. Here is the first version of his site: http://web.archive.org/web/20030827161003/http://www.wtc7.net/

You want to know who was Hoffman's main influence for that site? Scott Loughrey, no-planer. His article is the only article in Hoffman's site with an author being shown. Hoffman says "This is an excellent introduction to Building 7." Want to know who was Loughrey's influence? Eric Hufschmid, holocaust denier. Hoffman's links page takes us to holocaust denier's page (whatreallyhappened) and no-planer's page (killtown).

Starting to see a pattern here? Only no-planers and holocaust deniers. People with agenda and no science. Yet, these no-planers and holocaust deniers were able to convince Hoffman. In turn, Hoffman was directly able to convince Steven Jones, and indirecly responsible for convincing Griffin and Gage that there's something wrong with WTC7. And you know how many people that trio has convinced. Yet it all started with a very few people with an agenda.

You knew that?

Well, that's about it really. I have always wondered why people are so obsessed with WTC7.

 

[Juniversal]

And I exchanged some witness statements regarding the WTC cleanup...it seems pretty strange, I know pretty well how hard it is to melt steel outside of a control volume. Here they are:

A New York City firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en#

A public health advisor, Ron Burger, who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

http://www.neha.org/9-11 report/index-The.html

Sarah Atlas an employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing] and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.“

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

Alison Geyh, PhD, the head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.“

http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.“

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures“.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/n...e-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

Lee Turner, a rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow-molten metal dripping from a beam"

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...104-4327082-0495169?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said "Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html

This is the post #491 you were talking about huh? You do know that the Thermite reaction doesn't last for an extended period of time right? And you do know it wouldn't glow after the reacting material has been burned off. Right??

 

[Derek Johnson]

If you want to do away with the incumbent theory, whose job is it to answer these questions? Why do you ask us? Why can't you come up with candidate answers youreslf? It is your job to formulate a better theory if you don't like the one we have!

Those with the most data bear the burden. I ask you because you are the expert 9-11 conspiracy debunkers, yet the frantic clawing away from the most basic questions confirms that nobody really knows how that 100' section dropped unopposed. You don't know, I don't know, and who does?

How to I "find out"? I'm here to learn. It's not that I like or dislike, I want to understand how 100' of massive building offered absolutely positively no resistance during this 2.25 second accelerated drop.

Why would they need one? It is not at all clear that the occurance of molten anything under the rubble pile long after the event has anything at all to do with collapse initiation, unless you propose a theory that we can then scrutinize!

I agree with you, my only point is what the *&^$ is molten steel, of all things, doing in the cleanup in the first place? Hm?

Are you saying the 100' unopposed drop is impossible? Because after collapse initiation there is still building substance underneath the top portion providing resistance?

Unless the material (str steel, reif steel, deck steel, shear stud steel, electrode fill, concrete) properties were extremley, and I do mean extremely brittle, then yes. It is absolutely positively completely impossible to compress things such as what we know were inside that building to allow for the acceration of gravity to occur in any steel framed building collase such as this. If I'm wrong, name another...JUST one.

Then obviously you must propose a theory that would explain how that substance and resistance could get removed. Once you spell out such a theory, we can talk.

F E A, a real survey...this time. If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, the Cuban cigars are on me.

I think you said earlier that realistic FEAs would be too complex and impossible to do.

No, but they are demanding and would take a lot of people, a lot of crunching, a lot of review, and a lot of time. But Brad and Angie are getting married, don't you know.

So why are you even surprised? Do you really want answers along this line?

I want the friggin hijackers to be soley to blame, I hope that's what I'll get.

 

[DC]

If the roofline drop is determined T=0, the "free fall" happened between T=1.75 to T=4.0 seconds, NOT at T=0. So when the roofline started to drop, it wasn't instant "free fall". How does any conspiracy theory explain that first 1.75 seconds of slower fall? How does fire not explain that?

very good point.

but sad thing is, many "debunkers" here explained this as normal.

 

[Hokulele]

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.

And what exactly is that number? How close is "close"? I can say that my house is close to Japan, but without quantifying it, that means nothing.

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.

Why? How much time does buckling take? Hard numbers please, no vague descriptions.

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.

Ah, like Tony, you do not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads, nor the failure mechanisms involved.

Also, what ref said.

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

They don't have to be compressible. Look at WTC 1 and 2 for examples of progressive collapses accelerating over the distance traveled.

Anyone?

First derivative, second derivative, third derivative, floor!

No wait, that's tequila, not calculus.

 

[Oystein]

Those with the most data bear the burden.

You mean NIST? Then I have good news for you: They already did that! Case closed?

I ask you because you are the expert 9-11 conspiracy debunkers, yet the frantic clawing away from the most basic questions confirms that nobody really knows how that 100' section dropped unopposed. You don't know, I don't know, and who does?

Uhm wait a second: You don't know.
Period.
You are arguing from incedulity or ignorance or both.

How to I "find out"? I'm here to learn. It's not that I like or dislike, I want to understand how 100' of massive building offered absolutely positively no resistance during this 2.25 second accelerated drop.

Wyh do you bold-face the "accelerated"? It's what happens when things fall!

I agree with you, my only point is what the *&^$ is molten steel, of all things, doing in the cleanup in the first place? Hm?

Why worry about conditions in a burning trash heap?
I suspect you don't know the difference between heat and temperature.
What's more important, you have been told many times already that you have no proof that there was molten steel. People seeing something glow does not cut it. May I repeat, and hammer into your brain?
you have no proof that there was molten steel
Get it?

But even if you did - it only shows that very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long after collapse initiation it was hot enough in the trash heap.
Agreed?
This observation bears NO relevance - I repeat: NO relevance upon the collapse mode. Unless YOU! (you!!!!!!!!) present a hypothesis that makes that connection. You can imagine away at your heart's content, I am nit even asking for proof. Just expect us to grill you on it.

Unless the material (str steel, reif steel, deck steel, shear stud steel, electrode fill, concrete) properties were extremley, and I do mean extremely brittle, then yes.

Aha. So your hypothesise that the material was extremley, and you do mean extremely, brittle.
Do you suppose it was not brittle already when the sun rose on september 11th 2001?
Then your hypothesis is, that someone MADE the material (str steel, reif steel, deck steel, shear stud steel, electrode fill, concrete) properties were extremley, and you do mean extremely, brittle at some time between sunrise and the fall of the building. Correct?
What does it take to make all that material extremely, and you mean extremely, brittle? Surely some kind of energy? Please propose away!

It is absolutely positively completely impossible to compress things such as what we know were inside that building to allow for the acceration of gravity to occur in any steel framed building collase such as this. If I'm wrong, name another...JUST one.

Wait a second. A building is 95% air. Correct? Compressing ait or getting it out of the way is not a big deal, is it?
What dropped at free fall acceleration for a little over 2 seconds was the north fassade - a vertical steel structure, right?

It is really very easy: once a steel fassade starts falling, the dynamic loads get so huge that any remaining connections would snap instantly and not slow down the fall noticeably. This is quite easy to compute if you are a structural engineer. The fassade will fall at free fall speed until it impacts the ground, i.e. after a drop of 8 stories, if it broke at the 8th floor.
Really, I understand that. I am sorry if you are too thick to understand it.

F E A, a real survey...this time. If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, the Cuban cigars are on me.

Please air-mail to Germany.
NIST has done a real survey.
It is your problem entirely if you don't understand or like the result.

No, but they are demanding and would take a lot of people, a lot of crunching, a lot of review, and a lot of time. But Brad and Angie are getting married, don't you know.

The reviews are already in. Case closed.

I want the friggin hijackers to be soley to blame, I hope that's what I'll get.

I have good news for you: The hijackers ARE solely blamed.

No please go home.

 

[Scott Sommers]

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.

Derek, while I appreciate your replies, you seem to be missing my point - and it's the same point others are making. I want you to tell me why these three questions are important. What do they mean for the collapse of the WTC buildings? I'm not a construction professional, but I'd say there's been an answer to your question no. 1. You might not like it, but it's been answered in this thread and in numerous others.

Like I said, these are the questions that keep comin up over and over and keep getting answered over and over. I look around at the engineering research community and I don't see anyone asking these questions about the collapse of the WTC buildings. I only see Truthers on JREF and Truther forums asking them - over and over and over again. It's kind of getting silly. Why do you think they're important? What do you think they say about the collapse? Why is it that only Truthers ask these questions and not faculty in the departments that research steel frame structures?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Temperatures in a normal office fire are easily high enough to melt several common metals. It's impossible for the untrained observer to distinguish between molten steel and other molten metals by simply looking at them, particularly in a highly stressful situation. Therefore, reports of molten metals are to be expected, and reports of molten steel cannot possibly be anything other than speculation.

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

Multi-storey buckling of support members.

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

It bears at least as close a resemblance to the collapse as the collapse bears to a controlled demolition; the salient features being that the building is initially standing, and finally collapsed. The complexity of the event is sufficiently great that any reasonable commentator would expect the detailed behaviour to be disproportionately dependent on the exact starting conditions, and these cannot possibly be known with accuracy.

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

Now that I've answered these three questions, please provide your own superior explanations based on the hypothesis that the collapse of WTC7 was initiated deliberately by some extrinsic means (e.g. explosives or thermite) of your choice, and demonstrate that they are superior.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Really? Any metal?

I can melt gallium by pouring hot tea on it (though H&S would probably complain). I can melt indium on a hotplate. I can melt gold or aluminium in a molybdenum vessel by passing a current through it. I can melt lead/tin alloys with a soldering iron. Many common metals can be melted easily in a normal fire.

Anything close to this happen inside WTC?

You're conflating molten metal with molten steel. Either you're not intelligent enough to appreciate the difference, in which case your ignorance is leading you to false conclusions, or you are intelligent enough to appreciate the difference but are choosing to obscure it, in which case your honesty has to be called into question. Which is it?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

All this column bending and breaking of members over well over 1000 lb/ft did not oppose the drop. Amazing!

You're claiming broken columns will support a building. We're claiming they won't. And you're sneering at us.

Priceless.

Dave

 

[cyclonic]

I am sick of debunkers not answering questions.

1. 100' unopposed drop
2. Molten steel
3. NIST models = video

1. just the shell of the building, interior had already collapsed.
2. where did it go? no huge lumps of cooled molten steel was ever found.
3. you mean this video? what about it?: