Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[RedIbis]

You are aware that the "has never happened" argument is just a special case of the argument from incredulity?

You are aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

 

[GlennB]

I would think that if you were to propose that thermal expansion caused column failure (something that has never happened in a large building) ....

Well, you're plain wrong there. In the so-called 'mill fires' around Britain expansion of horizontal steel beams caused intense fear among fire crews, as the beams would push outwards on load-bearing walls leading to catastrophic collapses.

Before you ask, my source is a retired Brit fire brigade technical specialist ("BlueZulu" on the UK fire brigade forum, if I recall correctly) with whom I had a lengthy conversation on these matters back in my bad old 9/11 truther days.

 

[BasqueArch]

You are aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

Of which you have provided Zilch.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

And you're aware that no claims require no evidence, evidently.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

You are aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

Hmm I am not an expert in the field. I only have a gut feeling that thermal expansion of a steel girder in fire is not something extraordinary, but something very ordinary indeed.


However I notice you chose to conveniently ignored my request for your theory. Since you don't like ours, you need to challenge it, and you know the scientific way to do so would be to propose an alternative theory.
Right?

 

[twinstead]

You are aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

I'm still trying to figure your angle here. What exactly are you suggesting the NIST should have done then?

Their theory, and how they came up with it, is laid out in minute detail in their report for all the world to see. It fits with what was observed that day. It is theoretically possible. Most experts concur. It makes sense.

What part of "if you don't like it, come up with something better" don't you understand?

 

[Macgyver1968]

Derek,

One thing that has always got me about the CD theories about WTC7 ..is why?

Why would anyone wait almost 8 hours to initiate the CD and subject their demolition devices and wiring to 8 hours of fire and heat? Who would take such a risk, and for what purpose did they wait so long? Why not cd the building much earlier, while people were still in it, and add to the "shock and awe" factor of the event?

Why rig a building for CD when it wasn't part of the plan to be hit with a plane? What if the collapse of the main towers didn't start fires in the building? What if the water mains weren't broken and the sprinkler system put out the fires when they started? Why CD a building that no one has heard of?

Seems to me, that's a lot of risk of uncontrolled variables, risks that could expose the whole plot...and for what gain?

 

[DGM]

Actually, I'm surprised it got that much interest DGM. After all, there are so many Hollywood stars to read about, TV to watch, drugs tobacco and alcohol to consume, sports teams to root for...who would even have time or care about a 1/2 baked NIST report that gives credence to our foreign policy decisions?

You've got to make one hell of a stretch to connect the NIST report to foreign policy. If their report is "half baked" how would you categorize the competing reports considering none are even out of the box.

So DGM, you can explain the 100' WTC 7 drop or molten steel/iron/metal seen in the cleanup?

I'm no expert but, looking at the video the exterior of the building appeared to be catching up with the interior and as far as I know no one has ever found any cooled previously melted steel/iron pools in the debris (other metals yes).

And you agree with the NIST WTC 7 animations as well?

If I recall NIST did not model the exterior facade so I wouldn't expect it to look exactly like the videos but, their models did seem to progress in the same order as the observed.

 

[funk de fino]

I would think that if you were to propose that thermal expansion caused column failure (something that has never happened in a large building) and that single column failure caused global collapse (something else that has never happened in a large building) you should produce some physical evidence for this unprecedented phenomenon.

But for some reason, the "skeptics" remain wholly unskeptical.

As they had no physical evidence is it your contention that they should not have bothered with the report?

Yes or no?

 

[funk de fino]

You are aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

Is it your contention that the thermal effects on steel are a myth?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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?

Perhaps it has something to do with gravity.

Seriously: Why do you act as though you were talking about flying teacups? Most people understand that falling things tend to fall at or near the acceleration of gravity. Many of us actually understand that increasing speeds are characteristic of gravitational accelerations; for you to speak as though decreasing speeds should be expected instead implies considerable ignorance.

Most people (excluding Mr Szamboti) also understand that, in normal operation, buildings and other structures do not accelerate at all. Once the structure has failed, however, gravitational acceleration becomes a possible (and all too likely) behavior. The acceleration will be substantially less only if the failed structure retains enough strength and integrity to offer substantial resistance to acceleration by gravity; that is hardly a given.

the range of possibilities that could cause about 63 million pounds of structure to offer nelgigible resistance to the 100' downward collapse

Again, there's something wrong with your presentation here. For several hundred years, we've known that the mass of a structure has little to do with how fast it falls.

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.
Like what, marshmallow columns?

Bare assertion and argument from incredulity create the impression that you don't have much of an argument. By the time you get around to mentioning anything relevant, most people will already have classified you as just another raving crank.

If there's anything left of your argument after your empty words have been stripped away, it's likely to be an esoteric technical argument that I am unqualified to judge. At that point, I see an inexperienced junior engineer (who has already created a strong impression of incompetence) arguing with the technical conclusions of a large number of experts who put substantial time and effort into their report. The inexperienced junior engineer might be completely right and the experts completely wrong, but I'm not likely to get rich by betting that way.

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

Grownups know the experts aren't always completely right, especially in matters this complex. I have enough background and experience in science to assume there are problems with the NIST report and a legitimate debate about some of its details or conclusions.

That seems perfectly normal to me, not reason to start the revolution. Even if it were, against whom would we be revolting? The senior engineers and scientists who wrote the NIST report? And why? To elevate the status of a junior engineer who's fomenting the revolution?

Sorry, Derek, but from where I sit that revolution just isn't worth the trouble.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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?

I'd missed this piece of scientific illiteracy. Since it was initially at rest, it had to increase speed, otherwise it'd never have fallen; and the argument about freefall is not that the speed didn't decrease, or even that it increased - it increased throughout the fall, as the most trivial analysis will show it should have. It's that it accelerated at close to 1G. If you expected it to slow down, that's barking.

Do you actually understand Newtonian mechanics?

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Well, you're plain wrong there. In the so-called 'mill fires' around Britain expansion of horizontal steel beams caused intense fear among fire crews, as the beams would push outwards on load-bearing walls leading to catastrophic collapses.

Before you ask, my source is a retired Brit fire brigade technical specialist ("BlueZulu" on the UK fire brigade forum, if I recall correctly) with whom I had a lengthy conversation on these matters back in my bad old 9/11 truther days.

So your little debunking nugget is a conversation you had with a guy on an internet forum. Fascinating.

 

[RedIbis]

Is it your contention that the thermal effects on steel are a myth?

No.

 

[Seymour Butz]

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- several. It might not be steel, but other lower melting point metals. Or not metal at all, since limestone ( found in some concrete mixes )melts at temps seen in the rubble piles ( and has been characterized as looking like lava - heard that before, right?). And other explanations exist like the plastics found in carpeting, computers, etc, if it's hot enough to melt, but not enoufg to burn away.

In short, all anyone has is unsubstantiated reports that it's some kind of metal, with zero reason to believe that.

2- yes. It matches the 8 story height of non/poorly supported columns that NIST believes existed as a result of the internal collapse. Note that this freefall period of 2.25 seconds was preceeded by a 1.75 second period where the facade fell only 7 feet. This is the period that the columns are all beginning their initial buckling. As the building falls, more buckle points/plastic hinges form, lowering the resistance given to around 1%. Bazant outlines the engineering behind this in one of his tower papers, I believe the first.

You may wish to review that paper and get back to us on whether or not you agree with the engineering and calculations. You don't need to agree with the data, btw. Just a comment on whether or not he's correct would go a long way to understanding your level of engineering talent for others to evaluate.

3- kinda. But it's irrelevant, unless one's trying to convince truthers that the report is shoddy. What matters is a refutation of the report's data and engineering.

So have at it.

 

[Seymour Butz]

NB can you check this:
For Euler’s critical buckling load of P_cr= Pi ² E I / L²,
Where L=12’ ; L² = 144

For L = 24’ (doubling the unbraced length) ; L² = 576 ; 144/576= .25, that is when you double the unbraced column length the critical buckling load is reduced to 25% of a 12’ column.

For L = 36’ (tripling the unbraced length) ; L² = 1296 ; 144/1296= .11, that is when you triple the unbraced column length the critical buckling load is reduced to 11% of a 12’ column.

And so on.

Accepted engineering like this is why troofs MUST deny the likelihood of the floor beam failing, which then failed other floors, which then led to these long unbraced lengths.

Just read Derek's respnse to the impossibility of that happening, by citing the shear studs in the floor pans. The math's been done, proving that the combined restraining capability of all those pins, combined with the restraining resistance of the connections, could in no way prevent the floor beam/girder failure. Yet, he must reurn to 2007 and argue something LOOOONG demonstrated to be a dumb point.

 

[Seymour Butz]

I would think that if you were to propose that thermal expansion caused column failure (something that has never happened in a large building) and that single column failure caused global collapse (something else that has never happened in a large building) you should produce some physical evidence for this unprecedented phenomenon.

But for some reason, the "skeptics" remain wholly unskeptical.

Well, since NIST doesn't believe that happened, I guess nobody's gonna bother trying proving that strawman to you.

Read the report again. When you can ask questions about how this or that can happen, while also remaining consistent to what NIST believes happened, then maybe there will be a chance of you climbing out of the pit-o'-ignorance that you dwell in.

 

[GlennB]

So your little debunking nugget is a conversation you had with a guy on an internet forum. Fascinating.

"a guy" ??
Funnily enough it turns out that my account on that forum is still working. Want to see his replies? They are informative.

A snippet (his name is BlueFire1, btw, not BlueZulu), where he responds to my queries in bold :

House+office fires may hit peak temperatures of around 900c, but generally burn cooler than that.

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

 

[BigAl]

OK. here it is. Of all the names, O'Toole is the only one I can't criticize. I grant that he saw ex-molten steel because says he saw a beam or it could be bad writing by the reporter.

Given that there are no samples of molten steel kept by any of the people that investigated WTC or worked ther and there is no science that can support the claims of steel-melting temperatures, I have to suspect the latter.

An estimated 7,000 construction workers and first responders worked on the pile. Seemingly only one person might have seen molten steel.

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

To repeat what I wrote yesterday;

Not only do they not say anything like "I saw", a transcript of their words starts with "you'd see" which sounds second hand. Why did the person that cherry-picked those 13 seconds excluded the preamble and didn't identify the source? Maybe it's because the firemen are calling what someone told them about "rivers" silly. Look at the video. They appear skeptical to me.

Here's the clip. (13 SECONDS)
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2018739670

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

How did he know he saw steel?

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

How did she know he saw steel?

It's second-hand. See
http://www.911myths.com/html/sarah_atlas.html (Thanks, Kent1)

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.“

Second-hand

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.“

Second hand and anonymous

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“.

Second hand.


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

How did he know it was steel?

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

'Metal" isn't steel and on page 59 and 77 he specifically mentions molten AL.

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

"Debris" isn't steel.

Dr. Keith Eaton, an engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event.“

http://web.archive.org/web/20031117...k/about/files/president/Tour-2002-NewYork.pdf

Second hand.

Vance Deisingmore, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel.“

Metaphor and hyperbole

http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm

Greg Fuchek, LinksPoint. Inc said "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"

Second hand

http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-recovery-tasks.aspx

Guy Lounsbury, a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.“

Second hand.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802/

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December.“

Second hand.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

A (NYC) fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11. And guessed that it was 1500 degrees. He pointed out “bright bright reddish orange” steel six weeks later.

Routine temps in a large fire and nowhere hot enough to melt steel.

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

That guy in the safety vest should get per-view royalties for all the work the Truth Movement gives him. Nothing he says is first-hand or hot enough to melt steel.

Kathy Dawkins, A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains....“

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

Second hand.

New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.“

http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/

Second hand

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948

[/QUOTE]

 

[twinstead]

I suppose if all those folks would have characterized what they saw as molten gold, Derek would be claiming that there was proof of molten gold at the WTC, no questions asked.