Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Oystein]

7 Exhibits

Derek, I am dead serious about my 7 exhibits of molten somethings!

I want YOU to look at the pics and tell us what you see! Which of these are indeed molten steel, and which are not?

Or concede that nobody can tell from just looking at a matter that it is molten steel, and drop that argument once and for all, until you have PROOF of molten steel.
If and when you have proof of molten steel, of course, you are still oceans away from construing any theory about the reasons for the collapse.

 

[R.Mackey]

I asked ARA, Dr. Kirkpatrick, and he spoke for NIST in saying the IGES was off limits to me all as well as the input assumptions. He offered no good reason as to why, believe me, I didn’t say ok and hang up.

ARA was a subcontractor. They are not in a position to give you a release, certainly not over the phone. I'll just take that as a "no, I have no idea how to use proper channels."

As for heat vs temp …without a heat gradient i.e. temperature differential there is no heat transfer, yes or no? Temperature differences will always attempt steady state.

My point about the pipe I used to dry my furnace refractory lining (5 min in)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbZAHODNyE8&feature=related

was that a 3600 F flame could get my refractory (Sparcast LC 32) to the requisite 1000 F only after 20 hours. Why? Now juxtapose this to the 79-44walking girder that was assumed 800 C after 40 minutes at all points from end to end and steady state within the beam. See my dilema?

And why didn't my 3600 degree propane flame "melt" the 2800 deg MP A53B pipe? And why didn't the said pipe receiving direct impingement (from IR measurement and visually) indicate/measure only 1800 F on the pipe OD. See my photos. The difference between heat transfer and temperature are at the core of what I lay at your feet, the same thing you accuse me of have no knowledge of. Ironic!

Not ironic at all. You don't understand heat. As in calories, BTUs, energy. Your attempted analogy above has absolutely no relevance at all to the problem we're talking about.

Btw, I don't think you are supposed to be talking to me yet, I don't think I've crossed over your "threshold of interest".

You have standards to uphold you know!

I don't need you to remind me that talking with you will almost certainly be unproductive. That is abundantly clear from your commentary.

 

[Hokulele]

800 C was assumed to completely surround the 79-44 beam. I'd first thermal check this, because I didn't get near this much (HEAT TRANSFER) from on a 6' cupola that I dried with a 3600+ F (TEMP) propane flame, indirect..@ 5:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbZAHODNyE8&feature=related

Running different fire scenarios until 800 C is reached for 40 minutes would reveal plenty. Then the initiation of the broken connection would required a bit of modeling...there is probably 3-5 other beams that intersect this "walking girder" and they would have to be assumed fixed that their other ends. The “non-walking” end (44) would be fixed and the bolts and welds should be modeled with general means and methods errors. The shear studs (above the walking girder and 3-5 intersecting beams) and deck pan as well as reinf concrete above should be modeled in the initiation FEA survey as well...showing the von Mises gradient output.

Did NIST do all this? Where?

The results at this point should be convincing either way, and easy to disprove if crap.

However, if NIST’s initiation claim is right, then the gruesome task of dynamic scenarios could go, but the iterations, time, and cpu calcs for fine mesh would be tedious. The amount of indeterminate eqs would make this job tough, but if the world of simulations...beams can spin, dangle and float in mid air and not pay any mind to gravity, ask NIST for more info.

None of which answers my question. What would you expect to learn from their raw data? This ties directly in with my previous question, what do you think was the purpose of this simulation?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

While we're here, I want to expand on this:

So, the molten steel testimonies really didn't mean molten steel. They were all mistaken? All?

At least one of the sightings you cite is being misinterpreted or misrepresented:

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/ny...rld-trade.html

That link is to a November 2001 story that quoted Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who's studies of the WTC steel I've read. Guess what? The steel was not molten. It was corroded. The "evaporation" was actually a sulfidation attack that ate holes into the steel. It was indeed due to seriously high temperatures, but not temps high enough to melt steel. Rather, those were temperatures high enough to melt the either the iron sulfide or the iron oxide component of the eutectic mixture that was created by the steel, sulfur, and oxygen available in the fires. In short, those "partially evaporated" steel elements were not in fact evaporated via some introduced substance like thermite, or vaporized from some high explosive. Instead, they were the results of a chemical reaction creating species that not only melts at lower temperatures than steel, but also ends up eroding holes into that same steel.

How do we know this? The very Jonathan Barnett who was quoted in the NYTimes article continued his research far beyond the point he was interviewed. And he along with some other Worcester Polytechnic colleagues published it:

• Initial study: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
• Further analysis: http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/

So, was Dr. Barnett "mistaken"? Well, no, not in the sense that he mistook or improperly described what he saw. But is citing him as a witness to "molten steel wrong"? You'd better believe it. Steel that was eroded due to a chemical reaction is not "molten".

Now, does this discount the other witness statements? Of course not; it merely speaks to Dr. Barnett's sighting. But as an example of your rigor in examining what those witnesses really said, well... it's telling.

 

[Derek Johnson]

What makes you believe that their analysis of the initiating event was deficient? Except that you cannot make your little brain believe or imagine it?

My little brain has worked with ANSYS for many an hour, you start from a single connection, increase the mesh resolution (node density) and members incrementally. You would think that the collapse initiation claim would be modelled and simmed and lab tested, but no. No such luck at NIST.

And if you say a full scale sim of the entire building is impossible and the software providers would agree to that, then what is your beef with the 100' drop and your claim that the NIST animation does not look exactly like the real thing? If it can't be analysed, why do you ask for a new analysis?

The sim has to be built up piecewise, and a structure of this scale would have billions of nodes and millions of elements at full render, but working up to it in small steps is the only way, did NIST do this?

And why should Richard Gage, of all people, be better equipped to help you there than NIST?
?

Because there is money going into "911 truth" and some of this money, in my opinion should go to real FEA and FOIA. Plenty of people are aware of AE911TRUTH, and that's great, now it's time to use it or get off the pot. That is why Richard and all other that have the means and desire should pursue FEA, it will vindicate or incriminate NIST.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the "Scholars for truth" are avoiding such anaylsis, like the devil avoids consecrated water, because they suspect the end of their truther career? "Just asking questions" is so much more convenient...

Let me answer by saying this, not all those in "9-11 truth" really want resolution. Some, maybe not many, but some are making really big bucks maintaining things just the way they are...too bad for that.

 

[Hokulele]

My little brain has worked with ANSYS for many an hour, you start from a single connection, increase the mesh resolution (node density) and members incrementally. You would think that the collapse initiation claim would be modelled and simmed and lab tested, but no. No such luck at NIST.

The sim has to be built up piecewise, and a structure of this scale would have billions of nodes and millions of elements at full render, but working up to it in small steps is the only way, did NIST do this?

Because there is money going into "911 truth" and some of this money, in my opinion should go to real FEA and FOIA. Plenty of people are aware of AE911TRUTH, and that's great, now it's time to use it or get off the pot. That is why Richard and all other that have the means and desire should pursue FEA, it will vindicate or incriminate NIST.

Let me answer by saying this, not all those in "9-11 truth" really want resolution. Some, maybe not many, but some are making really big bucks maintaining things just the way they are...too bad for that.

Maybe the third time will be the charm, what do you think was the purpose of this simulation?

 

[Derek Johnson]

None of which answers my question. What would you expect to learn from their raw data? This ties directly in with my previous question, what do you think was the purpose of this simulation?

The NIST/ARA simulation purpose was revelation. The IGES data is all I really need, and due diligence would require a wide range input events and assumptions, which were not exactly carried out by NIST or ARA.

 

[Hokulele]

Finally. Thank you.

The NIST/ARA simulation purpose was revelation.

Revelation of what, exactly?

The IGES data is all I really need, and due diligence would require a wide range input events and assumptions, which were not exactly carried out by NIST or ARA.

Why would this need this wide range?


R.Mackey, if you are still following this thread, this little exchange is the heart of what I was suggesting as a Hardfire topic for you and Ron to explore. Experimental design, simulation, and model-building seems to be something the CTists completely fail to understand. For the most part, they think the models and simulations were meant to faithfully reproduce the exact events of that day (hence the bizarre comments regarding miles of welds and billions of bolts, or whatever that was). To me, it sounds like none of them, none, understand the role modeling and simulation plays in scientific study.

Back in my undergraduate days (way back ), my senior thesis had to do with large-scale structures in the universe and galactic interactions. Even though computers were less powerful than the average modern cell phone, we still created models and simulations. I wonder if Derek understands why, even though they were extremely crude by modern standards, they were sufficient for the task for which they were designed.

 

[R.Mackey]

R.Mackey, if you are still following this thread, this little exchange is the heart of what I was suggesting as a Hardfire topic for you and Ron to explore. Experimental design, simulation, and model-building seems to be something the CTists completely fail to understand. For the most part, they think the models and simulations were meant to faithfully reproduce the exact events of that day (hence the bizarre comments regarding miles of welds and billions of bolts, or whatever that was). To me, it sounds like none of them, none, understand the role modeling and simulation plays in scientific study.

Yeah, I'm still following. Ron has kept in touch and is still interested in the idea. It's a good suggestion.

I don't have any confidence the Truthers will understand it, of course, but it would be a good topic. I'd want to come up with a couple of crisp examples to illustrate the process.

You already know this -- there is a fundamental disconnect that prevents Truthers from accepting it, namely that they aren't interested in finding the best hypothesis. Simple models are often quite sufficient to distinguish between two distinct proposals. But the Truthers don't care and won't submit any alternate hypotheses to be tested. This is why, rather than use the models to answer a concrete question, they merely gripe about arbitrary and often impossible standards of precision, complexity, or content.

Hence all the Calls to Perfection. "I don't believe this model," they say. "I won't accept it until it's redone with ____________." They say this knowing full well that it won't be redone, because nobody that isn't insane has any remaining doubts. In cases where it is redone, they ignore the new results and move the goalposts. They don't want an answer, they just want an excuse to keep yammering.

Case in point, any number of Truthers wanted a scale model of the WTC 1 and 2 situation, refusing to believe the simulation until it was done "for real." The difficulties in setting up such a model are extreme, as I covered on Hardfire long ago. Nonetheless, Dr. Quintiere did precisely this, accurately predicting the correct failure mode and even the time to failure of WTC 1. Did that shut them up? Of course not.

There's no satisfying madmen. If logic worked on them, there wouldn't be any Truthers.

 

[Oystein]

...
Let me answer by saying this, not all those in "9-11 truth" really want resolution. Some, maybe not many, but some are making really big bucks maintaining things just the way they are...too bad for that.

What's your perception: Is Richard Gage in a position to dissociate himself from such elements, and is he doing that?


ETA: And I am still waiting for a demonstration of YOUR molten-something-spotting abilities

 

[Hokulele]

You already know this -- there is a fundamental disconnect that prevents Truthers from accepting it, namely that they aren't interested in finding the best hypothesis. Simple models are often quite sufficient to distinguish between two distinct proposals. But the Truthers don't care and won't submit any alternate hypotheses to be tested. This is why, rather than use the models to answer a concrete question, they merely gripe about arbitrary and often impossible standards of precision, complexity, or content.

Bingo. Until they understand why "assume the cow is a sphere" is perfectly legitimate from a physics perspective, they will continue to whinge about the lack of brown blotches on its hide.

 

[TruthersLie]

So, if no LOUD EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, INSANELY LOUD EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, then everything is fine. Got it.

Nevermind that the 1/2 billion pound building fell at the acceleration of gravity for 100 ft....that's normal. Happens all the time, especially when there is an "office fire" and a "walking girder" between column 79 and column 44.

And the molten metal wasn't really molten steel, not really there at all, and those silly fire fighters (among others) were just plain mistaken, right?

Can you tell by looking at any molten metal by sight alone what metal it is?

yes or no.

 

[TruthersLie]

Then simply answer:

1. How did WTC 7 fall at the acceleration of gravity for 100 ft?

Read the NIST report. If they got something wrong, create and get published an engineering refutation in any peer reviewed engineering journal anywhere in the world. Feel free.

2. Was there molten metal/iron/steel witnessed in the aftermath?

There was molten metal witnessed flowing from the towers and in the piles in the aftermath.

Can you tell me how many common used metals all melt at under 1100, and woudl then stay in a molten state at under 1100C.

Can you eliminate ANY of those commonly used metals? Yes or no.

3. Was the ARA/NIST FEA done with due diligence?

I'm not an engineer so I cannot say. What I can say is that there seemst o have been no major critiques of it published anywhere. Can you find one?

Help me out on these 3, would ya?

Thanks...

Sure thing. There you go.

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes it has.
"Structural Conditions Observed Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted--some as much as three feet--under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places."
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf

Unloved
There are even pretty pictures at the end of that report in appendix H... thermal expansion.

 

[BigAl]

The NIST/ARA simulation purpose was revelation. The IGES data is all I really need, and due diligence would require a wide range input events and assumptions, which were not exactly carried out by NIST or ARA.

Derek, my comments on your list of "eyewitnesses"
is here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5880929#post5880929

By the way, if you have the ear of Mr. Gage, please ask him to come to NYC and give his presentation where eyewitnesses and first responders have a chance to compare what he says to what they saw.

Members of "Structural Engineers Assoc of NYC" were on-site and heavily involved at WTC starting about noon on 9/11. We can make sure they hear about the event.

http://seaony.org/

 

[Oystein]

Can you tell by looking at any molten metal by sight alone what metal it is?

yes or no.

Prediction: He will not answer that question ever, as it would force him to abandon one of his pet delusions. I have asked him several times to look at molten things and tell us, from sight alone, which materials he sees:

Ok. I make YOU an eyewitness to hot-glowing things.

Exhibit #1:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/293967938_fefbfba958.jpg?v=0
What is it?

Exhibit #2:
http://www.ekoref.com/images/pro_20.jpg
What is it?

Exhibit #3:
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/78...40715C8DD1FCBF9CBF80B9CB893ECE30A760B0D811297
What is it?

Exhibit #4:
http://www.jameslockman.com/jamesblog/down_the_hole.jpg
What is it?

Exhibt #5:
http://gallery.usgs.gov/images/05_26_2009/nr2Tlx8KKf_05_26_2009/medium/Drip2.JPG
What is it?

Exhibit #6:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/368337809_e92e87064f.jpg?v=0
What is it?

Exhibit #7:
http://www.exametal.com/images/P1120315.jpg
What is it?

So far, no takers.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Massive money, and JREF members should pay for it.

JREF isn't responsible for your botched engineering training.

 

[DC]

Massive money, and JREF members should pay for it. Actually I’ve pestered Mr. Gage and AE911 about this for years. This and more FOIA would get far more done that shaking the ol index finger at Larry “pull it” Silverstein ever will, imo. $20,000 is the FEA software cost, and there isn't a computer made that could handle the amount of nodes & elements...so it would have to go piecewise...speaking of elements...

101,357 Elements…this keep getting better. There were probably in excess of 300,000 structural bolts in that building alone. 93,000 nodes is nothing with respect to the magnitude of WTC 7. Go back a few pages and read my comment of the likeliness of simulating an entire structure such as WTC 7? What did I say, read it. I’m no FEA expert, but I’ve done my fair share under and post grad, what they are claiming is a stretch, to put it mildly.

Better still, call a sales rep at ANSYS, ALGOR or LS-DYNMA tomorrow, and tell them you want the package that will dynamic collapse simulate a 600 ft ½ billion pound skyscraper…see if they don't ask you to get your mommy's permission before you play with the phone.

How about just FEA substantiation of the collapse initiation or a lab test proving the "office fire thermally expanding walking off the seat girder" woo?

Is that too much to ask for?

what the heck are you talking about?

what do you mean with doing it piecewise?

you do realise that NIST did exactly that?
first you model and test parts / connections etc, then you make simplified models of those parts or connections that lead to the same results but come with lot lesser nodes so it is possible to build up a complete building.

thats the only way usefull to do it piecewise, and that is what NIST has been doing.

are you sure you ever worked with Ansys and or Ansys LS Dyna?

and what exactly do you mean when you say IGES files? what files are ment by this? Model data is not the only thing you need, especially not in LS Dyna.

 

[Macgyver1968]

All of the engineers can discuss columns, and bolts, and welds. That's not my field of expertise.

I want to know why anyone would wait 7 hours to demo a building? Why was it necessary to demo a building no one had heard of, where no one was killed?

It's simple common sense...people do things for a reason, usually in the simplest, least risky method. What possible reason could they have had for CD'ing WTC7? I can't think of one. I've heard some truthers claim there was information in the building that would expose the "inside job"...so they had to destroy it. That really doesn't make sense...there are lot easier ways to get rid of incriminating evidence that destroying the entire building. So I ask....Why?

 

[Oystein]

...people do things for a reason...

Uhm - are you, by any chance, asking for an alternative theory to answer the question

"Who did what, how and why on 9/11"?

That would indeed be a great contribution...