Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[WildCat]

I want to know why anyone would wait 7 hours to demo a building?

Because they can! Muahahahahahahhaha!

 

[BasqueArch]

The Bigger They Come The Harder They Fall

...... Would 81 W14 x 740 columns with another 700 lb/ft or so of welded double flange to flange A36 built up offering no collapse resistance for 100 feet or 2.25 seconds maybe have something to do with it? ......

... 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

......

…… 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....

Loss of column bracing.​

...... The column in question is built up to the point that it is nearly solid steel...easily 1200 - 1400 lb/ft, correct?
But, back to the built up, this much steel in columns make for resistance, and if you want to run this geometry in Engineer's Toolbox, you'll approach a Pcr of 35,000,000 lbf. ... ...

.

So? Very Heavy Steel = Very Heavy Loads. Nothing there.
Small Cause > Large Effect

Very Heavy Concrete = Very Heavy Loads
Small Cause > Large Effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8​

 

[BasqueArch]

The more fire is covered up, the more it burns. - Ovid

Derek Johnson
…… If there was molten steel, this implies something nefarious. Molten steel is impossible in an office fire. ……

1. Thermite burns completely and for a short period of time.

2. The underground fires that continued for weeks is proof these fires were not thermite burning.

3. Anything molten after the collapse could not have been caused by nefarious thermite burning.

...

 

[The Almond]

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?

I think you've hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Mr. Johnson is probably going to respond that such considerations are irrelevant to the very specific technical issues he wants to discuss. In matters of discourse, he would be correct. However, we're not here to discuss the esoteric points about unresolved physical phenomena, we're here because were interested in the veracity of "alternative" theories on 9/11. Any such theory would necessarily need to be all encompassing, addressing all of the points you've noted above, but truthers are desperate to remove facts from context, preferring to get lost in minutiae, where they think they can "win." Truthers are endlessly pointing to molten steel as if it proves anything about thermite (hint: it doesn't), and they wilfully ignore that thermite would be utterly useless as a mechanism to destroy any large steel structure.

Facts do not speak for themselves, especially where truthers are concerned. They're only interested in presenting evidence outside of context, much preferring the who, what, why and where to be left up to the imagination. But what's even more pathetic, is that the people listed in post 598 are exactly the people who would be capable of answering these questions. They have the relevant expertise and knowledge to put together a cohesive, encompassing, valid, falsifiable, statistically relevant theory.

But in 9 years, they've done nothing. Not one research paper in ASCE. Not one real publication. Either all of the people on that list truly believe that the government is complicit in mass murder, and are therefore lazy and immoral, or they don't really believe the woo.

 

[newton3376]

Thanks for your concern Newton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XH...83DB2E7EB&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

What did I get wrong, then? I certainly offered a lot in over 1 hour time.

Was is the molten steel that really wasn't molten steel?

Or the unopposed 100' collapse that happened because the strongest part of the building collapse first but nobody but NIST knows why, and low-and-behold and office fire dun it?

Or maybe those global NIST animations that look nothing like the video collapse, except both are buildings and the general direction IS down?

You're not the only one laughing.

A much MUCH shorter answer would be....

What did you get right Derek?

Did you get ANY significant claim or conclusion right? ANY? Even one?

After reading your posts and watching your train wreck of a presentation I am forced to take ANYTHING technical that you say with a really REALLY big grain of salt.....like the kind of grain of salt that has me assume from the start that you are wrong until proven otherwise....

Keep hurting your future career with this nonsense....doesn't matter to me....

 

[Stout]

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?

I heard that Silverstein bought himself a building that was filled with asbestos and for some mysterious reason, the "powers that be" decided to let him in on the, err, plan, and take care of his problem for him.

Then they all retired to the Skull and Bones clubhouse and sat around on thrones made of money toasting their brilliance.

 

[Scott Sommers]

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:



So far, no takers.

And this is where Derek's missed it. He can play 'big man' with his friends from church, all he wants. It's clear if he's not even willing to answer something as straight forward as this why there aren't any textbooks or researchers or conferences talking about rivers of molten steel. But then you always knew this, didn't you.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

very good point.

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

Who said that? I don't think anyone here thinks anything on 911 was "normal"
There is however a huge jump from "curious but possible" to "Conspiracy and CD"
I don't think any of us here are qualified and experienced structural steel engineers ,and certainly no truther is, so all we can go on is whatever science or engineering training experience we have to judge whether truther claims have any validity. My Mech Eng training and experience suggest they do not.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

True, if nothing but air separates them from the ground. Was there more that air in the 100' of WTC 7?

Please show us what resistive forces should have been? Please list all assumptions made and show working.

Buckling of mild steels (and hefty portions thereof) has no transients. Amazing!

Show there were no transients

And office fires on floor 13 of WTC do this? Fail the entire structure? Amazing!

Show us why that is amazing. list all assumptions made and show working.

No, but much of that mass was column mass, column mass that was designed for structural stability. Structural stability that was part of a factor of safety of a certain redundancy to withstand much greater threats than office fire thermal expansion walking girder woo, like wind for example.

Show that the redundancy was sufficient to have prevented failure as observed on 911. list all assumptions made and show working.

Love the generalizations...anyway, thanks for your comments.

Love the wild ass guesses at what should have happened. Complete the above work. We will proof read it for you free of charge before you submit it as a paper for peer review and publication.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No bias in those sources. So, the molten steel testimonies really didn't mean molten steel. They were all mistaken? All?

Why not all?, which of those witnesses tested the molten metal?
There is no way to know if the metal was steel without testing. Noi testing was done therefore one can make no statement that it was steel or even likely to be steel.

How did the strongest part of the building collapse then, one walking girder from an office fire that was out before the collapse? What isn't suspicious about a building that falls 100' without opposition deriving this claim from the strongest part falling-imploding from an “office fire”? And what would or could cause a strong inner core of A36 column steel and built up to well over 1000 lb/ft diagonally and laterally braced to collapse? Hm?

Show us why that would be suspicious. List all assumptions made and show working......

Oh yeah, of course, an office fire!

Are you saying that the firemen are lying when they say there was also damage from the WTC1 collapse? Are you saying the fire was anything like a normal office fire?

What would be so wrong with NIST/ARA releasing their IGES and all sim, boundary condition, and input assumptions? You wouldn't be against that would you?

I wouldn't but then I don't know what they might reveal about the design of such buildings that might be very useful to terrorists. Would you be able to use that data even if released? What good would it do in any case....only nutcases think that WTC7 was demolished and the Gov. has better things to do than pander to fruitbats like Gage and Griffin

 

[Oystein]

I wouldn't but then I don't know what they might reveal about the design of such buildings that might be very useful to terrorists...

Actually, that is silly.

WTC7 was not attacked by terrorists. It fell victim to a set of unfortunate coincidences:
1. Damage and fire initiation due to collapse of a neighbouring building
2. Failure of city main water supplies
3. A Fire Department maxed out way beyond capacity

Now, without thinking too much "terrorists! national security! we need secrecy!", one could imagine simple arson to accomplish what 1. did, and possibly also take out sprinklers.

No other building is built with the WTC7 blueprint, so nothing could be revealed about this particular case that would still be useful to terrorists.
But the general case must be made public in the form of building code recommendations. In theory, terrorists could always have the same access to building codes as any civil engineer, and work out weaknesses of buildings in general from there. This should not prevent us from making recommendations and their reasons public that would also help to prevent disasters from fires not laid by super-clever terrorists.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Actually, that is silly.

WTC7 was not attacked by terrorists. It fell victim to a set of unfortunate coincidences:
1. Damage and fire initiation due to collapse of a neighbouring building
2. Failure of city main water supplies
3. A Fire Department maxed out way beyond capacity

Now, without thinking too much "terrorists! national security! we need secrecy!", one could imagine simple arson to accomplish what 1. did, and possibly also take out sprinklers.

No other building is built with the WTC7 blueprint, so nothing could be revealed about this particular case that would still be useful to terrorists.
But the general case must be made public in the form of building code recommendations. In theory, terrorists could always have the same access to building codes as any civil engineer, and work out weaknesses of buildings in general from there. This should not prevent us from making recommendations and their reasons public that would also help to prevent disasters from fires not laid by super-clever terrorists.

I wasn't thinking fires. Rather truck bombs similar to Oklahoma. I was just speculating about one possible/plausible reason why NIST would not have released the rest of the data. It may reveal a common weakness in buildings of this type. Yes WTC7 was unique, most buildings are but there may well a "congenital weakness" in a certain class of buildings that it might be better that potential terrorist don't know about. Yes super clever ones might work it out from plans etc but even the 911 attack was remarkably unsophisticated and moronic ones like McVeigh would never manage it.

If if there is even a suggestion that one particular type of building is vulnerable it would play havoc in the markets with many buildings requiring hugely expensive reworking to make them able to be leased. Post 911, and even now thats the last thing the US economy needed/needs.

 

[Oystein]

I wasn't thinking fires. Rather truck bombs similar to Oklahoma. I was just speculating about one possible/plausible reason why NIST would not have released the rest of the data...

But they did not look at any such scenario, simply because WTC7 wasn't attacked!
I don't think any building code is in place anywhere for normal civilian occupancy that takes things like plane crashes and bombs into account. That would mean prohibitive costs anyway. It's a different thing with high risk targets like nuclear installations or military command structures.

In my part Germany, building codes take into consideration what earthquake zone you're in. This is not Iran, Japan or California, but this is a mildly shaky region. However, the only buildings that really must be earthquake-proof are those that are needed for emergency management during earthquakes, such as hospitals, fire houses, designated public shelters.

 

[BigAl]

But they did not look at any such scenario, simply because WTC7 wasn't attacked!
I don't think any building code is in place anywhere for normal civilian occupancy that takes things like plane crashes and bombs into account. That would mean prohibitive costs anyway. It's a different thing with high risk targets like nuclear installations or military command structures.

My understanding of the fire codes in NYC is that fireproofing and sprinklers will limit a fire to one floor for an hour or two, giving the FD time to show up. The FD expects to find working elevators.

 

[TSR]

I demand to see the iceberg that supposedly sunk the Titanic. Otherwise I am going to believe that it was an inside jobby job.

.
Of course it was...
.

 

[TSR]

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist

.
His principal research interest since 1973 has been radiation-induced point defects in amorphous silica (a-SiO2).


Which makes his opinions on 9/11 relevant ... how?
.

Harley Flanders, PhD – mathematician

.
Funny that truthers never actually show any math...
.

Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering

.
Okay, marginally relevant. Funny that his trutherism isn't based on metallurgy, tho...
.

Hamid Mumin Ph.D., P.Eng., P.Geo. – Professor of Geology and past Department Chair at Brandon University, Manitoba, Canada, and Adjunct Professor at the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Western Ontario.

.
Did you really not understand that the request was people with *relevant* backgrounds?

I've spent too much time on this tonite already -- you're batting (being generous) 1 for 4, and the one isn't objecting based on his education but on his politics.

Are you ever going to get around to showing your ability to differentiate between molten metals by sight alone?

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
.

 

[Oystein]

pshhht TSR: The links to the pix of molten thingies are corrupted!
You can't just highlight and copy a text containing links, as long links are abbreviated, with ellipses ("...") substituting some portion of the URL.
Derek would have to go to one of my quotes of the 7 exhibts.

 

[TSR]

pshhht TSR: The links to the pix of molten thingies are corrupted!
You can't just highlight and copy a text containing links, as long links are abbreviated, with ellipses ("...") substituting some portion of the URL.
Derek would have to go to one of my quotes of the 7 exhibts.

.
Huh? What? I know that. You think I don't know that?

never mind that place where it says "last edited at" -- it lies
.

 

[DC]

Who said that? I don't think anyone here thinks anything on 911 was "normal"
There is however a huge jump from "curious but possible" to "Conspiracy and CD"
I don't think any of us here are qualified and experienced structural steel engineers ,and certainly no truther is, so all we can go on is whatever science or engineering training experience we have to judge whether truther claims have any validity. My Mech Eng training and experience suggest they do not.

i say that.

Truther makes a false claim, like in this example with suddenly collapsing with freefall speed. while free fall was only later.
but instead of debunkers pointing out the error some wannabe debunkers comes along and is explaining how that is totaly normal, like when someone is kicking away your chair from under your butt.

and there are some truthers that are experianced structural engineers. and there are also some debunkers that have no clue at all and just repeat the stuff they heard from real debunkers.
and even real debunkers can be wrong in some cases.

 

[Brainster]

If there was molten steel, this implies something nefarious. Molten steel is impossible in an office fire, and there are plenty who are claiming they saw it. Can I connect the dots? Nope, so its a non issue to those who are emotionally attached debunking the 9-11 conspiracy. Was molten steel seen? It appears, and I still have not heard anyone clarify how it could even be there.

Yes, the molten steel is very curious, given that NASA's thermal imaging from September 16, 2001 shows a high temperature of 747 degrees Celsius. How could there be molten steel at that low a temperature?

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist

Griscom? All the passengers are alive Griscom?

Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering

And a Judy Wood devotee and Uncle Fetzer buddy. Seriously, are you trying to make this easy on me?

Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD – Research Scientist and Visiting Scholar, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa 1980 - present. Former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).

Grabbe's resume is a little thinner than you might think; he last taught a course at the U of Iowa in 1987.

Arkadiusz Jadczyk, PhD

And the husband of the leader of an end-times cult, who claims to speak to aliens via a Ouija board.