• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

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.



I do, and other structural engineers that I know very well do to. All we want it a decent IGES and a reasonable array of FEA surveys, and if NIST is right, better still.



TFK is to blame for me. I think the molten steel witness statements hold a possible mode of column manipulation. That is a hypothesis I could test via multiphysics FEA and about thousands of hours labor. I've been pushing Mr. Richard Gage to turn in this direction since 2007. Will this settle it once and for all? Then why not?



David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist

Harley Flanders, PhD – mathematician

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

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.

Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

John Valleau, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Chemical Physics Theory Group, Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto

James R. Carr, PhD, PE – Professor, Department of Geological Sciences and Engineering, University of Nevada

David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE – Coordinator, Graduate Programme in Facilities Management, University of Sydney

Mary Schiavo, JD – Former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University

Fred E. Gardiol, MS EE, ScD EE – Professor Emeritus of Electromagnetism and Microwaves, and Director of the Laboratory of Electromagnetism and Acoustics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland

Bruce R. Henry, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Mathematics and Computer Science, Worcester State College

Henry W. Tieleman, BS Ag, BS CE, MS Mechanics and Hydraulics, PhD CE – Professor Emeritus, Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

David Wayne Nicholson, BS ME – Former Instructor of Machine Design at Indiana University and Purdue University. Retired Mechanical Engineer with experience in the nuclear, automotive, aerospace and pharmaceutical industries designing and developing new and novel machinery and equipment

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).

John Edward Anderson, BS ME, MS ME, PhD Astronautics, PE – Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota (23 years). Former Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Boston University (8 years). World-renowned expert on Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems analysis and design.

Dick Urban Vestbro, M.Arch, PhD Arch – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm 1974 - 2005

Osman Kemal Kadiroglu, MS ME, MS Nuclear Eng, PhD Nuclear Eng – Professor Emeritus, Nuclear Engineering, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey 1980 - 2003. Presently, Extraordinary Professor of Nuclear Engineering North West University, Republic of South Africa

Anthony Arrott, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Physics, Simon Fraser University. Distinguished Senior Research Professor, Center for Interactive Micromagnetics, Virginia State University. Guest Scientist, Magnetic Materials Group, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Joanna Rankin, PhD – Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Vermont.

Kenneth L. Kuttler, PhD – Professor of Mathematics, Brigham Young University.

Arkadiusz Jadczyk, PhD – Professor and Director of the Department of Nonlinear Dynamics and Complex Systems, Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw 1970 - 2004. Guest Professor, Center C.A.I.R.O.S, Institute of Mathematics of Toulouse, University Paul Sabatier. Recipient of the Humboldt Research Award 1995. Five-time recipient of the Outstanding Scientific Achievement Award by the Polish Ministry of Science and Education. Member, Editorial Board, Reports on Mathematical Physics. Author of more than 80 scientific publications about theoretical physics and mathematics.

Marvin Ortel, PhD – Professor of Mathematics, University of Hawaii

Dennis Bricker, MS Mathematics, MS Industrial Eng, PhD Industrial Eng – Professor Emeritus, Industrial Engineering, University of Iowa

Wayne G. Gautreau, PhD – Professor of Mathematics, Chandler-Gilbert Community College. 41-year career teaching mathematics and computer programming.

Jay Kappraff, B Chem Eng, MS Chem Eng, PhD Applied Mathematics – Associate Professor of Mathematics, New Jersey Institute of Technology. Former Aerospace Engineer and Chemical Engineer. Member of the editorial board of FORMA, a Japanese scientific journal. Member of the Board of the ISIS Symmetry Society. Author and co-author of more than 40 journal articles pertaining to mathematics and physics

Francesco Sylos Labini, PhD – Visiting Professor, Astrophysics, University of Brescia. Astrophysicist, Enrico Fermi Center, Rome, Italy. Author of numerous journal articles on astrophysics. Co-author of Statistical Physics for Cosmic Structures (2004). Co-editor of Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Systems with Long Range Interactions: Theory and Experiments (2007).

Jean Bricmont, PhD – Professor of theoretical physics at the University of Louvain, Belgium

William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont. He worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia for two of the nation’s largest building construction companies; the Austin Company and the George A. Fuller Construction Company. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses for over 20 years.

Alfred Aeppli, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Mathematics, University of Minnesota.

Terry Morrone, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University. Author of several scientific papers on the physics of plasma. Researcher and innovator in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and holder of 17 patents in the field.

****** ****** ******

To the point of NIST's "new - first time ever" phenomena, "new" cause of total building destruction, "new" root cause, I have not seen the industry respond one IOTA to office fire thermal expansion walking girder woo. This was NIST's recommendation, yet everyone in my world is unaware ignoring it.

Never enter an mid to high rise building again, there might be a fire, and now we all know what that leads to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ&feature=player_embedded

Seems to me that NIST is reaching, and the closer I look at their material, the more frustrating their work seems to get. The models and "new" phenomena are just a starter. The lack of iterations in the FEA and the miniscule-to-NO FEA support of the 79 to 44 stress strain initiation survey makes me a little skeptical.

This alone should make anyone skeptical.

Good cut & paste there, but you seem to have missed my point. I don't care who signs a 911 Truth on-line petition. I have never seen one these people at a 911 Truth demonstration, nor have any of them approached a politican or political leader about this belief. Many of those who signed are not Americans making me believe their protest is really with the Bush government. I have no idea if any of these pople still hold this belief and have reason to believe that many prominant early Truthers have changed their minds and will no longer support this position.

But all this is really irrelevant and reminds me of the kind of arguing I used hear from Creation Science advocates. There are no civil or structural engineering textbooks that talk about the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, although many talk about the collapse of the buildings. This is part of no curriculum at any university program anywhere. There is no professional discussion of the controlled demolition of the WTC Buildings. That's why a 26-year-old welder is making this claim on the JREF. End of story.

I don't care who signed an on-line petition from a 911 Truth group. Show me what construction professionals are doing in their classrooms and in their conferences. Show me a referred research paper from a respectable journal. And while you're at it, show me what the thermite research community is saying about Steven Jones' claims about the WTC 1 & 2 collapse and the use of some super secret super duper form of thermite.

Let's get real about this Derek. If all you can do is post Youtube videos and cut & paste on-line petitions, I can get that anywhere. The fact that you've studied mechanical engineer has become meaningless. Tell me something I didn't know before that you know because you studied engineering. So far, all you've said are things we've all heard before and have been handled sucessfully. That's why there are no associations of construction professionals involved in 911 Truth - NONE. There is no research or discussion of controlled demolition in the research commities of relevant professional - NONE. And until you can show me some of this, you're just repeating what I've heard on every Truther forum everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Derek,

I just this moment noticed that you began responding to this thread. Imagine my surprise.

I have a STRONG suspicion that this is about to become my favorite thread.

First impressions.

1. Thank you for the lame attempts at snarky insults. ("This is the best that [Tom] could come up with.")

It'll make the rest of this a little easier for me.

2. You are a disgrace as an "ethical human being".

3. Your presentation is an incompetent engineering disgrace.

4. You are a coward. In running away from experts. And in choosing your audience.

5. IMO, you should be drummed out of the engineering profession.

6. You DAMN WELL better find another line of work, because you are not going to last in engineering. But I strongly suspect that you already know that.

Politics would be perfect for you. Buckets o' Liars & Fools there. But you've already poisoned that well. You have no future there. Your efforts WILL be in vain. "Truther" will follow you around for the rest of your days.

I recommend that you go into religion. Your presentation has all the hallmarks of a 3rd rate holy roller.

Allow me to elaborate.

I am not going to bother to get into the details of your pathetic "arguments". (Your words don't deserve the title "arguments".)

Just the summary...

I DARE YOU, I BEG YOU to take your pile o' crap presentation to a Review Board of experienced Professional Engineers instead of a bunch of know-nothing truthers.

When you leave the proceedings, if you ever show the courage & reckless lunacy to show up, you will leave your balls & your dignity behind.

If the review board has any pull with your employer, you'll leave your job behind as well.

If ANY of this presentation gets in front of a Professional Engineers' ethics community, you can kiss your PE license good bye.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

We can get into the details over the course of the next couple of weeks.


Tom
 
Last edited:
Tom, I'm starting to feel the same level of irritation with the guy. He comes here posting Youtube videos and cut & pasting from other Truther cites like we're retards who've never thought of this before. It's got to the point where he relies on basic Truther resources so much, his actual background and education have become unimportant. The only reason anyone here is talking to him is because he claims to have special education in engineering. In fact, the only reason he's not being brushed off like plug Truther such as Red Ibis or the boys from CIT is that he claims to have this special background. But you'd never know from his posts. In fact, he's taking the whole discourse on 911 Truth back to years and years ago. It's becoming just another one of those stupid boring Truther things - rivers of molten and buildings that collapse at free fall.

Honestly Derek, either say something no one here has heard before or admit that you don't have (1) anything new to say about 911 and (2) anything that your special background and education taught you that's relevant here.
 
I forced myself to watch the whole thing.

What a train wreck.

There was a small, but primary, appeal to Derek's highest authority: Jesus Christ.

There was a lot of personal politics & economics.

There was a TON of tired, old, discredited Truther nonsense.

There was an abysmal dearth of engineering.

And as for "judgment", "maturity", "respect" or "professionalism" ...

Well, we'll get into those issues over the course of the next couple of weeks.

Derek, you don't see the conclusion of this interaction yet.

You don't see it because you are a wet-behind-the-ears, snot-nosed baby engineer whose degree has impressed himself WAY beyond its worth.

I do see the end of this game. It is BLATANTLY obvious. Because I've got about 25 years more experience than you do.

You are a babe in the woods, a piker, a novice. I don't give a rat's ass about your 10 years experience as a weld inspector. You have drifted WAY out of your field of experience.

And in the process, you have gone on stage and publicly insulted a couple hundred hugely competent, hugely experienced, hugely successful engineers, who have demonstrated their competence over long careers.

And you have publicly called these people incompetent. And deceitful. And corrupt. And criminals.

And you have done this based on blatant, trivial errors & massive inexperience & incompetence of your own.

I want you to think about this carefully. I am NOT guessing here. You have really, REALLY screwed the pooch. And you have done so in the glaring public eye.

Because you like the applause. & the attention. & the adulation of slightly more ignorant children that you can "wow" with cut&paste images from FEA sales literature.

If there were an annual MVP award for "Public Self-immolation by a Young&Stupid Engineers", you'd be a lock.

You REALLY need to put a rein on your out-of-control ego. It will be the professional death of you.

The next many years are going to be fairly painful for you. In a professional sense.

You might be sensitive enough to discern that I am a tad vexed by your performance.

You'd be right about that.


Tom
 
Last edited:
Derek,

I just this moment noticed that you began responding to this thread. Imagine my surprise.

I have a STRONG suspicion that this is about to become my favorite thread.

First impressions.

1. Thank you for the lame attempts at snarky insults. ("This is the best that [Tom] could come up with.")

It'll make the rest of this a little easier for me.

2. You are a disgrace as an "ethical human being".

3. Your presentation is an incompetent engineering disgrace.

4. You are a coward. In running away from experts. And in choosing your audience.

5. IMO, you should be drummed out of the engineering profession.

6. You DAMN WELL better find another line of work, because you are not going to last in engineering. But I strongly suspect that you already know that.

Politics would be perfect for you. Buckets o' Liars & Fools there. But you've already poisoned that well. You have no future there. Your efforts WILL be in vain. "Truther" will follow you around for the rest of your days.

I recommend that you go into religion. Your presentation has all the hallmarks of a 3rd rate holy roller.

Allow me to elaborate.

I am not going to bother to get into the details of your pathetic "arguments". (Your words don't deserve the title "arguments".)

Just the summary...

I DARE YOU, I BEG YOU to take your pile o' crap presentation to a Review Board of experienced Professional Engineers instead of a bunch of know-nothing truthers.

When you leave the proceedings, if you ever show the courage & reckless lunacy to show up, you will leave your balls & your dignity behind.

If the review board has any pull with your employer, you'll leave your job behind as well.

If ANY of this presentation gets in front of a Professional Engineers' ethics community, you can kiss your PE license good bye.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

We can get into the details over the course of the next couple of weeks.


Tom

What you forgot to say here was that an engineering review board with ethics won't allow itself to stoop to ad hominem like you have. They will force themselves to look at the arguments and evidence dispassionately.
 
Last edited:
What you forgot to say here was that an engineering review board with ethics won't allow itself to stoop to ad hominem like you have. They will force themselves to look at the arguments and evidence dispassionately.

This may be true, but I would imagine that his point stands; after they "force themselves to look at the arguments and evidence dispassionately" they will indeed laugh him out the building.

ETA: the only way to prove me wrong is for some brave truther to bring this debate out the internet and into the real world by convincing the engineering rank-and-file, but that'll never happen.
 
Last edited:
...... but there is something to restrain indeed. The girders are all tied to the concrete deck above via the welded shear studs every foot or so, and they may be doubled up (or more) on such a structure as this. ....

…. even with this stated, and assuming that this beam was not cross connected to other beams (it was) and not attached to the reinforced concrete deck above via shear studs (it was) ……..

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) …


Derek frequently asserts here and in the videos that the girders between columns 79 and 44 were restrained and composite to the slab because of the shear studs on these girders.
Wrong.

NCSTAR 1-9 repeatedly notes the absence of shear studs on these girders. Pdf pages 14 ,59, 385, 386,387, 390,393,402,403

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf

If Derek is going to call NIST’s report “Half-baked” and its members “liars … frauds” he should know WTC7 cold, otherwise people might think he doesn’t know what he is talking about.


.
 
Ooops. Got ahead of myself and already thought that. AFAIC he's an embarrassment to the profession.
 
Thank you Tom

Derek
In your public video 8 you called the NIST engineers liars and frauds and called for a "Federal Grand Jury investigation" of NIST individuals and certain NIST engineers by name.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."
~Luke 6:37~

You are being judged and condemned as you judge and condemn others.

From ASME Code of Ethics
1.a. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer, nor shall they indiscriminately criticize another's work.
2. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
a. Engineers shall endeavor to extend public knowledge, and to prevent misunderstandings of the achievements of engineering.
b. Engineers shall be completely objective and truthful in all professional reports, statements or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements or testimony.
c. Engineers, when serving as expert or technical witnesses before any court, commission, or other tribunal, shall express an engineering opinion only when it is founded on their adequate knowledge of the facts in issue, their background of technical competence in the subject matter, and their belief in the accuracy and propriety of their testimony.

http://sections.asme.org/Colorado/ethics.html
 
Last edited:
"This junior engineer career will self-destruct in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ..."
:D"
 
What you forgot to say here was that an engineering review board with ethics won't allow itself to stoop to ad hominem like you have. They will force themselves to look at the arguments and evidence dispassionately.


That is VERY true, Tony.

Every time I've sat on an ERB (over a hundred times over my career, chairing most of them), I've had to keep my snarky comments to an internal dialogue. And feign tolerance & interest in some of the stooopidest propositions imaginable.

And then thanked the bozo, uh, excuse me, "distinguished colleague" for his input. And promised - honestly - to give the matter "all the attention that it deserves".

Because one had to work with those employees (of one's own company) or vendors or contractors again.

So one generally fakes it.

In the case of a few pathological cases, I had private conversations with my boss, and then the problem child's boss, that eliminated 95+% of subsequent time-wastes. This is very easy to do. You simply arrange thru upper management intervention, if needed, that the bozo's requests have to come thru his boss's in basket first. And make sure that the boss's input cannot be a simple rubber-stamp. Problem solved.

The true fact of the matter is that, about 3 minutes into Derek's first presentation, most experienced, crusty, old fart engineers that I know would have asked "Is this the last item on the agenda?" If I were running the meeting, experience would have told me to put it there. If it were not, they would request that it be moved to that position.

And then, when Derek began, they would have closed up their notes, got up & walked out pretty darn quick. With a loud, clearly heard comment like "I don't got time for this ****."
Edited by LashL: 
Please see Rule 10
"This is NOT an optimal use of my limited time resources."

And Derek would have gained himself one instant reputation.


Tom

PS. Derek,

A tough-as-nails ERB, in front of really experienced engineers, is the equivalent of (well, not "peer" review, but) competent review of your assertions.

I IMPLORE you to subject yourself & your ideas to this process ASAP. Every piece of info that I saw in your presentation is from truther sites. Some of them, the absolute least competent ones available.

If you are right about any of you stuff, you have nothing to fear from this process. If you are wrong (and you are), integrity & honor DEMAND that you eliminate the false accusatory crap from your presentation.

And figure some way to look at where you went sideways on this.

And make some amends to the folks whose reputations you have (failed to) falsely besmirched.

The only person whose reputation you have really trashed is your own.
 
Last edited:
What you forgot to say here was that an engineering review board with ethics won't allow itself to stoop to ad hominem like you have. They will force themselves to look at the arguments and evidence dispassionately.
If Jones and Gage could support their delusions with evidence they (911 truth) would have a Pulitzer Prize, but instead they have a delusion of thermite with Jones who thinks the United State cause the earthquake in Haiti, which is based on the same evidence he has for his 911 delusions, it is called insanity.

Poor Derek is mislead and not able to use his education to overcome his delusions he shares with 911 truth. 8 years and not a single fact or piece of evidence to support 911 truth failed position; UBL is an engineer, he must be laughing at 911 truth. Why does 911 truth apologize for UBL and his terrorist buddies? There is no evidence for the delusions Gage, Jones and 911 truth have.
 
Derek frequently asserts here and in the videos that the girders between columns 79 and 44 were restrained and composite to the slab because of the shear studs on these girders.
Wrong.

NCSTAR 1-9 repeatedly notes the absence of shear studs on these girders. Pdf pages 14 ,59, 385, 386,387, 390,393,402,403

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf

If Derek is going to call NIST’s report “Half-baked” and its members “liars … frauds” he should know WTC7 cold, otherwise people might think he doesn’t know what he is talking about.


.

A follow up to what BasqueArch has said.

The shear studs on a composite floor deck are welded through the metal deck at the flutes. The flutes are the depressed portion of the corrugated deck. The deck is placed so that the flutes are perpendicular to the beam. This allows a stud to be placed at basically 6" o.c. as that is the spacing of the flutes.

When the girder is perpendicular to the beams the flutes are parallel to the girder. Studs can be attached. When the girder is not orthogonal to the beams there is a problem. The flutes are slightly off center and there can be large amounts of distance between areas to weld a stud down.

This can be resolved by cutting the deck on an angle and welding a plate to the top of the girder, but the labor is generally expensive enough to make buying a heavier girder cheaper.
 
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.


I must learn to communicate better :) I was not saying that ever was any thought that a truck bomb was used on 911 (well not by sane people) just that their investigation into WTC7 may have uncovered another hitherto unknown vulnerability.
Agreed that one could not design buildings to be 767 proof but there are simple steps like concrete casing of columns and putting the stairways widely separated so that they are not all destroyed with a single impact would have at least dramatically reduced the death toll.

Somehow I think 911 will not be the last time someone try the same act of terror.
 
Derek,

I just this moment noticed that you began responding to this thread. Imagine my surprise.

I have a STRONG suspicion that this is about to become my favorite thread.

First impressions.

1. Thank you for the lame attempts at snarky insults. ("This is the best that [Tom] could come up with.")

It'll make the rest of this a little easier for me.

2. You are a disgrace as an "ethical human being".

3. Your presentation is an incompetent engineering disgrace.

4. You are a coward. In running away from experts. And in choosing your audience.

5. IMO, you should be drummed out of the engineering profession.

6. You DAMN WELL better find another line of work, because you are not going to last in engineering. But I strongly suspect that you already know that.

Politics would be perfect for you. Buckets o' Liars & Fools there. But you've already poisoned that well. You have no future there. Your efforts WILL be in vain. "Truther" will follow you around for the rest of your days.

I recommend that you go into religion. Your presentation has all the hallmarks of a 3rd rate holy roller.

Allow me to elaborate.

I am not going to bother to get into the details of your pathetic "arguments". (Your words don't deserve the title "arguments".)

Just the summary...

I DARE YOU, I BEG YOU to take your pile o' crap presentation to a Review Board of experienced Professional Engineers instead of a bunch of know-nothing truthers.

When you leave the proceedings, if you ever show the courage & reckless lunacy to show up, you will leave your balls & your dignity behind.

If the review board has any pull with your employer, you'll leave your job behind as well.

If ANY of this presentation gets in front of a Professional Engineers' ethics community, you can kiss your PE license good bye.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

We can get into the details over the course of the next couple of weeks.


Tom

Why all the sugar coating?

Quit being so polite and say what you really want to say...
 
bump

Derek,
Here's my take on you list of alleged eyewitnesses. I'd like your take on it, especially the firemen talking about "rivers of molten steel."

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/
 
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.
To be fair, debunker ref pointed out that error:
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?
Furthermore, a simple 1/2gt2 calculation shows that Derek's claimed 100 feet of free fall in 2.25 seconds (thrice-repeated, in posts 327, 505, and 532) cannot have been a sudden collapse at the beginning.
 

Back
Top Bottom