Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Oystein]

The only amazing thing is the lack of skepticism at a forum that honors a truly great skeptic. The JREF position is that all the "molten steel" witness statements are in error. This is what I was trying to draw out of TFK in January and I finally made it.

All "molten steel" quotes are in error, all "molten steel" quotes are accidently wrong, all "molten steel" witnesses really meant something else, not molten steel....definately NOT molten steel. Got it. Thanks for the thoroughly amazing woo.
...

Oh yes I am skeptic! Skeptic of anyone's purported ability to identify some molten, glowing material as "steel".
If you took the test, we would know, and YOU would know, if we could at least EXPECT anyone to be right about molten steel when they see something molten.

If YOU can't show that any eyewitness is able to tell molten steel from molten anything else, then we have something to ponder.

Until then, you are the only one here who is too dumb to understand that "eyewitness testimony of seeing molten steel" is not the same as "proof there was molten steel".


So yes, of course ALL witnesses who reported "molten steel" could be wrong! Because they asserted something that they could not possibly know!



Now take the *********** test!

 

[Kent1]

The only amazing thing is the lack of skepticism at a forum that honors a truly great skeptic. The JREF position is that all the "molten steel" witness statements are in error. This is what I was trying to draw out of TFK in January and I finally made it.

All "molten steel" quotes are in error, all "molten steel" quotes are accidently wrong, all "molten steel" witnesses really meant something else, not molten steel....definately NOT molten steel. Got it. Thanks for the thoroughly amazing woo.


How?

As expected he isn't going to address anything we pointed out regarding molten steel.
Not the test.
Not the fact that there are extremely few first hand claims of molten steel.
Nor the fact that many were in fact proven to be in error by tracking them down and asking them.
Or that molten/melted steel claims aren't as uncommon as Derek would like to think in other previous structure fires.
Or that his you tube presentation was incorrect when he claimed his witness Allison Geyh could tell the difference when in fact she stated she never saw molten steel.
Or any forth coming answer as to why this thermite was still hot enough to create "rivers of molten steel" weeks later

 

[ref]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

Please go to page blah blah...

You didn't address your mistake, that is the "free fall" wasn't at T=0, but between T=1.75 and T=4.0 seconds.

Irrelevant, besides NIST claims the falling N. tower debris didn't contribute to the WTC 7 demise other than the fires.

Again, it's not irrelevant. If there were no fires, there would have been no excuse to demolish WTC7, since it couldn't have been blamed on the fires. Therefore, as I said in my previous post, if one is suggesting WTC7 was demolished, one is also suggesting that either the planes were remotely controlled by some strange technology, or both the towers were wired from top to bottom. It's not irrelevant, it's reality. You just have to face it.

 

[Oystein]

The only amazing thing is the lack of skepticism at a forum that honors a truly great skeptic. The JREF position is that all the "molten steel" witness statements are in error...

By the way: Are you saying, the skeptic stance should be to first believe eyewitness testimony at face value? Why is it unskeptical of us if we doubt that any witness actually saw molten steel? We gave plenty of reason for such doubt. Did you see it?

Don't lecture us on skepticism!

 

[MikeW]

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

911myths is my site, Derek.

All I did is what truthers should have done: pick a few stories and find out if anyone who's claimed to witness molten steel did so, and how they confirmed this. Leslie Robertson said definitely no, Alison Geyh said she was told about it second hand, Sarah Atlas probably wasn't the source in the article where she appears and the author says the likely sources weren't what you would call expert witnesses.

In a separate conversation with Jonathan Barnett of the FEMA team he said much the same thing, that he'd heard reports of molten steel, but when running them to ground it was always unreliable x-hand sources, nothing that could be confirmed.

I've also been told second hand that Mark Loizeaux says there was no molten steel at the WTC. That's only second hand of course and so can't be relied upon either, but I'd definitely like to find out more. (Although of course truthers will dismiss anything he says, regardless.)

So: my small investigations show that the reports of molten steel aren't nearly as definitive as truthers pretend.

What about yours, Derek? Which "molten steel" witnesses have been contacted by the truth movement? Which accounts have been confirmed through investigation, and what did the witnesses tell you?

 

[Scott Sommers]

I am not an engineer, nor do I have special knowledge about metals. It seems to me the claim is that no one can tell from inspection what a molten metal is composed of. But it does seem to me that Welder Derek could address this issue by point out HOW the observers he feels saw "molten steel" could know this. So Derek, the onus is on you to explain how it is that (untrained?) observers could tell. What are they looking for that would identify the metal? Color? Texture? Odour? Tell me.

Otherwise, it is entirely possible they are ALL wrong. Why wouldn't it be? If you can't tell from inspection, some of them could even be correct, but that would only be because they're lucky. So tell me, how on Earth could these stories be correct? How on Earth did these observers know the difference between molten steel and molten nickel?

Because if you can't tell us how someone could know the difference from inspection, then it's not possible that these observers could have known. And that means you're making up a story.

 

[BigAl]

So, with the molten steel quotes, everyone is lying, mistaking, misquoting or exaggerating, yes?

I can only read the texts. Unless someone you approve of does the interviews, that's all you can do. By my reading, most don't say "I saw" and in the absence of any physical evidence or supporting science are insufficient by themselves to serve as evidence necessary to believe that molten steel existed at WTC.

As someone close to GZ on and after 9/11 I can tell you that there was lots of rumor and misinformation being passed by word of mouth. There was much hyperbole and metaphor.

Did you ever play the game of "telephone"as a kid? 9/11 was similar.

He was not allowed access to many parts of the cleanup site, he was not allowed to "roam", he was often escorted, his truck had a GPS and was not allowed any other route that the one ordered, he was timed and was issued a cell phone which he had to answer and use exclusively while on duty.

So what? GZ was a huge and dangerous place and an estimated 7,000 people worked there. The 24 acres was divided in 4 quadrants and each was managed by a separate prime contractor that had it's own pool of manpower and equipment. That would explain the "don't go there" instructions.

The GPS was necessary to tell the driver exactly where to go to pick up and drop off each load. People unfamiliar with WTC and the Fresh Kills landfill operation don't appreciate how freaking huge the two areas were.

Since you are in the construction trades I expect you'll appreciate the book, Nine Months at Ground Zero by Stout, Vitchers, & Gray

Stout, Vitchers, & Gray were project mangers at WTC and were on-site by noon on 9/11. From the little bit I saw first-hand, it is fact-based.



[/QUOTE]

 

[BigAl]

Sorry I'm not a full time conspiracy forum magnate like you, Ryan.

Not one person here can explain how the 79 to 44 girder "walked off" from office fire thermal expansion

An "office fire" can easily be 1700DegF. Steel has little strength and much expansion when it reaches that temperature. Fireproofing is rated to work for just a couple hours and to work in conjunction with sprinklers and firefighting. All of that failed for WTC7 on 9/11.

As someone who isn't a structural engineer but with much university physics and being well-read in fire codes relevant to big buildings, the claim that hours of fire and with no firefighting caused the collapse is no surprise. That's why many people with relevant expertise anticipated the collapse hours before it happened.

For my understanding, which girder failed is irrelevant.

 

[sylvan8798]

Although others have made up their minds and cannot possibly consider otherwise with all things 9-11 conspiracy, I'm still attempting sorting it out, and I really hope y'all are right with "no molten steel", and magic walking breaking seat connection girders from office fire thermal expansion (woo) that led to 2+ seconds of an unopposed drop suggesting that 8 floors of a massive redundant building offered no resistance to such drop.

Mr. Randi was a skeptic, right?

You say that you are just asking questions and trying to "sort things out", but it's crystal clear from your postings that you have taken up a committed truther position from which there is little to no chance of retreat.

I'm not sure how large this field (peddling 9/11 conspiracy theories) is, or how much career potential it still has left, but perhaps there's room for you to make a living there. Good luck with that.

 

[Oystein]

I'm still attempting sorting it out, and I really hope y'all are right with "no molten steel", and magic walking breaking seat connection girders from office fire thermal expansion (woo) that led to 2+ seconds of an unopposed drop suggesting that 8 floors of a massive redundant building offered no resistance to such drop.
...

If you are really still attempting to sort it out - does that mean you have not sorted it out yet sufficiently? Why then do you go PUBLIC with the following bold assertions:

"...
2. NIST lied about the evidence of Molten iron/steel
3. NIST refuswed to test for explosives when explosive demolition was the most likely hypothesis
..."

(Your presentation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Wn34936oQ at 1:00)

May I ask you state CLEARLY now

2. what is your EVIDENCE for molten steel? Can you proof that ANY witness that talked of molten steel/iron identified iron/steel through a valid method analysis, and what WAS that method? In other words: Why are these statements EVIDENCE in the world of engineering?
3. What IS the HYPOTHESIS that you mention there and find likely? If you can not state that hypothesis, by what reasoning did you arrive at the conclusion it was MOST likely, or even likely at all? ETA: Around 2:15 you repeat that "13. .. the hypothesis of controlled demolition is consistent...". So again, care to spell out that hypothesis?


If we do not get satisfying answers to these simple questions, expect me to grill you on your conclusion (at 1:30) that "NIST's ... explanation is fraudulent"
How DARE you go public with such grave accusations if you are only just trying to sort things out? Or was that a lie? You are not really "still attempting sorting it out"?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So, with the molten steel quotes, everyone is lying, mistaking, misquoting or exaggerating, yes?

It this issue that makes it clear that Derek is not thinking rationally. He has to know that none of the witnesses to seeing "molten steel" actually tested it to see what metal, if any, it actually was. Furthermore he knows the debris pile burned for weeks and who knows how hot it got in the middle (we have seen pictures of red hot beams) so even if a small amount of steel did melt it proves nothing.

His failure to realize that the "molten steel" stories are irrelevant makes his judgment on any other issue extremely suspect and leads to doubts about either his intelligence and/or his sanity.

 

[twinstead]

How DARE you go public with such grave accusations if you are only just trying to sort things out? Or was that a lie? You are not really "still attempting sorting it out"?

IMO because like most truthers he has absolutely NO concept of the actual implications of his accusations in the real world. Truthers don't investigate like a real investigator would; it's more like some kind of video game.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I've seen quite a few structures, never once did a pan deck not get shear stud welded above the beams/girders in a column-beam design. Column-bar joist, only a few. But why does NIST show diagrams with shear studs, such as the one earlier in this thread? Is there something about shear studs that would disallow the office fire thermal expansion walking girder woo?

I've already explained why the non-orthogonal girders were non-composite. Perhaps you missed it.

 

[carlitos]

uh, yes?

The only amazing thing is the lack of skepticism at a forum that honors a truly great skeptic. The JREF position is that all the "molten steel" witness statements are in error. This is what I was trying to draw out of TFK in January and I finally made it.

All "molten steel" quotes are in error, all "molten steel" quotes are accidently wrong, all "molten steel" witnesses really meant something else, not molten steel....definately NOT molten steel. Got it.

So far, that is how every piece of evidence for "molten steel" has checked out, yes. Why is this so incredible to you?

ETA - the text I highlighted in your statement is unclear. Did the witnesses mean something else? No, they probably did mean to say "molten steel." Are the witnesses capable of discerning what type of molten something that they saw? So far, you have presented no evidence of this.

Do you plan on taking the simple test offered above?

**nb the "exhibit 3" link does not appear to be working. The others are fine.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So far, that is how every piece of evidence for "molten steel" has checked out, yes. Why is this so incredible to you?

ETA - the text I highlighted in your statement is unclear. Did the witnesses mean something else? No, they probably did mean to say "molten steel." Are the witnesses capable of discerning what type of molten something that they saw? So far, you have presented no evidence of this.

Do you plan on taking the simple test offered above?

**nb the "exhibit 3" link does not appear to be working. The others are fine.

I am reminded of the Steven Jones "molten" steel picture.

 

[A W Smith]

So, with the molten steel quotes, everyone is lying, mistaking, misquoting or exaggerating, yes?

You keep avoiding this, How could they identify whatever was molten as steel? Who cupped a sample? Where are the solidified pools of "steel"

A welder I did a PQR on for an Army Corp of Engineers job was at WTC from Oct 2001 to roughly May 2002 (as far as I remember him telling me). His job was to move the debris, loaded into his truck from WTC to the port. His debris, as far as he could tell wasn't analyzed, it was shipped off from the port (as far as he knew). He was not allowed access to many parts of the cleanup site, he was not allowed to "roam", he was often escorted, his truck had a GPS and was not allowed any other route that the one ordered, he was timed and was issued a cell phone which he had to answer and use exclusively while on duty.

He went to WTC to help out as an experienced welder/steel worker. He only drove a truck and wasn't allowed to take pictures or use his own cell phone while at work. He's skeptical, like me, of the official line of events and is skeptical, like me, of the subsequent investigative efforts, I know him well and can talk to him again about his time at WTC. I'll have a chat with him about this alleged "molten steel" and get his thoughts on this.

As far as he could tell? You call yourself a skeptic? So he was tracked by GPS along his route? issued a cell phone? Most truckers today are tracked by a Qualcomm GPS system http://www.qualcomm.com/innovation/stories/gpsone.html. They use the data to make operations more efficient and track progress. YOU should know this if you in fact were ever on a job site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_path_method
So he wasn't allowed to just wander around a ten story rubble pile willy nilly and take pictures? Wasn't allowed to hang out at Rosie's diner and brag about his cargo? perhaps sell a few pieces of scrap and profit? Wasn't allowed to contact the mob on his personal or disposable cell phone and fake a mob hijacking? http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-79221251.html There are more than a few reasons why they would constrain his activities to just driving from point A to point B.

Although others have made up their minds and cannot possibly consider otherwise with all things 9-11 conspiracy, I'm still attempting sorting it out, and I really hope y'all are right with "no molten steel", and magic walking breaking seat connection girders from office fire thermal expansion (woo) that led to 2+ seconds of an unopposed drop suggesting that 8 floors of a massive redundant building offered no resistance to such drop.

Mr. Randi was a skeptic, right?

Nothing but incredulity from a wet behind the ears "engineer" who was 17 when the towers fell. All you have shown us is a copy paste of long debunked twoof talking points. What was redundant about a simple grid framing system? Where is this "diagonal bracing" at the girder connecting 44 to 79? And what is the detail showing your shear stud placement over this beam between the ribs of floor pans intersecting diagonally? What was the connection at the seats specifically? And in your earlier posts you seem to be implying that every column was built up when that is not the case. In this NIST diagram (the red overlay is flipped upside down and backwards apparently) at the seventh floor only the columns in red are built up

 

[Stout]

Had i found myself wandering around GZ during the clean up, peered into one of the holes and seen something molten, I might have thought it molten steel just because there was lots of steel on the site.

 

[Oystein]

Had i found myself wandering around GZ during the clean up, peered into one of the holes and seen something molten, I might have thought it molten steel just because there was lots of steel on the site.

Would you have thought corrcectly so?

 

[Scott Sommers]

This is getting down-right stupid.

Is it possible to tell the composition of a molten metal from visual inspection alone? I don't care how many people did not did not label pools of molten metal at GZ "steel" or "aluminum" or "cadmium", for that matter. If it's not possible to do this reliably and accurately, then it's just not possible.

Derek, your claim seems based on this. No one here believes this is possible. Oystein has provided a basic test of this, although results on his test would not satisfy me at least it points in the right direction. You made the claim. Until you can prove this is possible, you come across like a 26-year-old welder know-it-all who has to cut & paste facts from Truther websites.

Prove me wrong. Prove Oystein wrong. But until you do, I'm going to bed laughing at just another Truth plug.

 

[carlitos]

I am reminded of the Steven Jones "molten" steel picture.

Right - the "molten steel" that firefighters could stare right into, without their faces melting off from the heat.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Search.jpg