• 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

Now, I have no idea about ITAR or mechanical engineering or molten metals. But I don't want to loose track of the original problem here. Derek Johnson has claimed repeatedly that "molten steel' flowed in abundance at Ground Zero following the collapse of the WTC buildings. It is not at all clear how he knows this. It appears he is relying on points he cut & paste from 911 Truth sites and not on evidence he has any first hand experience with. His response to this was that he go talk to his friend who was a welder at GZ but was treated like other members of the public and not permitted to wander freely.

But I don't really care what his friend has to say. I doubt many people here do, either. And I certainly doubt the hundreds of engineers and scientists who have worked on 911-related research care at all. I want to know how anyone can know the composition of a molten metal by inspection. Give me references. Give me lists of characteristics that one would look for. Give me anything.

But we all really know what the answer is going to be. Derek can post all the videos he wants on Youtube and go to all the AE911 meetings he wants. But until he stops getting his 'facts' from 911 Truth sites, he's going to continue to have problems being taken seriously.
 
Tony, how is that paper coming along? You know, the one to be published in a real actual peer-reviewed journal? The one that will finally convince mainstream enginers to demand a new investigation, instead of just a few fringe kooks?

Tony?

Tony?

Tony?

<crickets>
 
Derek Johnson said:
Sorry I'm not a full time conspiracy forum magnate like you, Ryan.
Click to expand...

Cheap shots don't impress me. Particularly when they're completely backwards. This is the only "conspiracy forum" I post at, and my posting here has dropped off to practically zero as your kind goes steadily extinct. You, on the other hand, have no visibility in the community apart from your conspiracy forum postings. I believe your error is called "projection" by the psychiatric profession.

Derek Johnson said:
Not one person here can explain how the 79 to 44 girder "walked off" from office fire thermal expansion
Click to expand...

Begging the question

Derek Johnson said:
(no need to discuss degrees of freedom or FEA substantiaion of this ROOT BUILDING FAILURE CAUSE, that would make far too much sense)
Click to expand...

Well poisoning

Derek Johnson said:
nor can or has anyone explained in any level of detail
Click to expand...

Destroying the exception

Derek Johnson said:
how the (81 lateral beam-girder & concrete deck as well as built up diagonal structural steel connected) column buckling transients were of such unusual time values,
Click to expand...

No True Scotsman

Derek Johnson said:
which they would have to be for such a sudden collapse to occur,
Click to expand...

Assuming the consequent

Derek Johnson said:
defying what we know of structural steel and it's 20% elongation properties,
Click to expand...

Begging the question and false precision

Derek Johnson said:
it’s remarkable fracture toughness that, bottom line, makes it the ultimate building material…
Click to expand...

Misleading vividness

Derek Johnson said:
and then suddenly collapsing 8 floors or roughly 63,000,000 lbm (significant portion A36 built up 1000+ lb/ft column mass) unopposed!
Click to expand...

Undistributed middle

Derek Johnson said:
Unopposed from some strange office fire walking girder thermal expansion woo that happened
Click to expand...

Assuming the consequent

Derek Johnson said:
within that NIST won’t explain fully nor release the technical details of due to jeopardizing public safety.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad hominem

Derek Johnson said:
Nothing-strange-there Ryan...nosir!
Click to expand...

Begging the question

Derek Johnson said:
And you don't bat an eye at the NIST director withholding data
Click to expand...

Appeal to motive

Derek Johnson said:
that includes the remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code, ANSYS scripts files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
Click to expand...

Misleading vividness

Derek Johnson said:
Amazing skepticism! Where else but an internet forum could brain activity be so anaesthetized?
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad hominem, abusive

Even though every single thing you posted is nonsense, utter non sequiturs that even a reader totally untrained in engineering should be able to spot, I only count ten varieties of logical fallacy. Rob Balsamo, a literal basket case, managed many more. Thus, you're not even interesting from an educational standpoint.

Therefore, I bid you Ignore. Best of luck to you in the job market.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I also work on ITAR restricted programs, and I see no ITAR reason for that information not being released.

ITAR applies to items on the U.S. Munitions List and it most certainly does apply exclusively to the export of these items to foreign nationals.

ANSYS software is in wide public use in the U.S. and there is no reason not to release the data to a U.S. citizen who is also a registered structural engineer who uses that software in his work.

I think the reason NIST did not state ITAR as a concern is because it had no basis.

I think you and Ryan are both guessing here and are wrong, but let's see what Ryan has to say about it.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it may be a public safety issue Tony? Take a wild and speculative guess. You're pretty good at that normally.
 
carlitos said:
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
Click to expand...

That was one of the things which always bothered me with this pic before finding the original. The radiant heat that close up would have been hazardous if not fatal. I suspect the molten steel claims are just being thrown around for fun these days, but then the conspiracies never cease to amaze in repetition.
 
funk de fino said:
Why do you think it may be a public safety issue Tony? Take a wild and speculative guess. You're pretty good at that normally.
Click to expand...

I do not see how it could jeopardize public safety to know how those girder failures occurred. In fact, knowing how they occurred would enable structural engineers to defend against it. The NIST reasoning here is problematic as they have made a number of recommendations for structural design requirements changes in building codes to enhance safety, such as consideration of thermal expansion. It is disconcerting that they are withholding this data.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I do not see how it could jeopardize public safety to know how those girder failures occurred. In fact, knowing how they occurred would enable structural engineers to defend against it. The NIST reasoning here is problematic as they have made a number of recommendations for structural design requirements changes in building codes to enhance safety, such as consideration of thermal expansion. It is disconcerting that they are withholding this data.
Click to expand...

Why is it disconcerting? What could they be concealing?

Do you think it would be good practice to give hints and tips to possible terrorists on how buildings could be attacked in a way to cause collapse more easily?
 
Oystein said:
Actually, it would be great if a truther presented this argument, for we would get a hearty laugh out of it: Thermite releases less heat energy per pound than paper, wood, plastics or many other things that burn in office buildings :D
Click to expand...

You mean that's not their argument ? I must confess, I've never asked a truther why they're so obsessed with the molten stuff and always just worked on the assumption that the super mega uber stupendous nano thermite is what's "needed" to up the energy levels in the rubble pile.

They can't seriously be thinking that the stuff was still burning weeks later, could they ? I mean truthers do watch Mythbusters right...right ?

Now off to hunt down that failed column cut at Burning Man video, I need it.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I also work on ITAR restricted programs, and I see no ITAR reason for that information not being released.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter whether or not you see a reason...

And just because you might have worked on something that has ITAR restrictions doesn't mean you are correct, which you are not, about how it can be used to restrict information....

Tony Szamboti said:
ITAR applies to items on the U.S. Munitions List and it most certainly does apply exclusively to the export of these items to foreign nationals.
Click to expand...

Nope....simply not true.

ITAR is not used "exclusively" for foreign nationals.....it can (and I have seen it) also be used to keep information from the general public....so using ITAR as a reason not to release information is not as restrictive as you are implying.

Tony Szamboti said:
ANSYS software is in wide public use in the U.S. and there is no reason not to release the data to a U.S. citizen who is also a registered structural engineer who uses that software in his work.
Click to expand...

A few here have already given some possible reasons....I'm not here to teach you about things like restrictions, national security classifications, etc

Tony Szamboti said:
I think the reason NIST did not state ITAR as a concern is because it had no basis.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be difficult to come up with a basis....

Tony Szamboti said:
I think you and Ryan are both guessing here and are wrong, but let's see what Ryan has to say about it.
Click to expand...

Could I be wrong? Maybe...but I doubt it...when it comes to things like restrictions, security classifications, or things related to terrorism or national security I am rarely wrong....so I'll go with my gut reaction and say that Ryan is likely on point here.
 
Lucky Ex Mrs Gage.......Imagine being married to that nutter?

Wouldn't it be fun to set a Private investigator onto Gage, Griffin and Jones when they are on the their little tours.....all those lonely nights....It would be interesting to see what they spend the Truthers money on :D
 
R.Mackey said:
ITAR.

The same computer code can be used to research, for instance, ballistic penetrators and effects on armor. It's illegal to export this technology without approval of the State Department, hence no unrestricted release.

This, by the way, is another thing that an engineer really should be familiar with.

You have an enormous pile of responses, questions, and other issues that you've completely ignored and run from. Very, very typical.
Click to expand...

Ryan,

You might want to check your PM mailbox.

It's full.

Perhaps that's not a bad thing...

Tom
 
I am going to post my original letter to Derek and his response.

In order that folks can see how this, uh, fiasco unfolded.


Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 22:00:54 -0500
From: reuses48461@mypacks.net
To: cattleprods@hotmail.com
Subject: An invitation to debate your 9/11 position at JREF

tfk said:
Greetings Derek,

My name is Tom.

I am also a Mechanical Engineer. Cornell U, 1974.

I found your comments on the AE911 website and a video on YouTube regarding 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=142Ati4GEJQ

I strongly suspect that you are an honorable, ethical young man who is standing up publicly for the things that you believe to be true. For all of that, I admire you.

I also know that you have backed the wrong horse.

You will not get any competent critiques if you stay within the AE911T community. There does not appear to be anyone within that group who is both competent and willing to publish any work.

You are peddling nonsense, Derek. You are far, far out of your league, out of your competence, when you challenge seasoned, experienced professional engineers at NIST & MIT & Cornell & Purdue & CalTech etc., etc., etc. You are far, far too young & far too inexperienced.

This is how this is going to turn out for you: For every thing that you "know" that they got wrong, the professionals are completely aware of that particular thing, and 30 other things as well that render your thing comparatively inconsequential.

I know this, because I've been there. Done that. Got the scars to show for it.

You are telling lies to people. The vast majority are not your lies. You are repeating - verbatim - other people's lies.

You expressed some very strong religious sentiment at the beginning of your YouTube video. While I am not a religious person myself, I think it would be safe to say that your religion would not approve of this. I believe that you would find yourself under a religious, as well as professional & ethical, obligation to get your facts straight.

So this is what I propose. I'd like to invite you to discuss your ideas & present your results at the JREF website. Come over, register, & engage with a bunch of knowledgeable people.

It will be a hard experience for you. You are a very young engineer. There are a bunch of guys over there that have decades worth of experience. Your presentations and engineering points WILL be dissected, for the simple reason that none of them stand up to 5 minutes of competent scrutiny.

In the long run, it will be a far, FAR less painful experience than the one that is in store for you if you continue down the same path that you've started.

I'm going to start a thread at JREF. It will be entitled "Invitation to Derek Johnson".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5469961#post5469961

Looking forward to speaking with you. Really, it'll do you good to come talk. And, if you're correct about your ideas, you've got nothing to worry about.

[It turns out that you are not right about them, and you're gonna get smacked around a bit. Hopefully just a bit. I'll try to run some interference for you - if you earn it. Please take my advice in the Original Post to heart. If you treat these guys respectfully, you will get that back. If you cop a 'tude (as my generation used to say), you're gonna get hammered. Either way, you will learn a bunch of real engineering.]


Tom

tfk at JREF.
Click to expand...


Derek's reply:

Derek Johnson said:
Tom tfk at JREF,

I think it would be safe to say that my religion would absolutely approve of this. I agree with you though, I believe that I would find myself under a religious, as well as professional & ethical, obligation to get my facts straight, you're right on target Tom tfk at JREF, and I will try to do this...put that in the bank.

Your insults, however, do not explain acceleration-observed collapse(s), nor do they explain the presence of molten metal. If you think that ARA "FEA" or Purdue "FEA" is actually "FEA", then yes, absolutely we need to talk, Tom tfk at JREF, we definately need to talk. A debate between you and me, or the entire slew JREF 9-11 official lie believers and me would be wonderful. Maybe they could use all their experience and the accumulatde knowledge of man to explain how Newton's law was violated.

While we are at it, how did dozens of witnesses, including the site cleanup engineer witness molten metal for weeks after the fact? Would office fire of normal combustibles or kerosene jet fuel melt metal and keep it molten for weeks?

tfk said:
The cut&paste laundry list follows. I've abbreviated.
Click to expand...

New York firefighters recalled ...

A NY firefighter described molten steel ...

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero ...

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue ...

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11...

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation ...

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire ...

A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells ...

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero ...

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer ...

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, ...

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center ...

A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage ...

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires ...

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, ...

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October ...

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions ...

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11 ...

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months ...

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron...

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw ...

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", ...

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley ...

These quotes, above, are all lies? Yes or no Tom tfk at JREF? Your answer please.

As far as I know, I will speak in a few months in Atlanta. If we could debate (1) the NIST report after or before that presentation as well as the (2) collapse initiation and acceleration, (3) the FEA "work" that has been done, as well as the (4) molten metal witnessed. This would be taped in front of the audience and published to youtube. I think that would be most instructive for those on the fence or who have no opinion, and you could even link to it at your little tfk at JREF web site. Of course your camp will probably not be moved in the least by what I say, the questions I ask or what I may point out with regards to 1-4, and those of my persuasion of the 9-11 official lie may not be moved by your excuses for the shoddy FEA, the witnessed molten metal, or the acceleration-videod building collapse(s). But I am about learning Tom tfk at JREF, and I'd absolutely like to learn the short cut to make buildings suddenly collapse. I could make much more money on the free market's division of labor armed with this short cut than I can in building structures.

Now go ahead at post this e-mail at your little tfk at JREF web site.

Best regards,
Derek - a very young engineer

P.S. If my presentation is full of lies, then reply where and why and I will revisit each "lie" and double check with what you have given me as well as what is availible to me. I'm not trying to repeat lies, I'm trying to figure out why I've been lied to. I hope you are right, I hope Al Qaeda acted alone in doing ALL of this...no person alive will be more relieved than me.

......Ridicule has become a substitute for Reason.
Click to expand...

___

That was the opening. At that point, I started this thread.


Tom
 
Derek,

Do your publicly stated religious beliefs not require you to speak the truth?

Derek Johnson said:
This is what I was trying to draw out of TFK in January and I finally made it.
Click to expand...

"... what [you] were trying to draw out of
in January ..."

You didn't try to "draw anything" out of me. You RAN AWAY from the conversation. You declined to participate.
___

From your so-called talk: "... the best that Tom could do ..."

"The best that Tom could do" was to approach you politely & respectfully. And with an urgency intended to help a young engineer, and a complete stranger, NOT make a public fool of himself. This was nothing but a kindness to you, Derek. An expenditure of time that I don't have, because I am (and will continue to be, in spite of your response) solicitous & concerned about young engineers.
[See my intro letter above.]

"The best that Tom could do" was to politely and cordially invite you to come & discuss your ideas here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5469961&postcount=1

"The best that Tom could do" was to plead with you to get your facts straight before you baselessly slandered honorable people in public. This is something your own father would do FOR you.

"The best that Tom could do" was to give you a (figurative) bop upside the head for slandering John Gross in public. An engineer that is as far more knowledgeable, experience and accomplished than you as one could possibly imagine. This is ALSO something that you father would (or should) do FOR you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5471743&postcount=14

"The best that Tom could do" was to pass on your message when you replied that you would be joining us.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5471743&postcount=14

"The best that Tom could do" was to request that everyone here give you a fair opportunity and treat you respectfully.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5471743&postcount=14

"The best that Tom could do" was to request that the posters here not overwhelm you. To give you a chance to state your case, and to help you understand what a fool you've been acting. This is the sort of action that any one of us would expect, & be grateful for, from one of OUR BEST FRIENDS.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5471770&postcount=15


"The best that Tom could do" was to explain to you one of your KEY mistakes in clear, polite language.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5472032&postcount=27


"The best that Tom could do" was to present my opinion of you as a "completely earnest, honest guy".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5472418&postcount=29


"The best that Tom could do" was to request again that everyone not overwhelm you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5472418&postcount=29

ALL of the above appeared on THE FIRST PAGE of postings ...

___


Then "the best that Tom could do" was to explain to everyone that you had decided NOT to appear after all...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5487299&postcount=78

"The best that Tom could do" was to inform you as to how you could easily save hundreds of hours of fact checking: use the JREF talent. Bring your issues, ask for brief, concise response. And you'd have immediate, verifiable and pertinent lines of research. This suggestion alone (which you declined) was worth it's weight in gold (if your time is nearly as valuable as you claimed).
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5487299&postcount=78


"The best that Tom could do" was to spend about 3 hours of my time, carefully composing careful, thoughtful responses to some of the issues that you brought up. Giving you the HONEST benefit of my 36 years as an engineer.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5487304&postcount=79
And a couple of emails. Until you decided to decline my invitation.
___

"The best the YOU could do" was to first accept, and then reject, my offer.

"The best the YOU could do" was to ignore the seasoned advice that I gave you. Well, there was a bit that you didn't ignore. That bit, you ridiculed. Like a spoiled, petulant punk.

"The best the YOU could do" was to send me a cut&paste, truther list of quotes - the very same one you posted here repeatedly.

"The best the YOU could do" was to reduce the "conversation" to a fourth grade level: "These quotes, above, are all lies? Yes or no Tom tfk at JREF? Your answer please."

"The best the YOU could do" was to provide wet-behind-the-ears, condescending snark.
"Now go ahead at post this e-mail at your little tfk at JREF web site."

"The best the YOU could do" was to was to be unforgivably rude to someone who went out of his (my) way to attempt to pull you out of the pits of foolishness in a relatively respectful way.

Texas manners are NOT what they used to be...

"The best the YOU could do" was to completely misrepresent our interaction, IN PUBLIC, and portray it as a situation of "you asked me penetrating questions for which I could provide no answers".

That was an utter lie, Derek.
___

All in all, Young Mr. Johnson, I am NOT impressed.

Your engineering is abysmal.
Your honesty is woeful.
Your allegiance to the truth is lip service and, frankly, a farce.
Your due diligence is non-existent.
Your ego's out of control.

Some day, Mr. Johnson, all of this is going to embarrass you.


Tom
 
Last edited:
Toke said:
That was a remarkable civil letter offering him some help.
Click to expand...

Yes it was. Wow - "Tom tfk at JREF" - he sure comes off like a jerk there, right from the get-go. I think that, even now, he is being treated civilly here.

ETA - if a google search for my name and profession had results like this, I would not be happy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom