• 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

Toke said:
Yes, I googled that yesterday, with similar results.
Who would hire him for anything engineering related?
Click to expand...


The first video seemed like nothing but a sermon.

Is he on a mission from god?
 
I read pages 1-10, then 18-20; probably more reading than beachnut's done his entire life; point is, it qualifies me to comment.

Tom: Your long ranting posts do not get read in their entirety...and I'm reasonably sure its not just me. You come off as obstinent and argumentative. Try and calm down a little in order to remain objective.

Mackey: Knows how to Wikipedia "fallacy"

scottintaiwan: No one ever acknowledges you....whats up with that? Oh yeah, out of the 12 or so pages I read through, you had at least one comment per page, and added absolutely nothing to the thread.

BillSmith: I'll play Devil's advocate if you're still willing to put that theory out here....or did that get in pages 10 through 18? FYI, I'm a truther by association around here; as in, I was associated with certain questions, and labeled a truther.

My first glimpse of JREF 2010 is just like my first glimpse ever. Most of you are ridiculously pathetic, way more so than the truthers. You are ridiculing truthers for their stupid opinions; you are the ones showing up day after day, year after year, to 'debunk' what you assert are stupid ideas! Who is the stupidest then? (begging the question or rhetorical question Mackey?)

This thread: a big waste of time unless BS steps up with the grand unification theory.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
I read pages 1-10, then 18-20; probably more reading than beachnut's done his entire life; point is, it qualifies me to comment.

Tom: Your long ranting posts do not get read in their entirety...and I'm reasonably sure its not just me. You come off as obstinent and argumentative. Try and calm down a little in order to remain objective.

Mackey: Knows how to Wikipedia "fallacy"

scottintaiwan: No one ever acknowledges you....whats up with that? Oh yeah, out of the 12 or so pages I read through, you had at least one comment per page, and added absolutely nothing to the thread.

BillSmith: I'll play Devil's advocate if you're still willing to put that theory out here....or did that get in pages 10 through 18? FYI, I'm a truther by association around here; as in, I was associated with certain questions, and labeled a truther.

My first glimpse of JREF 2010 is just like my first glimpse ever. Most of you are ridiculously pathetic, way more so than the truthers. You are ridiculing truthers for their stupid opinions; you are the ones showing up day after day, year after year, to 'debunk' what you assert are stupid ideas! Who is the stupidest then? (begging the question or rhetorical question Mackey?)

This thread: a big waste of time unless BS steps up with the grand unification theory.
Click to expand...

Why bother posting this if you are above internet debating?

It's always funny when someone writes a post that critisizes others for writing posts.....

And by "funny" I mean "pathetic"....
 
MikeW said:
Same as any other truther. It's an ego thing, a way to try and show he's far smarter than anyone else here.
Click to expand...

No sir MikeW, not so. The only difference between me and others at JREF is my mind is not made up. I'm still open to the possibility that WTC 7 was designed wrong, although NIST isn't helping matters. Please examine the newsletter below that will reach several hundred engineers in Central Texas tomorrow.

Character assassinations will be ignored, but if you can help me get a better understanding of the technical details of the WTC event, or clarify mistakes below, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Ryan my friend, good news, good news, your ITAR NIST FOIA theory is featured, scroll down!

Greetings Engineers!

Thanks once again for the honor of being your branch president this year. I’ll make an effort this summer to get our website in order. With your feedback and help, I would like a site that we can keep up with the events that affect our business, share how to protect our stamp’s value, and keep tabs on the legislative affairs of Austin. I’ll also report on my soliciting for increased membership in several area targets.

Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, breach of Rule 4, E2.
Membership Agreement said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5669795#post5669795

"It is also intended to prevent the disruption that can be caused in a thread by having large tracts of text or many pictures pasted in, and to prevent the Forum from being treated as a personal blog or website.
Click to expand...

How can engineers learn from this event and stay in compliance with their professional obligation if they can’t see the substantiation for the reported root cause of WTC 7 and learn how to arm themselves and their careers with the WTC 7 lessons learned to protect the public health, safety and welfare?

Derek Johnson E.I.T.
TSPE Central Texas Chapter President & District 57 State Representative Challenger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Derek Johnson said:
No sir MikeW, not so. The only difference between me and others at JREF is my mind is not made up.
Click to expand...
So let's consider "molten steel", for instance.

I went looking for the truth. I attempted to contact witnesses to find out what they saw and how they knew this was steel.

Meanwhile, it appears to me you've done nothing more than cut and paste witness lists from truther sites. You defend these despite being entirely unable to explain how the witnesses distinguished steel from other metals. And you handwave away what witnesses actually said on the grounds that those reports come from "biased" sites.

So it also seems to me that, on this issue at least, your mind is very much made up. You're not looking for the truth, you believe you've found it already, and just like any other truther, you will try any old trick to ignore contrary arguments and information.
 
MikeW said:
So let's consider "molten steel", for instance.

I went looking for the truth. I attempted to contact witnesses to find out what they saw and how they knew this was steel.

Meanwhile, it appears to me you've done nothing more than cut and paste witness lists from truther sites. You defend these despite being entirely unable to explain how the witnesses distinguished steel from other metals. And you handwave away what witnesses actually said on the grounds that those reports come from "biased" sites.

So it also seems to me that, on this issue at least, your mind is very much made up. You're not looking for the truth, you believe you've found it already, and just like any other truther, you will try any old trick to ignore contrary arguments and information.
Click to expand...

Have you ever contacted one of the molten steel wirhnesses? to find out how they were able to claim steel?
 
DC said:
Have you ever contacted one of the molten steel wirhnesses? to find out how they were able to claim steel?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Leslie Robertson said of his supposed knowledge of "molten steel" that "I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

The man who wrote the Robertson article made his notes available & they spoke of "molten metal", not steel (perhaps a useful example of how they can become interchanged without anyone really thinking about it), see also the link above.

Sarah Atlas was a search and rescue team member, and she appears because an article about her mentioned molten steel. I couldn't find her, but the author of the piece doesn't remember the source, and says:

I am the editor of the newsletter you asked about, which is now Penn Arts & Sciences Magazine. I also wrote the story about Sarah Atlas. As you say, the story was written 4 years ago, so my memory is not going to be all that helpful. At that time, I spoke with a number of people besides Atlas about their experience, so I'm not sure where the detail about molten steel came from. It could have even come from a secondary source. I would say that it is not a detail I made up--I don't do that--but I can't recall from whom I heard it. Given that the possible sources for the detail were veterinarians, psychologists, dog handlers or others--and not engineers--I don't think their eyewitness accounts really qualify as expert testimony.
http://www.911myths.com/html/sarah_atlas.html

Dr Alison Geyh appears in an article saying ""In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel". I located and asked her about this, and she said:

I personally saw open fires, glowing and twisted I-beams. I was told, but do not remember by whom, that the workers were finding molten steel.
http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_alison_geyh.html

Dr Jonathan Barnett of FEMA I called one time and talked to for about an hour. He told me similar things, that he'd heard reports of "molten steel" but never located a definitive first-hand source,

And a media contact told me that Mark Loizeaux says there was no molten steel on the site. Although of course that's also second hand, so I wouldn't ask anyone to accept this as definitive fact.
 
Derek Johnson said:
There were first hand witnesses to molten metal seen in the WTC clean up site. Included in this witness group is University of California, Berkeley Civil and Environmental engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as "kind of melted." Years later, when asked again about his experience he clarified, "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." As of this writing, there has not been a single reasonable or lucid explanation to address how this steel could have melted. Furnace blast conditions are difficult to achieve outside of a control volume, such as those within a cupola furnace.

The destruction of WTC 7 was clearly a great mystery to government investigators . But more
Click to expand...

Name one such "government investigator" and lets see what he says. I bet you don't have a citation that names any "mystery" about the fundamental cause of the WTC7 collapse; protracted fire and lack of water for firefighting.

As for Astaneh-Asl, have you tried to contact him for clarification or amplification? He does answer his email. Weik is a friend of JREF.

-----Original Message-----
From: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl [mailto:astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance

Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " . But will they listen?

Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using my name in any context.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Derek Johnson said:
No sir MikeW, not so. The only difference between me and others at JREF is my mind is not made up. I'm still open to the possibility that WTC 7 was designed wrong, although NIST isn't helping matters. Please examine the newsletter below that will reach several hundred engineers in Central Texas tomorrow.
...

Greetings Engineers!
...
There were first hand witnesses to molten metal seen in the WTC clean up site. Included in this witness group is University of California, Berkeley Civil and Environmental engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as "kind of melted." Years later, when asked again about his experience he clarified, "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." As of this writing, there has not been a single reasonable or lucid explanation to address how this steel could have melted. Furnace blast conditions are difficult to achieve outside of a control volume, such as those within a cupola furnace.
...
Derek Johnson E.I.T.
TSPE Central Texas Chapter President & District 57 State Representative Challenger
Click to expand...

You absolutely MUST scratch this molten-steel nonsense from the newsletter! Seriously! It is a non starter, for MANY reasons repeatedly given to and never addressed by you in this thread!

1. You KNOW that the witnesses for "molten steel" are few and largely dubious. Please clean up your list of witnesses by scratching every one who did not witness first hand and whose claims you have not at least looked briefly into.
2. You have not yet explained how any one of them could have possibly identified anything glowing hot that they saw as "steel" or even only "molten". Please specify which method was available to which witness! Unless you do so, we MUST take your non-answer as your implicit admission that really there IS no credible basis for any claims of "molten steel" by any one witness
3. You must further convince yourself and us that at least one witness actually used a method to identify steel (to the exclusion of other materials) that was both valid and available to him or her. How do you know they did?
4. You must work out what minimum temperature the presence of such molten steel would be indicative of, given the alloys known to have been present, and any and all reasonably likely environmental conditions found in a builing trash pile, such as the massive presence of sulphur from fuels, drywalls and their ashes, that might influence melting point. Please state now: What minimum temperature are reports of molten steel indicative of? You must provide a number. Now.
5. You must provide reasons to believe that such a temperature can not be reached in a trash heap fire containing many tons of combustibles, including paper, wood, engine fuels, plastics
6. Only if you have shed sufficient light on 1-5 may you conclude that "something unusual" must have happened - in the trash heap. That is still no argument at all with regard to the conditions of the buildung just before it collapsed!
7. You must then at least formulate a hypothesis that would explain both molten steel in the trash heap a long time after the collapse, AND provide a reasonable method to demolish the building. No in the entire truth movement - no Richard Gage, no Steven Jones, no engineer and no architect has ever put forward such a theory! What is your theory?
8. Once we have your theory, we can make predictions based upon it, and test it against these predictions (and other already known facts and observations)

Without even attempting to give us some clue about 2., 3., 5. and 7., your entire argument from molten steel is no argument at all, your using it in widely publicised talks and newsletters is bogus, and your use of it to speak libellous about fellow engineers is descpicable.



The many holes in the argument and the many errors in your justification of it have been presented to you with utter clearness. You have been utterly unable or unwilling to defend your position. We must conclude that you can't in fact defend your position and must there for know for it to be indefensible. Your continued use of it can therefore only be described as a bold lie, deception, or fraud.



Do yourself, us, and most of all the recipients of your newsletter a big favour and cut that crap out of it.
 
BigAl said:
As for Astaneh-Asl, have you tried to contact him for clarification or amplification? He does answer his email. Weik is a friend of JREF.
Click to expand...

Yes, hopefully he will respond and clarify his statement.

This firefighter (and the one behind him agreeing) didn't really mean molten steel running down the channel rails. They really meant something else, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

This worker didn't really guess that it was 1500 degrees or that it was red hot almost six weeks later. He really meant something else, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY&NR=1

And this guy is lying through his teeth, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOr_4JzZeyQ

And you do have a lucid explaination for this NIST fumble below? ITAR, right?

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf
 
Derek Johnson said:
Yes, hopefully he will respond and clarify his statement.

This firefighter (and the one behind him agreeing) didn't really mean molten steel running down the channel rails. They really meant something else, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

This worker didn't really guess that it was 1500 degrees or that it was red hot almost six weeks later. He really meant something else, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY&NR=1

And this guy is lying through his teeth, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOr_4JzZeyQ

And you do have a lucid explaination for this NIST fumble below? ITAR, right?

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf
Click to expand...

why dont you try to contact those people you base your oppinion on?
 
Derek Johnson said:
Yes, hopefully he will respond and clarify his statement.
...
Click to expand...

Since you now KNOW that the one witness you mention [ETA]abuse[/ETA] in the newsletter to justify this molten-steel-bogus-no-starter-non-argument is himself absolutely clear that his statement cannot be construed as being even remotely indicative of foul play, will you now cut that crap from your newsletter and from all publications you have out there?

If not, my verdict on you becomes final.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom