Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[aggle-rithm]

As an engineer, when you stay something collapsed into its own footprint, what EXACTLY do you mean?

Especially since the footprint of WTC7 was actually SMALLER than the cross-section of the building above ground level. It would be a real trick by any demolition company to get it to fall "neatly" in there!

(Also, given the way it was precariously balanced on this tiny footprint, the only mystery is why it didn't collapse sooner.)

 

[DGM]

[qimg]http://www.wearechangeatlanta.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/WACA_Plaza_Flyer_VerticalStack.jpg[/qimg]

Hey Derek.

Just a quick question for you.

I have been having a discussion with a truther (mm) here, and he is adamant about the footprint thing.

As an engineer, when you stay something collapsed into its own footprint, what EXACTLY do you mean?

Can you provide a citation to any engineering or architectural journal, magazine or textbook to support your claim?

Thanks

As a builder, The "footprint" is anything inside of the physical dimension of the buildings foundation.

Hope this helps. (but with MM I doubt it)

 

[beachnut]

http://www.wearechangeatlanta.com/2010/engineering-destruction/

I hope to see some of y'all there.

Cool, you spread lies and say examine the evidence; but you have no evidence to support your moronic delusions. Why do you apologize for terrorists; to make money? You know you are making up lies and spreading them; are you out of work? Do you think the delusion circuit on 911 issues is big enough to support you and Gage? Is the 911 delusion business like Amway, or a cult? How do you keep a straight face when you present the lies?

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

... thermal expansion woo that happened within that NIST won’t explain fully nor release the technical details of due to jeopardizing public safety.

...
Amazing skepticism! Where else but an internet forum could brain activity be so anaesthetized?

Fire did it and you call thermal expansion woo, but it has been around since the big bang. That is failure!
Ryan can do more than one thing at a time, you can't. A couple of minutes a day is full time to you; you must be taxed to do more. Sorry, but most people can do more when they do more.
Amazingly enough, you don't spend anytime figuring out 911 because it only takes minutes to figure out 911; Proof, Flight 93 passengers did it in minutes and took action; you have 9 years and push moronic claims.

I am sick of debunkers not answering questions.

1. 100' unopposed drop
2. Molten steel
3. NIST models = video

100 feet? Fire brought down WTC7, it is clear the interior collapsed before the facade, meaning only the facade dropped with no support from the interior which was gone. Sorry, it is clear in the video.

Molten steel; if you mean glowing, I have seen glowing steel in my fireplace and outside in fires. If you mean rivers of flowing steel you are insane and will never provide evidence past hearsay. You are spewing woo.

NIST model? LOL, fire destroyed WTC7, who needs NIST. What is your conclusion on WTC7? WTC7 was on fire all day; it collapsed.

You are spreading lies - do you know it, or are you really that void of knowledge and evidence? With Gage it is fraud or ignorance; what is it with you?

anesthetized by paranoid delusions - Gage and his cult of paranoid conspiracy theorists - not as smart as terrorists and proud of it

 

[Oystein]

http://www.wearechangeatlanta.com/2010/engineering-destruction/

I hope to see some of y'all there.

Hey Derek, good to see you back!
We all watched Richard Gage's webcast from Washington yesterday. He repeaded that old falsehood about sightings of "molten steel", and keeps suggesting that this alleged, but quite likely false observation would have any conceivable connction to the collapse mechanism of any of the buildings.


Have you tried contacting him to suggest they remove that bit about molten steel from the AA911truth presentations? I believe you, Derek, have by now understood that

- No previously molten steel was found and analysed at the premises
- None of all the witness accounts allegedly speaking of molten steel are reliable. Many are hearsay, many do not even speak of "molten" or "steel", and none are from people with the required expertise to identify molten steel as such. Remember: YOU, Derek, were unable to tell several molten and glwoing materials apart just by sight.
- It has not been shown that the presence of molten metal cannot be explained by the extensive trash heap fires that were so rampant for so long on Ground Zero
- It has not been explained how any metal that was molten during the collapse event would have remained molten until discovered by witnesses, thus shedding grave doubts on the assumption that any molten metal, if indeed found some time after, has anything to do with the collapses
- There exists no theory that explains both the collapses and the alleged reports of molten metal by the same causes. You know that explosives don't melt metals, and that thermitiv materials contain relatively little heat and are thus unable to heat such great quantities of metal such that "pools" would still be molten a long time after, unless you propose extremely large amounts of thermite (on the order of hundreds of tons) were used, in which case the tell-tale signs would have been all over the steel that was examined at Fresh Kills.


I am sure you would hate to help spreading lies. So, please, Derek: What have you done to stop Mr. Gage from continuing to spread false ideas about that molten steel issue?

Sincerely
oystein

 

[Derek Johnson]

Hey Derek, good to see you back!
- No previously molten steel was found and analysed at the premises

No steel was recovered from WTC 7 at all. Nor tested per 'Stages of General Practice in Failure Analysis'. Metals Handbook Vol. 10, Failure Analysis and Prevention - 8th Edition, American Society for Metals.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index.htm

Third party testing would confirm whether on not molten steel existed at WTC 7, although it appears according to FEMA C that intergranular melting occurred in one piece of tested WTC steel:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

NIST has recently weighted in on whether on not this steel in question was from WTC 7 or not:

Response to Ron Brookman's FOIA request:

In a letter dated June 24, 2010, from Michael E. Newman, Senior Communications Officer, NIST, he states, "Finally, it should be noted that origins of the samples were not definitively known. …Thus, it was not possible to conclusively link the first sample to WTC 7 nor was there other evidence to suggest that such failures occurred in WTC 7 leading to its collapse. Since this phenomenon was observed in isolated instances, it was not studied further."

"The first appeared to be from WTC 7." NIST makes great manipulative use of that piece NOT being positively identifiable with WTC 7. They use that as their reason to not study it further.

How did they ever land on "the first APPEARED to be...."? Explain this please.

- None of all the witness accounts allegedly speaking of molten steel are reliable. Many are hearsay, many do not even speak of "molten" or "steel", and none are from people with the required expertise to identify molten steel as such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

These unreliable (so you say) and non-expert (so you say) firefighters really meant molten ____________________[Oystein fills in the blank].

Remember: YOU, Derek, were unable to tell several molten and glwoing materials apart just by sight.

And what fraction of total building metal (limit your answer to WTC 7 please) was that? Doesn't have to be precise, ballpark will make my point very well, thank you.

So, please, Derek: What have you done to stop Mr. Gage from continuing to spread false ideas about that molten steel issue?

Sincerely
oystein

Please limit your scope of inquiry to me, not Mr. Gage. I've asked a slew of questions in this thread that have received little more than roughshod, thoroughly lazy answers.

I'm here to learn, and unlike y'all, I don't have a closed mind about the structural stability of WTC 7. Again, tell me about how those 4000 tons of steel from floors 7-14 offered no resistance to the 1G descent for 2.25 seconds...according to NIST (stage 2). Tell me your hypothesis on the apparent (so you imply) "no energy dissipation" through this column steel.

Teach me what NIST won't about that amazing initiation of the beam between columns 79 and 44 at floor 13. How did those perpendicular floor beams both buckle and push the intersecting girder (with or without shear studs, depending on which NIST report you read) off its seat? How exactly?

Help me to understand why NIST is withholding the WTC 7 contract and ancillary construction docs from Ron Brookman S.E., and is denying his FOIA attempts to procure 3,370 files that include:

1. Remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model

2. Break element source code

3. ANSYS scripts files for the break elements

4. Custom executable ANSYS file

5. All spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

6. Connection models

Pointing me to more NIST woo does not make your case. Answering my questions (that remain unanswered, fyi) takes effort. Effort that hitherto remains unseen.

Thanks,
Derek

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No steel was recovered from WTC 7 at all. Nor tested per 'Stages of General Practice in Failure Analysis'. Metals Handbook Vol. 10, Failure Analysis and Prevention - 8th Edition, American Society for Metals.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index.htm

Third party testing would confirm whether on not molten steel existed at WTC 7, although it appears according to FEMA C that intergranular melting occurred in one piece of tested WTC steel:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

NIST has recently weighted in on whether on not this steel in question was from WTC 7 or not:

Response to Ron Brookman's FOIA request:

In a letter dated June 24, 2010, from Michael E. Newman, Senior Communications Officer, NIST, he states, "Finally, it should be noted that origins of the samples were not definitively known. …Thus, it was not possible to conclusively link the first sample to WTC 7 nor was there other evidence to suggest that such failures occurred in WTC 7 leading to its collapse. Since this phenomenon was observed in isolated instances, it was not studied further."

"The first appeared to be from WTC 7." NIST makes great manipulative use of that piece NOT being positively identifiable with WTC 7. They use that as their reason to not study it further.

How did they ever land on "the first APPEARED to be...."? Explain this please.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

These unreliable (so you say) and non-expert (so you say) firefighters really meant molten ____________________[Oystein fills in the blank].



And what fraction of total building metal (limit your answer to WTC 7 please) was that? Doesn't have to be precise, ballpark will make my point very well, thank you.



Please limit your scope of inquiry to me, not Mr. Gage. I've asked a slew of questions in this thread that have received little more than roughshod, thoroughly lazy answers.

I'm here to learn, and unlike y'all, I don't have a closed mind about the structural stability of WTC 7. Again, tell me about how those 4000 tons of steel from floors 7-14 offered no resistance to the 1G descent for 2.25 seconds...according to NIST (stage 2). Tell me your hypothesis on the apparent (so you imply) "no energy dissipation" through this column steel.

Teach me what NIST won't about that amazing initiation of the beam between columns 79 and 44 at floor 13. How did those perpendicular floor beams both buckle and push the intersecting girder (with or without shear studs, depending on which NIST report you read) off its seat? How exactly?

Help me to understand why NIST is withholding the WTC 7 contract and ancillary construction docs from Ron Brookman S.E., and is denying his FOIA attempts to procure 3,370 files that include:

1. Remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model

2. Break element source code

3. ANSYS scripts files for the break elements

4. Custom executable ANSYS file

5. All spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

6. Connection models

Pointing me to more NIST woo does not make your case. Answering my questions (that remain unanswered, fyi) takes effort. Effort that hitherto remains unseen.

Thanks,
Derek

Lies, Lies & more Lies!

Dude, all the steel was recovered & there wasn't any "molten steel" at the site. Perhaps you've mistaken molten aluminum to that of steel?

 

[beachnut]

Not the rivers of steel flowing again;? 9 years; If I had questions about the structural failure in a fire not fought on 911, I would answer them by gaining knowledge. 9 years and you can have a PhD. But most the world knows buildings fail in fire when fires are not fought. Countless examples of fire totaling buildings; only 911 truth fails to learn.

The funny part is, WTC 7 was not a target of terrorists, but the 911 truth cult members make it a smoking gun. I have never seen a building with the fuel load (ie office junk) of WTC 7 survive a fire not fought with zero fire systems working. To add to WTC7 many windows broken and lots of structural damage was done, you have fire with sources of air.


911 truth has proved after 9 years they can't figure it out. It only takes minutes to figure out 911. 9 years is massive failure.

The fact is the structure of WTC 7 failed internally, so there is nothing to stop the facade from falling. 911 truth has to ignore facts and evidence so they can sustain the paranoid conspiracy theory delusions they defend with no evidence.

 

[carlitos]

No steel was recovered from WTC 7 at all.

So it's still there?

ETA -

Please limit your scope of inquiry to me, not Mr. Gage. I've asked a slew of questions in this thread that have received little more than roughshod, thoroughly lazy answers.

Perhaps you missed the logo in the lower left corner of the pamphlet for your talk? "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."

 

[Derek Johnson]

So it's still there?

Please follow this link,

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index.htm

and please focus your eyes, if you can, on the part that states:

"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents."

Thanks.

Also, please answer these 4 questions I raised in #905

1. ...How did they ever land on "the first APPEARED to be...."? Explain this please.

2. ...Tell me your hypothesis on the apparent (so you imply) "no energy dissipation" through this column steel.

3. ...How did those perpendicular floor beams both buckle and push the intersecting girder (with or without shear studs, depending on which NIST report you read) off its seat? How exactly?

4. ...Help me to understand why NIST is withholding the WTC 7 contract and ancillary construction docs from Ron Brookman S.E., and is denying his FOIA attempts to procure 3,370 files that include: 1. Remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model. 2. Break element source code, 3. ANSYS scripts files for the break elements, 4. Custom executable ANSYS file, 5. All spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities, and 6. Connection models....why withhold all this?

 

[DGM]

Derek:
Why would anyone think WTC7 was intentionally demolished? Was it because it looked like it? So far no "truther" has ever answered this question. You want to be the first?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Derek:
Why would anyone think WTC7 was intentionally demolished? Was it because it looked like it? So far no "truther" has ever answered this question. You want to be the first?

Derek would answer something like this: "Because the firefighters said that they heard explosions coming from the building."

They HEARD explosions! They never claimed it was coming from "explosives".

 

[Oystein]

No steel was recovered from WTC 7 at all.

Thank you for confirming what I wrote: That no previously molten steel was recovered.

Nor tested per 'Stages of General Practice in Failure Analysis'. Metals Handbook Vol. 10, Failure Analysis and Prevention - 8th Edition, American Society for Metals.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index.htm

No testing = Proof of molten steel? Hardly.

Third party testing would confirm whether on not molten steel existed at WTC 7, although it appears according to FEMA C that intergranular melting occurred in one piece of tested WTC steel:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

NIST has recently weighted in on whether on not this steel in question was from WTC 7 or not:

Response to Ron Brookman's FOIA request:

In a letter dated June 24, 2010, from Michael E. Newman, Senior Communications Officer, NIST, he states, "Finally, it should be noted that origins of the samples were not definitively known. …Thus, it was not possible to conclusively link the first sample to WTC 7 nor was there other evidence to suggest that such failures occurred in WTC 7 leading to its collapse. Since this phenomenon was observed in isolated instances, it was not studied further."

"The first appeared to be from WTC 7." NIST makes great manipulative use of that piece NOT being positively identifiable with WTC 7. They use that as their reason to not study it further.

How did they ever land on "the first APPEARED to be...."? Explain this please.

You are very obviously not here to learn. Otherwise, you'd know already that the two samples in FEMA's Appendix C were never meltes. They suffered eutectic corrosion. They did not change shape, ergo no regular melting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

These unreliable (so you say) and non-expert (so you say) firefighters really meant molten ____________________[Oystein fills in the blank].

"Steel". So? Does it mean the really did see molten steel? How would they be able to tell molten steel from molten copper, aluminium, or even glas? They are merely fire fighter! Also, there is NO context to that video clip. When did they see that river? Where? What kind of "channel" was it running down - why did that channel not melt? And did they even see it, or are they telling the story second hand? How can you tell from this video?
Has it ever occurred to you that witnesses simply err? Is that video all you have?

I maintain my position: This is not a reliable witness account, because these men had no method available to them to identify whatever they saw as "molten steel".

And what fraction of total building metal (limit your answer to WTC 7 please) was that? Doesn't have to be precise, ballpark will make my point very well, thank you.

Huh??? Don't know what you are replying to there.... I had posted pictures of 7 different glowing materials flowing, and asked you to identify them, by sight. You totally ignored that challenge, showing that you are interested neither in debate, nor in learning anything.

Please limit your scope of inquiry to me, not Mr. Gage. I've asked a slew of questions in this thread that have received little more than roughshod, thoroughly lazy answers.

Gage is the leader of your pack, and you help spreading his lies. All the questions you could legitimately have were answered. Most of them many times.

I'm here to learn, and unlike y'all, I don't have a closed mind about the structural stability of WTC 7. Again, tell me about how those 4000 tons of steel from floors 7-14 offered no resistance to the 1G descent for 2.25 seconds...according to NIST (stage 2). Tell me your hypothesis on the apparent (so you imply) "no energy dissipation" through this column steel.

A long way into the collapse, perimeter columns on the north facade had lost all lateral support, and had buckled around the 8th floor. The entire interior of the building was already falling at that time.
A column that buckles on the 8th floor, will not offer any resistance to anything above the buckling point. In the absence of any other support, the top part will fall 8 floors. Till it hits the ground.
It is really so easy.

To practice your thinking skill, try to hypothesize how you could MELT 4000 tons of steel instantly.

Remember: You'd need at least 8000 tons of thermite to do that. And you would later find huge chunks of previosly molten iron. a total of 8000 tons (half of that from the thermite).



Where is your proof of molten steel?


You have none.

And I see you are prepared to keep on lying about it.




And stop shifting the goal posts. It is absolutely necessary that you STOP LYING NOW. No one will answer your questions if you insist on your LIES. Stop them. Stop them already.

 

[Oystein]

Even IF there had been "rivers of molten steel" - what would that imply?
Controlled demolition?



Since you are here to learn, let me try to teach you, kid (again):

The entire molten-steel-argument has several steps, and each step must be shown to be correct for it to mean anything with regard to the collapse of a building:

Step 1: It is true that witnesses reported the presence of molten steel in the trash heap

Step 2: There are methods available to these witnesses to accurately identify the material as molten steel (both the "molten" and the "steel" are of course necessary)

Step 3: It can be shown that the witness arrived at his conclusion by such a valid method

Step 4: We conclude from the presence of molten steel in the trash heap at some time after the collapse that it had a temperature of T then.

Step 5: There is nothing that happens in the trash heap of a building that collapsed do to office fires that could heat steel to temperature T

Step 6: We conclude that something unusual must have heated the steel such that it had at least temperature T when it was observed some time after the collapse

Step 7: We formulate a hypothesis of what that something unusual was and show that it would not only explain temperature T some time after the collapse, but would also provide a realistic method to intentionally demolish the building

Step 8: No other known observation falsifies that theory



We find that Step 1 is weak (we have to discard several alleged witness testimonies, but I think we can agree that at least some witness has reported molten steel

Step 2 and 3 are completely without any support from Derek, and that's where the entire chain of evidence is already broken

Step 4 could be reasonably done, if 2 and 3 were shown to be valid

Step 5 is more difficult - it is not at all clear that some steel alloys, after being subjected to all kinds of environmental influences found in a trash heap, could not be molten by some fires that are possible in such a trash heap

Step 6: Once we have verified 1-5, step 6 follows

Step 7: Entirely missing. That's what I kept asking at the beginning of our disussion after Derek entered: What IS this fabled hypothesis? Thermite? How would you demolish a building with thermite, and how would this same thermite continue to melt steel for days and weeks?

Step 8: Impossible as long as we have no theory.


So the whole molten-steel argument is weak both at its beginning and end, and broken in three separate places along the way.
That's a lot of explaining Derek has to do. Or he might declare that he rather retire this argument and purge it from any and all presentations in the future.

 

[Oystein]

Derek, if you think that eye witnesses know molten steel when they see it, then surely you will be able to pass this test:

Exhibit #1:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/293967938_fefbfba958.jpg?v=0
What is it?

Exhibit #2:
http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/io9/2008/08/79060530.jpg
What is it?

Exhibit #3:
http://www.lawrenceport.com/images/chuquiLiquid.jpg
What is it?

Exhibit #4:
http://www.jameslockman.com/jamesblog/down_the_hole.jpg
What is it?

Exhibt #5:
http://gallery.usgs.gov/images/05_26_2009/nr2Tlx8KKf_05_26_2009/medium/Drip2.JPG
What is it?

Exhibit #6:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/368337809_e92e87064f.jpg?v=0
What is it?

Exhibit #7:
http://www.amemco.us/exported photos/foundry.gif
What is it?

 

[Derek Johnson]

And stop shifting the goal posts.

I am shifting the goal posts? 6+ months and the questions I raised go unanswered? Actually, I raised these to TFK (where is he?) in January and they remain either unanswered or pathetically attempted still.

Someone on the fence might think you "debunkers" are not living up to your claims. Do better, try harder.

Just answer the questions raised, like the ones in #905 (and repeated in #909):

1. ...How did they ever land on "The first APPEARED to be...."? Explain this please.

2. ...Tell me your hypothesis on the apparent (so you imply) "no energy dissipation" through this column steel.

3. ...How did those perpendicular floor beams both buckle and push the intersecting girder (with or without shear studs, depending on which NIST report you read) off its seat? How exactly?

4. ...Help me to understand why NIST is withholding the WTC 7 contract and ancillary construction docs from Ron Brookman S.E., and is denying his FOIA attempts to procure 3,370 files that include: 1. Remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model. 2. Break element source code, 3. ANSYS scripts files for the break elements, 4. Custom executable ANSYS file, 5. All spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities, and 6. Connection models....why withhold all this?

5. ...And what fraction of total building metal (limit your answer to WTC 7 please) was WTC 7 comprised of? Doesn't have to be precise, ballpark will make my point very well, thank you.

 

[beachnut]

I am shifting the goal posts? 6+ months and the questions I raised go unanswered? Actually, I raised these to TFK (where is he?) in January and they remain either unanswered or pathetically attempted still.

Someone on the fence might think you "debunkers" are not living up to your claims. Do better, try harder.

Just answer the questions raised, like the ones in #905 (and repeated in #909):

1. ...How did they ever land on "The first APPEARED to be...."? Explain this please.

2. ...Tell me your hypothesis on the apparent (so you imply) "no energy dissipation" through this column steel.

3. ...How did those perpendicular floor beams both buckle and push the intersecting girder (with or without shear studs, depending on which NIST report you read) off its seat? How exactly?

4. ...Help me to understand why NIST is withholding the WTC 7 contract and ancillary construction docs from Ron Brookman S.E., and is denying his FOIA attempts to procure 3,370 files that include: 1. Remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model. 2. Break element source code, 3. ANSYS scripts files for the break elements, 4. Custom executable ANSYS file, 5. All spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities, and 6. Connection models....why withhold all this?

5. ...And what fraction of total building metal (limit your answer to WTC 7 please) was that? Doesn't have to be precise, ballpark will make my point very well, thank you.

What kind of engineer are you? Wow, you might want to get a refund on your education if you can't answer your own questions. They don't make sense; the questions don't support your insane claims of thermite and CD lies.

Looks like you fail to understand fires not fought destroy buildings. You were debunked on 911. 9 years of failure and you can't answer your own questions. What is the matter? Are you an engineer who forgot how to answer his own questions? You have had 9 years to figure out your answers and your failed. Now you ask other people to do your work for you.

Total failure. 9 years; cheer up, I am sure at your knowledge level you can keep this up for 9 more years without figuring out 911. What have you done in 9 years? Ask questions. Try answering your own questions! Wait, if you could you would have years ago.

Keep up the good work. Gage is a liar, why not expose him?


This is you discussing your ideas, you avoid your delusional CD claims and insane thermite lies, and you ask question you can't answer yourself. Good job; 9 more years!

 

[Derek Johnson]

What kind of engineer are you? Wow, you might want to get a refund on your education if you can't answer your own questions. They don't make sense; the questions don't support your insane claims of thermite and CD lies.

Looks like you fail to understand fires not fought destroy buildings. You were debunked on 911. 9 years of failure and you can't answer your own questions. What is the matter? Are you an engineer who forgot how to answer his own questions? You have had 9 years to figure out your answers and your failed. Now you ask other people to do your work for you.

Total failure. 9 years; cheer up, I am sure at your knowledge level you can keep this up for 9 more years without figuring out 911. What have you done in 9 years? Ask questions. Try answering your own questions! Wait, if you could you would have years ago.

Keep up the good work. Gage is a liar, why not expose him?


This is you discussing your ideas, you avoid your delusional CD claims and insane thermite lies, and you ask question you can't answer yourself. Good job; 9 more years!

The questions please, thank you.

 

[Oystein]

I am shifting the goal posts? 6+ months and the questions I raised go unanswered? Actually, I raised these to TFK (where is he?) in January and they remain either unanswered or pathetically attempted still....

Well, looking back at page 1, tfk opened this thread to discuss your ideas. The first ideas of yours posted in this thread appear in post 14:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5471743#post5471743
There, tfk quotes an email you sent him.

That email of yours was to a large extent about your idea that there was molten steel on GZ days, weeks and months after the collapses, and that somehow this was suspicious with regard to the building collapses.

My previous two posts address that idea exactly.

It is highly embarrassing that you have failed, 9 months any pages later, to formulate a hypothesis that would link melted steel in the rubble to any collapse scenaria, AND proof both the presence of molten steel and that hypothesis.

Instead, last time we debated you here, you announced that you would send a mail round to all your fellow Texas engineers, telling them about this molten steel folly,among other things. (Did you ever write that circular mail? Oh and how is your job as president of that Texas lalala chapter coming along? And your run for a seat in the Texas House? )

 

[beachnut]

The questions please, thank you.

Are you a member of Gage's group?

Was it thermite or explosives?

Where is your evidence.

If you are an engineer you can answer all your questions. If not, you are out of luck. The questions show a lack of knowledge in engineering. What kind of engineer are you?

You are discussing your ideas by asking questions. ... failure since it exposes your lack of knowledge.


Why do the posters for AE nuts on 911 say all three buildings fell at free fall speeds? Why do they lie?


Are you a melted steel guy? There was no melted steel. It would leave a pile of solid steel, like the piles of Al, and other metals which melt at lower temperatures. Found zero piles of melted steel.

Discuss some of your ideas on 911, stop asking questions you can't answer, it exposes your lack of knowledge in engineering and other areas.



You don't contribute to knowledge you ask idiotic questions.

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?

You failed to say what kind of metal! It was not steel. Yes office fires can melt metal as long as the fires continue. I can melt metal in my fire pit with paper and wood. Any engineer in the world can answer this question.

How long does thermite stay melted? Not very long; that eliminates thermite.

If you can't answer your own questions, you should sue the engineering school for not educating you. Need a lawyer?

 

[Derek Johnson]

Well, looking back at page 1, tfk opened this thread to discuss your ideas. The first ideas of yours posted in this thread appear in post 14:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5471743#post5471743
There, tfk quotes an email you sent him.

That email of yours was to a large extent about your idea that there was molten steel on GZ days, weeks and months after the collapses, and that somehow this was suspicious with regard to the building collapses.

My previous two posts address that idea exactly.

It is highly embarrassing that you have failed, 9 months any pages later, to formulate a hypothesis that would link melted steel in the rubble to any collapse scenaria, AND proof both the presence of molten steel and that hypothesis.

Instead, last time we debated you here, you announced that you would send a mail round to all your fellow Texas engineers, telling them about this molten steel folly,among other things. (Did you ever write that circular mail? Oh and how is your job as president of that Texas lalala chapter coming along? And your run for a seat in the Texas House? )

Yes, the Centex engineers got my newsletter, and there have been a lot of discussions since. Btw, this was posted previously.

Now the questions please, thanks.