Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Derek Johnson]

Name them, you should have the names on hand by now. If you put this claim in a paper you'd have to put names and sources in the footnotes.

Scroll up BigAl....sheesh.

 

[Disbelief]

Carlos, great question. And I want to play ball, but first help me out with the questions posed in 905, 909 and 915 (and gently reminded others to just answer in 917, 920, 922, 931, 943, 945, 948 and now 955) would ya?

Thanks bud.

Just curious why you think spending your time on JREF is a good way to bring about justice. Would it not be better to write a peer reviewed paper and get it published?

And no, I am not going to answer your questions. I have dealt with enough young, arrogant kids to not want to deal with another. Good luck in your search, I just hope you come to realize that you are wrong before you have wasted too much of your life.

 

[Oystein]

...
He's [Oystein] showing me what looks like bronze or copper alloys. I've melted bronze in a cupola, but mostly steel. He's suggesting otherwise, but the two have a different appearance....dross forms differently, etc.

His problems, and the problem with the premise of the questions is contained in my question #5. Will you be brave and answer it? You better believe it is a setup.

Derek, the 7 pictures show 7 different things that appear to glow, and appear to flow. Bronze and copper may or may not be among them. Steel may or may not be among them. In fact, non-metals may or may not be among them.
Yep, it's a setup. The point is: When someone reports seeing molten "steel", he may very well be wrong, because molten copper, glas, aluminium, concrete etc. may look VERY similar.

#5: See below

It appears that a lot of people witnessed molten metal, many of these, including firefighters said "molten steel" and seemed sure of using the term.

Can you corroborate their opinions? I once overheard a man who was sure that an earthquake had lasted for 2 minutes, when in fact it shook only 12 seconds.
What method did they use to identify the material, and was that method valid? If you think visual inspection is a reliable method, then surely yu can identify at least, say, 4 of my 7 hotglowing stuffs? I am waiting!
If DON'T identify some of the materials in my test, I take that as your admitting that visual inspection is NOT a reliable method of identifying molten material, no matter how convinced the witness may be.

TFK claimed this was lead, tin, and aluminum. Others say glass.

Actually, TFK and others do not make such specific claims, as we understand that reports of visual inspection are NOT enough to determine what it could be. We are, however, pointing out that YOU have made no effort whatsoever to rule out other materials and believe "steel" on blind faith.

USGS has some pretty hot surface temps for a while after the fact

Let's talk about that "for a while". What while? When (what date) was the last sighting of "molten steel" that you have faith in? October? November?
Now, if you melt, say, 4000 tons of steel on 9/11/2001 late in the afternoon, how much molten steel will be left 24 hours later? 48 hours later? 1 week later? 1 month later? More than 0 kg?
Now, if someone reports molten steel 1 month later, what would that mean with regard to the event on 9/11? if someone reports molten steel 1 week laterm what would it mean?

And finally, lets just suppose steel would remain molten for so long: What method coul be used to melt such amounts of steel within so few seconds? How much steel would have to be melted?
What I am going at is of course the utter lack of any theory to explain the collapse of WTC7 and the presence of molten steel a long time after.

...Jason is one of the best welders around, and he drove one of the "recycling" trucks. ... Anyway Jason's truck had a GPS, he was issued cell phone, given a strict route to the port, no talking to strangers, he was timed and odometer noted on each end.

What's the problem here? You know that scrap metal is valuable and very often stolen in large amounts? Imagine what twoofers would say if the chain of custody of that material, that was transported to Fresh Kills for intense forensic examination, had not been as thoroughly monitored!

Jason confirmed to me in 2007 that it was common to hear people talk about the ends of beams, columns, spandrels, W shapes etc glowing/dripping or otherwise being inordinately hot when they were being pulled out. He heard 2nd hand molten steel accounts throughout his time recycling WTC steel from ground 0 to the port.

There's yer problems with witnesses.

The 246 retained peices (fresh kills) were hand picked, over 99% of the site steel...and 100% of WTC 7 steel was quickly shipped to Boa Steel.

TFK's basis for Al, Sn, Pb is unfounded, and #5 will make this obvious.

Do you doubt that Al, Sn, Pb were present? Do you doubt that Al, Sn, Pb can melt in office or trash heap fires?
Do you doubt that steel can melt in office or trash heap fires? (You better do!)

1. ...How did NIST ever land on "The first APPEARED to be...." (re: WTC 7 steel (so FEMA stated but NIST now denies) sample in FEMA App C)? Explain this please.

NIST, being honest, does not make claims they don't have evidence for. They state things to the best of their knowledge. Relying on 2nd-hand witness accounts, they KNOW they can't be too sure here, and hence use cautious wording: "appears". If you are not cool with that, the only alternative would be to throw this particular piece out completely, and not use it as evidence at all. Would that be cool by you?

3. ...How did those WTC 7 floor 13 framing beams both buckle and push the intersecting 79 to 44 girder (with or without shear studs, depending on which NIST report you read) off its seat @ column 79? How exactly?

No one knows exactly, silly. There weren't any eye witnesses
My fist can dislodge your chin and break itself, too. I don't see your problem, really.

...
5. ...And what were the fractions of WTC 7 metal (example 96% Steel, 2% Aluminum, 1% Copper and so forth)? Doesn't have to be precise, ballpark will make my point very well, thank you.

Most of the metal in WTC 7 was steel. Sure.
Some was aluminium, copper, lead, zink, and certainly many more metals. Do you agree? There were also non-metals that can melt and glow, for example glas. Or concrete. Or granite.
Satisfied?
Now question back at you: If you heat the entire WTC7 to, say, 1100°C, and collect all the liquid stuff that seeps out, what materials would that be, and in what percentages? Ballpark figures would suffice.
(Hint: Aluminium, copper, brass, zink, lead are probably high on the list, maybe some glasses. Steel probably 0%)
(Disclaimer: Yes, I know it is a silly question. But less so than your #5 with regards to discussion of witnesses seeing molten stuff)

 

[Carlos]

Derek Johnson,

Have you already worked with ANSYS?

Do you think is it a good and practical ideia for people who haven't participated of the study try to understand what was done at hundreds of APDL pages (ANSYS Parametric Design Language) and thousands of "programing lines"?

What about engineers from A&E make their own FE model? Wouldn't be easier?

 

[BigAl]

Scroll up BigAl....sheesh.

I jost scrolled back a day's worth of messages and if threr are names there, I missed it.

Names or a link, please.

 

[bill smith]

Hey Bill. If they OCT twoofs read anything, it should be this. Not that this will pursuade them...but it's fun to listen to them squeal like stuck pigs. This is one such poker...enjoy.

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

FOIA officer to Ron Brookman S.E.

“January 26, 2010

Dear Mr. Brookman, This letter is in response to your Jan 1, 2010 FOIA #10-037 request to NIST in which you requested a copy of ‘the structural calculations or ANSYS analysis results that substantiate the walk-off failures at columns 79 and 81.’

Enclosed you will find a disc that contains 8,910 files that can be released and are responsive to your request. The files on the disc contain input files of a version of the 16-story ANSYS model of the WTC 7 structure, which does not include the connection models and was analyzed with service gravity loads, and Case B temperature files.

We are, however, withholding 3,370 files.

The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include 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.

Sincerely, Catherine S. Fletcher, Freedom of Information Act Officer.”

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

And Ron Brookman's S.E. shot back:

"Dear Editor:

The complete collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was highly anomalous—that's why it is critical for building design and construction professionals to understand it. Freedom of Information Act requests for structural-analysis data have been denied because the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Director determined that release of the data might jeopardize public safety. I asked the Director:

How, in the Director's judgment, is the release of calculations and analysis results—developed at the taxpayers' expense for a building that no longer exists—a threat to public safety?"

And Dr. NIST's reply:

"The decision to withhold the data was based on the fact that the capabilities of the WTC 7 collapse initiation and global collapse models are unprecedented, in that they provide validated models that can predict collapse of typical tall buildings. If released, these models would provide a powerful tool to groups and individuals interested in simulating building collapses and devising ways to destroy buildings."

http://www.seaonc.org/pdfs/SEAONC_September_2010.pdf

You couldn't make that up if you tried. PT Barnum and Mandrake the Magician couldn't outdo that.

Man..there's a legal case to sue them here. Without releasing the data NIST are refusing to allow their computer model to be independently validated.

Their model is hotly disputed by 1,200 professional archirects and engineers meaning that the safety of other EXISTING buildings built with similar features has not been verified and may in fact be a serious and current risk to the public safety.
This far outweighs the theoretical 'public safety' issue that NIST highlight and appear to be hiding behind.

It is hilarious though...lol

 

[Oystein]

...
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?
...

It's ok if you disagree with their stated reason (public safety) to withhold that information.

But why do YOU think they do?
Is there an accusation behind this? Please state it clearly then!
Do you think these people KNOW WTC 7 was demolished?
Or do you think they were TOLD by evil forces to only pretend they did an investigation and invent a report without actually analysing the event?
Or is there another possibility? Please, your allegations!


It is easy and cheap to just ask questions. Once in a while, you guys should be brave and make actual claims, and be ready toi defend them! And I do not mean claims about circumferencial little things like "molten steel" or "ingredients of thermite found in dust". I am talking about REAL claims. Like "X tons of thermite type A were applied to Y columns of WTC to melt a total of Z tons of steel and thus collapse the building. Free fall of 2.2 seconds or 100 feet was achieved by melting away another W tons of steel some seconds later. And here is OUR model, and our calculations, and our evidence, and we have made sure that only claims we know to be 100% sure went unconditional, the rest are conditional with word like 'appear to' etc.. We claim that the following V thousand people have knowledge about the intentional demolitions, and we have made criminal charges against the follwing individuals: [list of names]"

After 9 years, at least a partial theory should be possible, not?

 

[Carlos]

If A&E makes part of "9/11 Truth Movement", why do you keep telling things that are not true?

Even David Chandler from A&E agreed it was not freefall acceleration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk

And where is the proof thermite is an explosive?

 

[aggle-rithm]

And where is the proof thermite is an explosive?

I can't even think of a way you could make an explosive device out of thermite. If you tried to make a firecracker out of thermite, for instance, it would simply burn through the casing before it could explode.

You could even make an explosive device out of baking soda and vinegar...but not thermite.

 

[bill smith]

I can't even think of a way you could make an explosive device out of thermite. If you tried to make a firecracker out of thermite, for instance, it would simply burn through the casing before it could explode.

You could even make an explosive device out of baking soda and vinegar...but not thermite.

In nanothermite the particles of aluminium ,iron oxide and other additives are milled down to nano-proportions. In this condition it is a pure incendiary and produces no gas to cause the pressure needed in a hi-explosive.

But when certain hi-tach gas-producing polymers are also miiled down in the same hi-tech process and added to the mix----jeepers....now THAT's a spicy meataball..

 

[RedIbis]

It's ok if you disagree with their stated reason (public safety) to withhold that information.

But why do YOU think they do?
Is there an accusation behind this? Please state it clearly then!
Do you think these people KNOW WTC 7 was demolished?
Or do you think they were TOLD by evil forces to only pretend they did an investigation and invent a report without actually analysing the event?
Or is there another possibility? Please, your allegations!


It is easy and cheap to just ask questions. Once in a while, you guys should be brave and make actual claims, and be ready toi defend them! And I do not mean claims about circumferencial little things like "molten steel" or "ingredients of thermite found in dust". I am talking about REAL claims. Like "X tons of thermite type A were applied to Y columns of WTC to melt a total of Z tons of steel and thus collapse the building. Free fall of 2.2 seconds or 100 feet was achieved by melting away another W tons of steel some seconds later. And here is OUR model, and our calculations, and our evidence, and we have made sure that only claims we know to be 100% sure went unconditional, the rest are conditional with word like 'appear to' etc.. We claim that the following V thousand people have knowledge about the intentional demolitions, and we have made criminal charges against the follwing individuals: [list of names]"

After 9 years, at least a partial theory should be possible, not?

NIST couldn't even come up with a conclusive report and they had all the resources, funding, and staff they needed, and you expect independent researchers with no access to any of this to produce a report more definitive than NIST.

This is a flaw in debunker logic.

 

[Carlos]

In nanothermite the particles of aluminium ,iron oxide and other additives are milled down to nano-proportions. In this condition it is a pure incendiary and produces no gas to cause the pressure needed in a hi-explosive.

But when certain hi-tach gas-producing polymers are also miiled down in the same hi-tech process and added to the mix----jeepers....THAT's a spicy meataball..

Is there any experiment that prove it?

 

[Derek Johnson]

Derek, the 7 pictures show 7 different things that appear to glow, and appear to flow. Bronze and copper may or may not be among them. Steel may or may not be among them. In fact, non-metals may or may not be among them.
Yep, it's a setup. The point is: When someone reports seeing molten "steel", he may very well be wrong, because molten copper, glas, aluminium, concrete etc. may look VERY similar.

#5: See below



Can you corroborate their opinions? I once overheard a man who was sure that an earthquake had lasted for 2 minutes, when in fact it shook only 12 seconds.
What method did they use to identify the material, and was that method valid? If you think visual inspection is a reliable method, then surely yu can identify at least, say, 4 of my 7 hotglowing stuffs? I am waiting!
If DON'T identify some of the materials in my test, I take that as your admitting that visual inspection is NOT a reliable method of identifying molten material, no matter how convinced the witness may be.



Actually, TFK and others do not make such specific claims, as we understand that reports of visual inspection are NOT enough to determine what it could be. We are, however, pointing out that YOU have made no effort whatsoever to rule out other materials and believe "steel" on blind faith.




Let's talk about that "for a while". What while? When (what date) was the last sighting of "molten steel" that you have faith in? October? November?
Now, if you melt, say, 4000 tons of steel on 9/11/2001 late in the afternoon, how much molten steel will be left 24 hours later? 48 hours later? 1 week later? 1 month later? More than 0 kg?
Now, if someone reports molten steel 1 month later, what would that mean with regard to the event on 9/11? if someone reports molten steel 1 week laterm what would it mean?

And finally, lets just suppose steel would remain molten for so long: What method coul be used to melt such amounts of steel within so few seconds? How much steel would have to be melted?
What I am going at is of course the utter lack of any theory to explain the collapse of WTC7 and the presence of molten steel a long time after.



What's the problem here? You know that scrap metal is valuable and very often stolen in large amounts? Imagine what twoofers would say if the chain of custody of that material, that was transported to Fresh Kills for intense forensic examination, had not been as thoroughly monitored!



There's yer problems with witnesses.







Do you doubt that Al, Sn, Pb were present? Do you doubt that Al, Sn, Pb can melt in office or trash heap fires?
Do you doubt that steel can melt in office or trash heap fires? (You better do!)




NIST, being honest, does not make claims they don't have evidence for. They state things to the best of their knowledge. Relying on 2nd-hand witness accounts, they KNOW they can't be too sure here, and hence use cautious wording: "appears". If you are not cool with that, the only alternative would be to throw this particular piece out completely, and not use it as evidence at all. Would that be cool by you?



No one knows exactly, silly. There weren't any eye witnesses
My fist can dislodge your chin and break itself, too. I don't see your problem, really.



Most of the metal in WTC 7 was steel. Sure.
Some was aluminium, copper, lead, zink, and certainly many more metals. Do you agree? There were also non-metals that can melt and glow, for example glas. Or concrete. Or granite.
Satisfied?
Now question back at you: If you heat the entire WTC7 to, say, 1100°C, and collect all the liquid stuff that seeps out, what materials would that be, and in what percentages? Ballpark figures would suffice.
(Hint: Aluminium, copper, brass, zink, lead are probably high on the list, maybe some glasses. Steel probably 0%)
(Disclaimer: Yes, I know it is a silly question. But less so than your #5 with regards to discussion of witnesses seeing molten stuff)

I've been very patient. All 5 please.

Thank you.

 

[aggle-rithm]

NIST couldn't even come up with a conclusive report and they had all the resources, funding, and staff they needed, and you expect independent researchers with no access to any of this to produce a report more definitive than NIST.

This is a flaw in debunker logic.

Do you think some malfeasance was involved in the destruction of WTC7?

If so, what?

You seem to feel very strongly about this. Surely these strong feelings have some sort of basis?

 

[leftysergeant]

Showing me molten bronze alloys does not prove anything, what metal fraction of WTC 7 is this, exactly?

Now, the questions posed in #905, 909, 915, please.

Thank you.

In case you missed it, in Build 6, where there were reports of molten metal running down the sides of the building, there was a pistol range with a few million rounds of ammunition.

Since you are uneducated in fire science, let me point out that the propellant in a pistol cartridge burns VERY hot. Add to this the various Class A fuels elsewhere in the structure, I should be bloody surprised had no brass and lead melted.

As for Building 7, there was water supplied to the building. So there were copper pipses and some brass plumbing fixtures.

They also had an electricity supply. Freaking MILES of copper wire.

And let's not forget the copper plates in all the lead-acid batteries in the building. Tons of copper in there, I can assure you.

You need to grow out of your little cocoon and start looking around you. There are so many other disciplines that you need to study before you can properly assess what you see. Or you can try actually workiong in some of these areas.

For most engineering questions, I rely on the nerds and number-crunchers here. That's their area of expertise. Most of them have credentials in fields related to this topic. Many of them have credentials in the same fields that you do, but have had years more experience. It shows.

Part of my experience has been in construction, mostly as a laborer, but under conditions that allowed me to observe and learn things. One of the things I learned is that engineers sometimes get things horribly wrong and it takes an on-site carpenter, mason or plumber to notice it.

But what most qualifies me to address this train load of fail that you have dragged in here is my experience as a fire fighter. As far as I can see, everything you know about fire safety engineering is wrong.

Let's take a look at your claims aboput witnesses seeing "molten steel." I already accounted for the metal under WTC 6. Now let's address the "sanitation worker" who saw a "molten steel beam?"

If it were "molten," she would not have know that it was a steel beam. You cannot identify the former shape of a liquid unless it melted in a concave area without flowing into any other area. Somewhere else around here we have discussed the report of someone's having seen a steel beam "dripping molten steel" being pulled out of the pile. Such statements are usually accompanied by photos of a grabber pulling up a piece of metal with serveral straight edges with what any fire fighter would recognize as still-hot cinders from a Class A fire falling loose. This is not "molten" anything. Words have specific meanings. Do learn the meanings of a few more of them to avoid any further such lau8ghable falacies of language.

As regards your seeming belief that a there is anything the least bit strange about a fire in such a pile of debris reaching 2000F and burning for weeks on end, you obviously need to learn some simple fire science. What we have here is one bleeding huge "ground fire." This is normally associated with natural cover and trash dump fires and is one of the most vexing sorts of fires because it is so difficult to extinguish. The most difficult fire that I ever fought was in a trash dump. Sometimes whole areas twenty or thirty feet in diameter would just collapse and flames would come shooting out of what had, just minutes earlier, looked like typical red sand of North Africa. We poured water into it for two days and then brought in earth-moving equipment to dig trenches through it to look for hot spots. We found the last one later on day three. Mind you, all the ventilation this fire got was from a 25-40 mph wind blowing in off the desert.

Consider that the fire in the pile at WTC had air coming in through the bottom from all the basements and subway tunnels, and you can imagine how bloody hot it should have been.

It will melt a lot of metal and glass.

 

[leftysergeant]

In nanothermite the particles of aluminium ,iron oxide and other additives are milled down to nano-proportions. In this condition it is a pure incendiary and produces no gas to cause the pressure needed in a hi-explosive.

But when certain hi-tach gas-producing polymers are also miiled down in the same hi-tech process and added to the mix----jeepers....now THAT's a spicy meataball..

Prove it.

 

[Oystein]

I can't even think of a way you could make an explosive device out of thermite. If you tried to make a firecracker out of thermite, for instance, it would simply burn through the casing before it could explode.

You could even make an explosive device out of baking soda and vinegar...but not thermite.

Careful, you are out on a limb here. Highlighted part has the same quality as all of Dereks problems, who "can't even think of a way" how loss of all support would send part of a building into neat-freefall for part of its total collapse, or "can't even think of a way" that firefighters could mistake glowing things for molten steel, or "can't even think of a reason" why not all the data he wishes for is available to him, or "can't even think of a way" that fire could cause enough thermal expansion on some beams to shear off something, etc.


It is indeed true that research is being done to increase the reaction speed of thermite to a point where it approaches the spead of explosions, and also to mix thermite with substances that would expell rapidly expansing gasses when heated by the thermite reacion, thus producing a legitimate explosive. Thermite has not more energy per mass unit than conventional high explosives, but I believe it has higher density and thus more energy per volume unit. And, being a mix of at least 2 different chemical compounds, it could potentially get better custom tailored for different purposes than normal HEs, which are monomolecular.

In fact, thermitic materials have been used for a long time in some types of firecrackers and other fireworks! Mainly because of the bright light emission, but also as fuse, and maybe even for BOOM effects.


But in any case: Thermite has little energy content. If you want to use that energy to destroy structural steel, there are two ways you can go about it, and they are mutually exclusive:
a) Melt (heat) the steel very rapidly; for this you need for as much of the thermite and its reaction products to stay as closely in contact with the steel as long as the reaction us under way and the products are near peak temperature
b) Break the steal with the shockwave of an explosion

If you try both on the same section of steal (some 2-stage-approach), you'll run into trouble: If the explosion comes too early, it will blow away the melting material before much heat is transferred. If you first melt a bit, you'd have to physically separate the explosive charge from the melting charge, lest you destroy or set off the explosive charge too soon. That separation would diminish the effect of the shockwave on the steel part.

In any case, whatever explosive you use to break steel: You can't get around the fact that the shockwave has to have a minimum power ("amplitude", losely speaking) per cross-section unit of the steel part you want to destroy. Such a shockwave is identical to the INSANELY LOUD BANG that people hear when they day "there was an explosion". The entire point of using high explosives for CD is to use the energy content in as short a time period as possible to increase destructive power. Without that strong shockwave, i.o.w., without the loud BANG, no explosive destruction. Since we did not hear the kind of AWSOMELY, INSANELY, SHOCKINGLY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG that is typical for the explosive demolition of highrise buildings, we can be absolutely, positively, 100% sure that no explosive was used to break structural steel at the WTC.

That leaves the role of thermite to melting steel. For which no one has yet proposed a viable technical solution, or a realistic estimate of how much thermite would be needed, and how much slack it would leave.
Or even to such lowly supporting roles as fuses, or maybe low-explosive propellant of other materials.
And no explanation near or far in sight of what would have destroyed the towers, if it wasn't the very large, unfought office fires on many floors.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Careful, you are out on a limb here.

Don't worry, I'm back now.

 

[leftysergeant]

Thermite must remain in a solid lump or conitinuous strip the react. And explosion would disrupt the combustion process, sending sparks everywhere. In fire works, the pellets of thermite are ignited by the rapid burning of the propellant in the payload.

There are devices using thermite as an electric match which act rather like explosives, but deliver very little energy. These still involve only a nano-thin layer of iron oxide and a nano-thin layer of aluminum. Makes a great igniter for other energetic materials, but will not cut much steel.

Even if you could make it an explosive, it would not be useful where silence is needed.

Sorry, not even thermite is a good candidate if you are looking for something from which to craft a hush-a-boom.

 

[BigAl]

Thermite must remain in a solid lump or conitinuous strip the react. And explosion would disrupt the combustion process, sending sparks everywhere. In fire works, the pellets of thermite are ignited by the rapid burning of the propellant in the payload.
.

And any thermite not in direct contact with the steel as it burns has essentially no effect.