Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Oystein]

I've been very patient. All 5 please.

Thank you.

Buddy, cool it.
You are an engineer. I am not. Why should I teach you?
I answered what I could.
Now you return the favour. Or continue being considered violating the 8th commandment.

You know that you are a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way from "some folks talking about hot steel long time after" to "someone must have melted steel while demolishing the towers", right? You know you have no proof at all of molten steel, right? You know that you have no theory that would explain molten steel as arising from intentional demolition, right? You know that steel that melted on 9/11/2001 around 17:25 would have solidified by 9/12/2001 around 17:25, right?

You are a welder, right? So maybe you can expalin to me if Wikipedia is right when they describe the welding of rails thusly:

the thermite is ignited and allowed to react to completion (allowing time for any alloying metal to fully melt and mix, yielding the desired molten steel or alloy). ... Typical time from start of the work until a train can run over the rail is approximately 45 minutes to an hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

So if during welding the molten steel cools down to full mechanical strength in an hour, what process, carried out on 9/11/2001 around 17:25 would yield still-molten steel days, weeks and months later, pray tell me?

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, but remember, Heiwa was also an engineer, and look how much he had to be taught...lot of good it did.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

So if during welding the molten steel cools down to full mechanical strength in an hour, what process, carried out on 9/11/2001 around 17:25 would yield still-molten steel days, weeks and months later, pray tell me?

Exactly! Molten steel/metal can only stay in that state for a very short time once it is brought below it's melting point. These "rivers of molten metal" comments are a joke.

Who are these "witnesses" that saw these rivers? In my conversations with the dozen or so firefighters that were at GZ on 9/11 and beyond, not a single one of them heard or saw anything that could be described as a "river of molten metal".

 

[Oystein]

Prove it.

As I explained in post 977, Bill is probably right there. I am not sure about "polymers", but that is beside the point. Of course you could mix thermite with other materials that expand fast enough to make a decent "boom". Try water, should work fine.
It is even true that "nano"-thermite is the leading candidate for custom-tailored thermite preparations.

Still: None of all that relieves the truthers from proposing a viable method of directing the (little) energy contained in (nano-)thermite at steel members such that they go apart in a very short and well-controlled timeframe. If explosive, there'd be a BOOM BANG, no way around that. If melting is your plan, then explosiveness would actually be a highly undesirable property.

 

[Oystein]

Yes, but remember, Heiwa was also an engineer, and look how much he had to be taught...lot of good it did.

TAM

My brother-in-law is an engineer, but it is a rare that someone with a brain talks to him for more than 15 minutes about engineering or other technical matters without getting a reddish forehead from all the face-palms
(His field is land-surveying. To become a licensed catastral land surveyer you must have an engineering degree in that field in Germany. So yeah, talking to him about steel or architecture would be outside his field. But even within his field it is not hard to steer him towards speaking utter folly)

 

[leftysergeant]

As I explained in post 977, Bill is probably right there. I am not sure about "polymers", but that is beside the point. Of course you could mix thermite with other materials that expand fast enough to make a decent "boom".

The polymer in direct contact with the thermite would then explode and disperse the rest of it more or less harmlessly. You still have what is, at best, an igniter. Bloody little use in demolitions unless hooked into a charge of some kind of HE. (PETN?)

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

WTC7 was the largest office building fire in history, Redibis.

One doesn't need to have NISTs team of experts, multi-million dollar laboratory facilities and funding to figure out why it fell.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well the esteemed truther physicist steven jones was cornered into making a statement to that effect by dr. Greening.....apparently the thermite was used only as a fuse for traditional explosives....according to an email jones sent back to greening.

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

Well the esteemed truther physicist steven jones was cornered into making a statement to that effect by dr. Greening.....apparently the thermite was used only as a fuse for traditional explosives....according to an email jones sent back to greening.

TAM

But the fact that Jones and his friends were able to obtain so many samples out of such a small sample of dust suggests that there were tons of it it the building which did not ignite, even though once ignited, it cannot be extiguished.

Which means that tons of it failed to perform as planned in an operation that, according to twoofer dogma, had to be performed with exacting precision.

Only in twoofer time/space is this a likely scenario.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, but...the temperature rise the alleged thermite would provide was so small, it would have taken 100's of layers of it in paint form, which is what they suggested and the chips would suggest, in order to raise the temp of a steel beam even close to loosing its strength.

So....

TAM

 

[beachnut]

This Derek Johnson fellow strikes me as a virtual carbon copy of Christopher7.

With a degree. He should have skills to spot fraud, but he jumped right in and spews the CD delusion like a converted cult member, more enthusiastic about spewing lies than finding evidence for them.

He is spending so much time on NIST he fails to realize WTC 7 fell due to fire no matter how people think it played out. Bet he can't explain the penthouse falling through the structure before the facade began falling.

When they start asking questions, they have lost; they have to produce evidence and how it happened. The more Derek insists someone else to answer his failed questions, the more we know he has no evidence to support his delusions.



These are his main points for his lecture on 911 delusions.

1. Independent investigation, 70 million.
2. All 3 Towers collapsed at free fall
3. Nano thermite: Military Grade explosivews were conclusively found in the dust from toers 1, 2, and 7.
4. 47 story building 7, … collapsed neatly into its own footprint…

1. Derek should take the 70 million and do another investigation, dumb it down so Derek and other 911 truth members can understand how 19 terrorists did it.

2. A big lie. Not even close to free-fall. If Derek ran track against the top guys he would claim his 12 minute two mile run was as fast as world class speed of 9 minutes. Why does he lie about this?

3. No nano-thermite was found, the paper Jones did proves it was not thermite, and the paper had to be published in a vanity journal. This kind of lie is bad! Jones has a problem he made up thermite as a scenario 4 years after 911 for political reasons; he got fired. He also takes cinder blocks and drops them and says they did not turn to dust - most the dust at the WTC was wall board and insulation. Indicative of Jones' insanity on thermite, he thinks the US caused the Haiti earthquake.

The funniest part of the thermite paper lie. The elements in the samples are not in thermite and the liars expose themselves by publishing the elements found. failure and lies

4 WTC 7 did not collapse into its own footprint. 9 years of failure and insane claims.

 

[tfk]

Well, look who the cat dragged in...

Months of silence, then a typing frenzy. What's the deal, Derek?

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.

OK, I'll take you on, for a moment, like I would any young, wet-behind-the-ears, all full of himself, baby engineer.

First point: engineers DON'T "ask questions". Any secretary, janitor, assembler, inspector, salesman, VP or CEO can ask questions.

Engineers provide answers.

It's about time that you started acting like one.

I'm here to learn...

Somehow, I'm skeptical of this...

and unlike y'all, I don't have a closed mind about the structural stability of WTC 7.

We'll circle back to this embarrassing (to you) statement.

But we'll take your questions one at a time. And we'll arrive at answers.

The answers will begin at the end of this post. But there is a very important point to make first.

Pointing me to more NIST woo does not make your case.

As I would state to any young, wet-behind-the-ears, arrogant baby engineer...

You are - provisionally - a member of a long standing, respected & respectful society that has history, continuity, traditions.
You are in the group that are 2nd lowest on the totem pole: just out of school.
You are in the group that is by far the most dangerous: the ones thinking that a degree makes you a competent engineer.

Please show some respect for the other members of that society. Especially the ones with far, far more experience than you possess.

Such as every single person who was tapped to provide their decades of experience within their fields of expertise for the NIST report.

Please also show some respect for the ones that follow you: the students. To put it bluntly, the pathetic example that you are setting for that impressionable group sucks.

There are many such societies out there. Firemen, police, military, etc. Ours (engineers) tend to express a little less ritual than others. Especially in the US.

There is a word for newly minted policemen & soldiers & firemen & doctors & politicians & engineers who go into the public arena and accuse the other members of their own society of being frauds, liars, murderers, etc:

"Pariah"

You're well on your way to earning that title.

There are several words for newly minted policemen & soldiers & firemen & doctors & politicians & engineers who go into the public arena and accuse the other members of their own society of being incompetent:

"Rash"
"Punk"
"Young&Stupid"

Now, every once in a great while, one of these "young&stupid" turn out to be an Einstein. But I always bet the long odds. Because for every Young&Stupid punk that turned out to be a genius, there have been 10,000 (or more) Young&Stupid punks who turned out to be young&stupid punks.

But all experienced engineers understand that, when baby engineers start acting like snot-nosed young punks, well, it's because they are snot nosed young punks who haven't learned yet. Most of us were in the same position at one point or another. Most of us got our comeuppance, and learned that painful lesson, in (relative) private.

Usually out of the kindness & benevolence of the old fart engineer who helped sweep our particular stupidity under the rug.

I've told you all of the above in a private email about 6 months ago. I strongly suggested that, before you go on your (frankly) pathetic, self-aggrandizing lecture tour, that you discuss some of these issues with competent, experienced experts within each specific discipline.

Clearly you ignored my advice.

And have chosen, insisted upon, demanded public humiliation instead.

OK. Your choice...

Answering my questions (that remain unanswered, fyi) takes effort. Effort that hitherto remains unseen.

Again, you are allegedly an engineer. You are the one who is obliged to come up with answers.

You don't have to generate the answers. But you do have to provide them.

But in this first case, the analysis is simple enough that you will generate your own conclusions from the raw data that will be provided to you.

Thanks,
Derek

We'll see shortly if you really mean this...

Now to the first question:

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.

Lesson #1. You will never arrive at the right answer unless you carefully, precisely state the question.

NOBODY, except truthers (including you), has said "4000 tons of steel from floors 7-14 offered no resistance to the 1G descent for 2.25 seconds..."

Let's see you give it another try.

Restate the question. PRECISELY.

Then we'll dissect it. And I'll show you where you've gone wrong.


tom

PS. Wimps & charlatans will take what I've written, get their panties all in a bunch and run away crying about "disrespect" & "self-esteem".

People who hope to be engineers some day will stand up, take their licks & address the technical issues.

Let's see what you do...

 

[Derek Johnson]

Well, look who the cat dragged in...

Months of silence, then a typing frenzy. What's the deal, Derek?



OK, I'll take you on, for a moment, like I would any young, wet-behind-the-ears, all full of himself, baby engineer.

First point: engineers DON'T "ask questions". Any secretary, janitor, assembler, inspector, salesman, VP or CEO can ask questions.

Engineers provide answers.

It's about time that you started acting like one.



Somehow, I'm skeptical of this...



We'll circle back to this embarrassing (to you) statement.

But we'll take your questions one at a time. And we'll arrive at answers.

The answers will begin at the end of this post. But there is a very important point to make first.



As I would state to any young, wet-behind-the-ears, arrogant baby engineer...

You are - provisionally - a member of a long standing, respected & respectful society that has history, continuity, traditions.
You are in the group that are 2nd lowest on the totem pole: just out of school.
You are in the group that is by far the most dangerous: the ones thinking that a degree makes you a competent engineer.

Please show some respect for the other members of that society. Especially the ones with far, far more experience than you possess.

Such as every single person who was tapped to provide their decades of experience within their fields of expertise for the NIST report.

Please also show some respect for the ones that follow you: the students. To put it bluntly, the pathetic example that you are setting for that impressionable group sucks.

There are many such societies out there. Firemen, police, military, etc. Ours (engineers) tend to express a little less ritual than others. Especially in the US.

There is also a word for newly minted policemen & soldiers & firemen & doctors & politicians & engineers who go into the public arena and accuse the other members of their own society of being frauds, liars, murderers, etc:

"Pariah"

You're well on your way to earning that title.

There are several words for newly minted policemen & soldiers & firemen who go into the public arena and accuse the other members of their own society of being incompetent:

"Rash"
"Punk"
"Young&Stupid"

Now, every once in a great while, these "young&stupid" turn out to be an Einstein. But I always bet the long odds. Because for every Young&Stupid punk that turned out to be a genius, there have been 10,000 (or more) Young&Stupid punks who turned out to be young&stupid punks.

But all experienced engineers understand that, when baby engineers start acting like snot-nosed young punks, well, it's because they are snot nosed young punks who haven't learned yet. Most of us were in the same position at one point or another. Most of us got our comeuppance, and learned that painful lesson, in (relative) private.

Usually out of the kindness & benevolence of the old fart engineer who helped sweep our particular stupidity under the rug.

I've told you all of the above in a private email about 6 months ago. I strongly suggested that, before you go on your (frankly) pathetic, self-aggrandizing lecture tour, that you discuss some of these issues with competent, experienced experts within each specific discipline.

Clearly you ignored my advice.

And have chosen, insisted upon, demanded public humiliation instead.

OK. Your choice...



Again, you are allegedly an engineer. You are the one who is obliged to come up with answers.

You don't have to generate the answers. But you do have to provide them.

But in this first case, the analysis is simple enough that you will generate your own conclusions from the raw data that will be provided to you.



We'll see shortly if you really mean this...

Now to the first question:



Lesson #1. You will never arrive at the right answer unless you carefully, precisely state the question.

NOBODY, except truthers (including you), has said "4000 tons of steel from floors 7-14 offered no resistance to the 1G descent for 2.25 seconds..."

Let's see you give it another try.

Restate the question. PRECISELY.

Then we'll dissect it. And I'll show you where you've gone wrong.


tom

PS. Wimps, pussies & charlatans will take what I've written, get their panties all in a bunch and run away crying about "disrespect" & "self-esteem".

People who hope to be engineers some day will stand up, take their licks & address the technical issues.

Let's see what you do...

Cut the blather Tom and get to the questions.

You can do it.

 

[Derek Johnson]

I answered what I could.

Excuses, excuses. Y'all are good at that.

 

[bill smith]

Buddy, cool it.
You are an engineer. I am not. Why should I teach you?
I answered what I could.
Now you return the favour. Or continue being considered violating the 8th commandment.

You know that you are a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way from "some folks talking about hot steel long time after" to "someone must have melted steel while demolishing the towers", right? You know you have no proof at all of molten steel, right? You know that you have no theory that would explain molten steel as arising from intentional demolition, right? You know that steel that melted on 9/11/2001 around 17:25 would have solidified by 9/12/2001 around 17:25, right?

You are a welder, right? So maybe you can expalin to me if Wikipedia is right when they describe the welding of rails thusly:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

So if during welding the molten steel cools down to full mechanical strength in an hour, what process, carried out on 9/11/2001 around 17:25 would yield still-molten steel days, weeks and months later, pray tell me?

Suppose there was 10,000 tons of liquid steel bubbling in the basements of WTC1 Oystein ? How long do you think that would take to cool off ? Four months ? Five months ? Maybe six?

 

[Sabretooth]

Suppose there was 10,000 tons of liquid steel bubbling in the basements of WTC1 Oystein ? How long do you think that would take to cool off ? Four months ? Five months ? Maybe six?

There wasn't.

But, for S&G's, how hot do you suppose 10k tons of liquid steel would have to be and how do suppose the temperature reached and sustained that mark?

 

[Sabretooth]

Excuses, excuses. Y'all are good at that.

Dude...you are the one claiming to be an engineer...why is it that you can't answer a question? And, instead, is posing a question to an internet forum?

Where is your published report of your findings? I would be happy to peruse your "technical" data.

I'm not about to answer some question that you don't even understand.

 

[beachnut]

Excuses, excuses. Y'all are good at that.

I can't believe a fellow engineer has fallen for the lies of 911 truth. If you wake up from this 911 truth delusion fantasy trip, you will be a better engineer, able to spot fraud like Gage and Jones.

Prove your claims; present your evidence, earn a Pulitzer Prize.

Be an engineer, not a failed 911 truth cult member who spews delusions based on ignorance. If you can't answer your own questions, it is a sign of ignorance, the sign of a 911 truth cult member who only ask questions, never presents his evidence.

I have never see more BS from an engineer, and I have worked with and been an engineer since 1974.

nano-thermite - Jones made this up; lol, you are so gullible, their paper shows the dust is not nano-thermite. This is one of your failed points. You have no points which are based on reality.

 

[bill smith]

There wasn't.

But, for S&G's, how hot do you suppose 10k tons of liquid steel would have to be and how do suppose the temperature reached and sustained that mark?

But what if there was Sabretooth ? That would explain why the fires burned for so long (like nothing else can when you think about it) It also explains those strange composite chunks of rubble partly molten steel with molten concrete and other materials seemingly frozen in the act of melting into the whole- I think they are called 'Meteorites'.

 

[Sabretooth]

But is there was Sabretooth ? That would explain why the fures burned for so long (like nothing else can when you think about it) It also explains those strange composite chunks of rubble partly molten steel with molten concrete and other materials seemingly frozen in the act of melting into the whole- I think they are called 'Meteorites'.

I'm not letting you derail my question:

how hot do you suppose 10k tons of liquid steel would have to be and how do suppose the temperature reached and sustained that mark?

Answer the question.