Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[DGM]

You mean maybe it's still there ? Covered up ? Or covered over you mean maybe ? If somebody had the equipment for measuring a large magnetic anomaly they might find it to this day.

( Or maybe they just cut it up with thermal lances and took it away.)

You do know they're building new buildings there? Are you saying they might have "missed" seeing it?

 

[bill smith]

You do know they're building new buildings there? Are you saying they might have "missed" seeing it?

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised DGM.

 

[bill smith]

Bill,

The debris pile was huge in terms of surface area, and was over 3 storeys HIGH.

I see no problem with 50,000 feet of steel fitting in the volume that was GZ...do you?

TAM

Edit, oh bill, while yer at it, since you stated it, please provide a link confirming that the Spray On Fire Proofing used in the WTCs had portland cement in it.

Thanks

It's too dangerous for me to talk to you TAM. I just get constant warnings when you report me. I may even be taking a risk talking to you now for some reason. So this will be my final direct communication with you. It was nice knowing you.

 

[DGM]

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised DGM.

You've never been involved with construction I see. Something like what you described can not possibly be "missed".

Did you know that things that are liquid seek the lowest point (in the area they occupy)?

 

[bill smith]

You've never been involved with construction I see. Something like what you described can not possibly be "missed".

Did you know that things that are liquid seek the lowest point (in the area they occupy)?

See no evil DGM. The hands over the eyes. The looking the other way....you never heard of this ? Money...no pension...threats to family ? Are you still saying impossible you silly boy ?

 

[DGM]

See no evil DGM. The hands over the eyes. The looking the other way....you never heard of this ? Money...no pension...threats to family ? Are you still saying impossible you silly boy ?

So I'm right to say that (you believe) everyone there is "in on it". Why don't you just say this?

 

[Derek Johnson]

the JREFies would not answer his questions.

We wouldn't want that to happen...

So do something about it! Here is your chance to shine Disbelief:

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.

2. ...Tell me your hypothesis on the apparent (so you imply) "no energy dissipation" through this WTC 7 column steel.

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?

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 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.

Good luck with all that.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

We wouldn't want that to happen...

So do something about it! Here is your chance to shine Disbelief:

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.

2. ...Tell me your hypothesis on the apparent (so you imply) "no energy dissipation" through this WTC 7 column steel.

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?

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 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.

Good luck with all that.

What's the matter? Too lazy to e-mail NIST themselves & ask them your questions directly?

 

[tfk]

Still talking without answering.

Stick with the video Tom, NIST will follow as it relates to the so called "hollow shell" that nobody saw nor is visible in the NIST "models". The same NIST "models" that you and Ryan claim look like the videoed collapse.

Btw, your "it buckled Derek" (hundreds of posts ago) was far too simple.

Do better.

Thanks buddy.

All right.

Not bothering to even put out an effort, you're not off to a very good start.

But it's clear from both your evasiveness & your awareness of exactly where this conversation is going that the problem is not that you are clueless. It is that you are dishonest.

To be precise:

NIST specifically says that the building did NOT fall at "near G" acceleration. NIST makes no statement regarding at what acceleration the building fell, because nobody could see the building, because it was behind an opaque external wall.

Plus, it didn't fall as a unit. It fell piecemeal.

NIST specifically says that the external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at "approximately g".

That is NIST's precise statement. You KNOW that this is NIST's precise statement.

And yet you chose to intentionally misstate it, implying that NIST attributed that acceleration to the building.

Does Jesus tell you to be intentionally deceptive? Or did he suggest that simple honesty has some intrinsic ethical value?
__

Now NIST's statement is a simplification.

NIST's data shows that it did not fall at a constant acceleration (even during the 2.5 seconds).
Chandler's data shows the same thing.

Both sets of data show that a "constant, near g acceleration" is merely GROSS AVERAGE over that interval.

Now we have better data. And better technique.

Would you care to calculate for yourself the velocities & accelerations as a function of time for the fall of the north wall?

Or do you need to be spoon fed this as well?

tom

 

[bill smith]

So I'm right to say that (you believe) everyone there is "in on it". Why don't you just say this?

Never say 'Everyone' DGM. Rather say a hard core of those who were.

 

[T.A.M.]

It's too dangerous for me to talk to you TAM. I just get constant warnings when you report me. I may even be taking a risk talking to you now for some reason. So this will be my final direct communication with you. It was nice knowing you.

Lol...keep it civil, and do not directly insult me or insinuate things about how i carry out my profession, follow the rules of the forum, and i wont report you. You can report me if i violate any of the rules.

Alas, the tables have turned, and now bill will put me on ignore, after i gave him another chance and took him off my ignore list....lol...oh well.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

A 10,000-ton pool of molten iron, well insulated from outside factors and without any metal heatsink to dissipate it's enormous temperature of perhaps 3,5000 degrees will cool very very slowly.

I’m going to humor you for a minute here and not even ask you for any evidence that this story is even partly true. Instead, let’s just play with the logistics of your story for now…

The melting point of iron is approximately 2,800^oF, yes? To maintain that temperature, you absolutely need an outside heat source as iron cools down and solidifies rather quickly…do we agree so far? Good…

You state:

Molten iron cools in flecks on the surface which slowly join up to form a skin. Once the skin has formed everything inside is protected from outside cooling factors other than the poor conduction of the rubble pile. So the heat ignited the bits of broken computer and carpets and so on above it in the pile and sustained those smaller fires despite the constant hosing down with water of the rubble.

How does burning plastic, carpets, and debris maintain a temperature in excess of 2,800^oF, much less the 3,500^oF you describe in your story? We already know the fires in WTC7 did not melt the steel to begin with. We already know that the support structure of WTC7 was only weakened and not melted.

Also, a pool of melted iron cannot and will not be self-sustaining …even if it’s in a microwave safe container. Once the heat source is removed, the iron begins to cool rapidly with the ambient air temperature. Yes, molten iron can start debris on fire, but it’s more like “vaporizing” than “fire”...and also not possible to sustain 2,800^oF+.

The amount of energy necessary to create and sustain 10k tons of molten iron is far greater than what was present on 9/11 and wholly not possible.

 

[beachnut]

Still talking without answering.

Stick with the video Tom, NIST will follow as it relates to the so called "hollow shell" that nobody saw nor is visible in the NIST "models". The same NIST "models" that you and Ryan claim look like the videoed collapse.

Btw, your "it buckled Derek" (hundreds of posts ago) was far too simple.

Do better.

Thanks buddy.

You are an engineer, one of the only ones who sees the nano-thermite scenario, you must have proof since you preach this crap at meeting, so, you need to take your evidence and put it in a paper and publish it in a real journal and simultaneously submit for the Pulitzer Prize.

What? You have no evidence? Darn

When one of your main points for your meeting is free-fall speed of all three buildings, that idiotic lie is not based on real evidenced but moronic delusions from 911 truth. The nano-thermite is a lie too, need to take that off your main points list.

Do you have any reality based points to help you publish this stuff? Get a Pulitzer for breaking the biggest lie in history, and save it from being your own work?

Based on your WTC 7 work, I expect your Flight 93 fantasy to be out of the ball park stupid. Can't wait for the entire single integrated operations plan of your paranoid conspiracy theory.


I am upset an engineer falls for and spews lies on 911; I thought engineers were immune to fraud and lies 911 truth has. I did not know there was a cottage industry of stupid, 911 TRUTH, lurking in the pit of ignorance fooling people with lies and fraud. Then I saw a claim of the "incredible maneuver done by Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon". I was thinking, "what did these pilots know (lol, p4t and Balsamo with his failed 11.2g physics) that I missed? After checking it out I found the maneuver was a very bad turn you would expect a non-trained pilot to preform, but it was a normal bad turn, no fancy maneuver. Balsamo and his pilots for truth lied. Then I find 0.001 percent of all engineers are dumb enough to fall for some of 911 truth lies. I found out Balsamo has never been a Captain of an aircraft for a major airline and he does not even have an ATP, which all Captains have, even I, who Balsamo say is over the hill, have an ATP and I flew USAF heavy jets equal to a Captain at the age of 28. But your kind are so small my worries the Pilots and Engineers of the world will be fooled in any significant numbers, are unfounded. You guys believe in these fantasies at a rate less than insanity. As an engineer and a pilot I know all the pilots and engineers had a chance to gain knowledge and judgment to not fall for 911 truth lies; so it is your own fault you spew delusions and can't figure out 911.

You said, "I have no dearth of "backing it up"." But all you have is dearth, that has no bounds.

How much nano-thermite was used? Answer the question, it is 1 of 4 main points for your talk of lies. If you can't tell us how and how much, you are spreading nonsense. You can't answer!

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.

What are you talking about? Do you know? ??? Anyone? lol, he is asking questions, and he is the one who said " all three towers collapse at free-fall acceleration though the path of greatest resistance. No engineer would say this nonsense.

 

[bill smith]

So did they really say:-

'' NIST specifically says that the external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at "approximately g".

So I guess we should have seen the interior steel framework as the 'external' wall fell..

Ah T....you should switch to standup.This is pure cpmedy. lol

 

[DGM]

Never say 'Everyone' DGM. Rather say a hard core of those who were.

Nice "cop-out". I was going to offer to introduce you personally to some of the guy's that are still working at the site. Do you want to explain this to them?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I find it interesting that Derek Johnson is an engineer. I also find it interesting that this idiot on YouTube is also an engineer: http://www.youtube.com/user/Baldwynmayhem

Coincidence?

 

[bill smith]

I’m going to humor you for a minute here and not even ask you for any evidence that this story is even partly true. Instead, let’s just play with the logistics of your story for now…

The melting point of iron is approximately 2,800^oF, yes? To maintain that temperature, you absolutely need an outside heat source as iron cools down and solidifies rather quickly…do we agree so far? Good…

You state:



How does burning plastic, carpets, and debris maintain a temperature in excess of 2,800^oF, much less the 3,500^oF you describe in your story? We already know the fires in WTC7 did not melt the steel to begin with. We already know that the support structure of WTC7 was only weakened and not melted.

Also, a pool of melted iron cannot and will not be self-sustaining …even if it’s in a microwave safe container. Once the heat source is removed, the iron begins to cool rapidly with the ambient air temperature. Yes, molten iron can start debris on fire, but it’s more like “vaporizing” than “fire”...and also not possible to sustain 2,800^oF+.

The amount of energy necessary to create and sustain 10k tons of molten iron is far greater than what was present on 9/11 and wholly not possible.

A small amount of molten iron will cool relatively quickly. The same is not true of a pool 10,000 tons in weight. I already told you about the inefficient wicking away of the heat through the poor conduction of the rubble. Though gradually that rubble it would heat up to very high temperatures too.

In the beginning the rubble was full of smaller pools and gobbets of molten steel throughout but these would have cooled fairly quickly.

Just the fact that smouldering fires could survive at all in the pile despite the lack of oxygen and the constant hosing down tells you that something else was sustaining them. And that was the unquenchable heat of the 10,000 ton pool of molten steel.

 

[BigAl]

A small amount of molten iron will cool relatively quickly. The same is not true of a pool 10,000 tons in weight. I already told you about the inefficient wicking away of the heat through the poor conduction of the rubble. Yjough gradually it would heat up to very high temperatures.

In the beginning the rubble was full of smeller pools and gobbets of molten steel throughout but these would have cooled fairly quickly.

Just the fact that smouldering firse could survive at all in the pile despite the lack of oxygen and the constant hosing down tells you that something else was sustaining them. And that was the unquenchable heat of the 10,000 ton pool of molten steel.

Make stuff much?

 

[Disbelief]

We wouldn't want that to happen...

So do something about it! Here is your chance to shine Disbelief:

Obviously, your reading skills need improvement as well since I stated this earlier (I bolded part for you this time):

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.

From your conduct here, you are typical of the TM with your playing of games instead of actually looking for answers. So now, here is your chance to shine! Have a real discussion here instead of playing games. Plenty of people here will spend the time to have honest debate as long as you enter the discussion without the proverbial chip on your shoulder.

 

[bill smith]

Nice "cop-out". I was going to offer to introduce you personally to some of the guy's that are still working at the site. Do you want to explain this to them?

Well get them on here then. Only guys from 9/11 though..