Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Sabretooth]

Have any of you troother-troopers figured out an explanation as to why they choose to "demo" WTC7 instead of just shredding "incriminating" evidence of dirty deeds?

 

[Sabretooth]

Derek while T is putting his wits together I just wanted to ask you if you think they might have dropped the Penthouses into the building early in order to hide something that was in there that would be incriminating or provoke unwelcome discussion .

I mean it has to be very unlikely that the strongest column in the building would fail first from mere office fires. It was about 350 tons weight I believe.

On the other hand if they deliberately demolished it first there must have been something in the Penthpuses because column 79 was obviously not the key to dropping the whole building.

I am so tempted to Rule 12 and Rule 10 this post...

 

[beachnut]

Did Gage ban Derek from speaking? Gage does not want rational debate on his delusions, he wants to keep it more like bill does. She spew irrational delusions and never stops to discuss it, she just posts more nut case ideas and moves to the next topic; she must no have anyone to talk to.

Derek is trying to explain things by asking questions now! Maybe he is trying to get in good with Gage so he can speak again. But the big clue here is there is not enough gullible money out there for too many frauds on 911 issues; Gage has found a job, it is pushing lies, he makes money. Derek and WAC are cutting into his profits; and they may expose their fraudulent efforts as delusions based on lies and false information.

Derek is getting help from bill, she is as good at engineering as Derek is when it comes to 911 issues. she might be better.

 

[bill smith]

I am so tempted to Rule 12 and Rule 10 this post...

Do you fancy explaining why ?

 

[tfk]

Derek,

I'll deal with you skipping my other questions later, for now you need a correction.

There is no need to "deal with" anything.

I'm going to hold you to one subject at a time. We'll answer one question at a time, put it to bed & then move on.

You stated:

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

Nice quote mine. Accurate. And incomplete. And, again, deceitful.

First, your own quote confirms the part of my statement that you extracted.

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration... This free drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between t=1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

The important point, that this Stage 1, 2 & 3 timing does NOT refer to "the building", is the substance of the entire NIST NCSTAR1-9 & NCSTAR1A reports. In which they provide timelines for the various events. Timelines that clearly describe the rest of the buildings collapse beginning about 6 seconds before the east penthouse began to collapse. And the east penthouse began to collapse about 7 seconds before the north wall began to collapse.

Further, NIST says:

"The cascading failure of floors surrounding Column 79 and the buckling of Column 79 could not be ascertained from any videographic evidence." [pg 598]

"The horizontal progression of buckling interior columns could not have been observed from the street...

The initial downward movement of the north face from the northeast corner to the east side of the screen wall was observed at 6.9 s after the initial downward motion of the east penthouse." [pg 599]

All of this is very clearly stated in the timeline Table 12-2, pg 599 of NCSTAR1-9.

The above IS NIST's conclusion.

Your interpretation that "Stage 2" applies to the collapse of the entire building is both ludicrously wrong & irrelevant. I've pointed this out to you before. If you are still this hopelessly confused after having it explained to you, your problems are severe.

When you distort NIST's conclusions, you are being deceitful. That's a whole 'nother class of problem.

Engineers are expected to read technical reports with comprehension of the big picture. And expected to NOT extract misleading phrases that misrepresent the big picture.

Well, competent engineers are expected to...

___

Now, let's address the "at gravitational acceleration" versus "approximately equal to gravitational acceleration", shall we?

NIST says:

The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s. To estimate the downward acceleration during this stage, a straight line was fit to the open-circled velocity data points using linear regression (shown as a straight line in Figure 12–77). The slope of the straight line, which represents a constant acceleration, was found to be 32.2 ft/s2 (with a coefficient of regression R2 = 0.991), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g. Note that this line closely matches the velocity curve between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s.

[pg. 602, emphasis added]

Every one of those bolded words screams one word: "approximation".

Now, we can do better. Are you willing to put out a minimum of effort? Or do you prefer to blunder about like a ignoramus?

Do you want to do the analysis yourself? Or should I spoon feed you the answer to this one?

We'll move to your next question (Mr. Salvarinas' columns) once we've put this one to bed.
___

Now, conclusions.

1. Do you, or do you not, agree that NIST's statement of "Stage 1, 2 & 3 timing" refers to "the north face"? Or do you still maintain that NIST asserts that this time refers to the whole building?

2. Do you still assert that NIST says the north face came down AT "g"? Or that they say that "the best fit linear approximation" was equal to 32.2 ft/sec^2?

3. Do the actual data points on NIST's Figure 12-77 (NCSTAR1-9, pg 603) show the points to be ON the best fit curve, or scattered above & below the curve?

If a line connecting successive points is steeper than the best fit average, does this mean that the accel over this interval is equal to, less than or greater than the 2.25 second average? If the line connecting successive points is shallower than the best fit 2.25 second average, does this mean that the acceleration over this interval is equal to, less than or greater than the 2.25 second average?

Does NIST's data really say that the ACTUAL acceleration was a constant over this interval?

Does NIST's data really say that the actual acceleration of the whole north wall was approximately equal to "g"? Or does the data really say that the specific point measured had instantaneous accelerations that varied slightly above & below "g" over this interval, and whose "best linear fit average" over this interval was approximately equal to "g"?


tom

 

[Sabretooth]

Do you fancy explaining why ?

Nope - use your obviously overactive imagination...

 

[bill smith]

Nope - use your obviously overactive imagination...

By the way the categories are SuperTruthers and StormTruthers.

 

[beachnut]

I am so tempted to Rule 12 and Rule 10 this post...

If I were in B of NY, I would hold you to a beer for each post to miss delusion poster of 2010 for 911 truth, the masters of lies on 911.

Who would owe more? We need a virtual way to settle the issue. An on-line virtual meeting place to settle accounts. A kind of, "beachy is buying the beer again", where it shows up by UPS or FedEx; or at Apples-bees, at the bar; the bar keep logs on, Yes sir sabretooth; you are due 4 beers from beachy. Anyone work for corporate food chains? Who can set this up and get some beer from beachy? What are the rules, and who can set up the society of paying up for posting to trolls and people clearly the next phase past delusional on 911.

How does Derek go to talks with these delusional statements on the bill.

Will Derek give up the evidence for the False Flag Terrorist Attacks of 911? Or explain disintegrated? Does bill approve of giving money to the first responders since she called them "fully involved" liars?

 

[bill smith]

If I were in B of NY, I would hold you to a beer for each post to miss delusion poster of 2010 for 911 truth, the masters of lies on 911.

Who would owe more? We need a virtual way to settle the issue. An on-line virtual meeting place to settle accounts. A kind of, "beachy is buying the beer again", where it shows up by UPS or FedEx; or at Apples-bees, at the bar; the bar keep logs on, Yes sir sabretooth; you are due 4 beers from beachy. Anyone work for corporate food chains? Who can set this up and get some beer from beachy? What are the rules, and who can set up the society of paying up for posting to trolls and people clearly the next phase past delusional on 911.

How does Derek go to talks with these delusional statements on the bill.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WACyNutsDelusions.jpg[/qimg]
Will Derek give up the evidence for the False Flag Terrorist Attacks of 911? Or explain disintegrated? Does bill approve of giving money to the first responders since she called them "fully involved" liars?

Delete

 

[Derek Johnson]

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

Where does NIST specifically say this Tom TFK at JREF? I'm looking at p. 602 of NCSTAR 1-9 right now...where, exactly?

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

Somebody here is lying and others who read this thread will not have to strain too much to figure it out.

I'll put the column buckling energy dissipation and all the other questions on pause (for now). Right now I need you to point to which page of which NIST report states this. And, fyi:

Every one of those bolded words screams one word: "approximation".

Your inference "sreams one word" doesn't cut it Tom TFK at JREF. That's called lying.

I need to see where exactly "NIST specifically says that the external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at approximately g"

Thanks buddy.

 

[DGM]

Somebody here is lying and others who read this thread will not have to strain too much to figure it out.

Yes we do. I'm guessing you don't know the difference between the real page number and the PDF. Your pathetic.

 

[tfk]

In a building that tall, would leaning away from the camera apear to be a much faster vertical drop than is the actual case? It seems to me that the wall could have been falling at , let's say .25 g as columns snapped apart, then tilted sharply away from the camera. The result would be an appearance of much faster rate of descent, especially if the tilt was caused by the impact of an already-falling body on some part of the observe wall or the floors still attached.

If the camera is near to, or looking obliquely up at, the building (as Camera 3 is), then you have to be careful to compensate for non-constant scaling factors and horizontal vs. vertical components of motion.

For camera 2 (the CBS "Dan Rather" video), the camera is far enough away from WTC7 & is looking pretty much square onto the building that these two effects are inconsequential.

When it comes to horizontal vs. vertical motion, then you will only get the vertical component of motion from the one camera. A multiple camera analysis could, in principle & practice, resolve the 3 dimensions of motion.

But the horizontal & vertical equations of motion for a free falling object are independent of each other. The old "drop a marble at the same time you shoot a rifle bullet & they hit the ground at the same time" effect.

Of course, the north wall is NOT a "free falling object", but is tied to the collapsing structure behind it at 1000 different locations.

It looks pretty evident from the videos that the upper east quadrant (about 1/3rd horizontally and vertically) of the North wall peeled away from the building, and fell to the north.

But the point that NIST followed was not in that section, but more towards the center / top of the parapet wall.

It looks clear to me, based on femr's data, that the point that he selected (the north west corner in the data plotted below) descended at a non-constant acceleration throughout its visible fall, as shown by the green line here.

There is still an unanswered question of a scaling factor. This would shift the magnitude of the curve up or down. But it would do nothing to change the shape of the curve.

As I've shown, a constant free-fall acceleration, starting at the moment the north wall began to move (in this chart at t = 3.5 seconds, unrelated to any of NIST's timing), would match the red line.

There is no period of time that the green curve had a constant -32.2 ft/sec^2 acceleration.

From the chart, you can see that between 5.0 & 6.6 seconds (about 1.6 seconds), the average was about -32.2 ft/sec^2.

If the scaling factor is slightly higher, then this would extend the time over which the average is -32.2 to a number closer to NIST's 2.2 seconds.

A small point that is interesting to me, but utterly irrelevant to the question of a controlled demolition, is that it seems unquestionable to me that, for a brief period of time, the roof line point followed does actually exceed a "g" acceleration.

This seems incontrovertible from both NIST & Chandler's data as well. If it really fell "at g", then all the velocity points would be (nearly) exactly on the straight line velocity graph. (Within measurement error, of course.)

Looking at all the data points, they aren't really that close to the curve.

Contrary to some folks' comments on this issue, this "greater than g acceleration" does not violate any of Newton's laws. Precisely because the North wall is not an isolated object being acted upon only by gravity. There are other forces acting on it. Forces that can, and certainly appear to, act in a downward direction. (The specific forces being debris falling on lower structures that are attached to the external wall.)


tom

 

[bill smith]

This is almost as amazing as the theory of thermal expansion.
Now an item falling at g is being forced downwards faster than g by another object that is presumably falling faster than g itself.

 

[Derek Johnson]

This is almost as amazing as the theory of thermal expansion.
Now an item falling at g is being forced downwards faster than g by another object that is presumably falling faster than g itself.

Welcome to the Newton-free zone Bill.

 

[bill smith]

Welcome to the Newton-free zone Bill.

lol. I've seen it close up for quite a long time. Ask T about how the magic rubble layer in WTC1 was compressed. That's always good for a laugh.

 

[Oystein]

...
I mean it has to be very unlikely that the strongest column in the building would fail first from mere office fires. It was about 350 tons weight I believe.
....

Why was it the strongest and heavies column?
I am sure the answer will occur to you immediately. It is really easy.

 

[Derek Johnson]

lol. I've seen it close up for quite a long time. Ask T about how the magic rubble layer in WTC1 was compressed. That's always good for a laugh.

Ok, I will. But first Tom needs to clean up the steaming pile he left in the middle of the floor...

 

[Myriad]

Two objects are both falling at g, yet one is moving faster than the other. Impossible!

A deep Newton-defying mystery to Truthers, "Duh, one started falling before the other one" to everyone else. Of course, Newton would know better than to read g as a velocity, so there might indeed be some kind of Newton-free zone somewhere around here.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Disbelief]

Welcome to the Newton-free zone Bill.

Then write a technical, peer reviewed paper and get it published so you can blow the lid off of the sham of a report. Why waste your time here when you could solidify your standing in the engineering community?

 

[Derek Johnson]

Then write a technical, peer reviewed paper and get it published so you can blow the lid off of the sham of a report. Why waste your time here when you could solidify your standing in the engineering community?

I'm still waiting for my anwsers from you.

Where are they?