Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[The Big Dog]

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.

[qimg]http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9636/ffavswtc7northwallaccel.png[/qimg]

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

bump

 

[Derek Johnson]

[Ducking questions]

So, any progress with #1152 / #1172, twoof-snuffer?

 

[beachnut]

Not so much twoofie-crusher. #1212 gets to the fundamentals, neanderthal answers won't cut it with the twoof.

Speaking of, how are we doing with #1212? Hmm?

You are the one with the nut case thermite idea, a most moronic idea based on lies, and fantasy. The CD idea is nonsense. Fire destroyed WTC 7. It must be too complex for you to comprehend, but after 9 years failure to figure out fire did it, makes you look like you base all your conclusions on idiotic delusions. I would not call you what you just called me, but were too afraid to say it in the clear.

How you doing?

Making any progress on #1212?

Making any progress on this?

It is my opinion that a more complete and thorough FEA survey than the one I performed will help erode the credibility of the 9-11 report of record, and provide political pressure to bring those responsible for the 9-11 murders to trial.

Murder trials? Who? Paranoid much? Was McVeigh like this?

 

[The Big Dog]

Seventh grade? Proof?

Say, how are we doing on #1212 there twoof-smashing JREFer?

otherwise ducking questions

Tell, you what, now that we have, as you said, I have "smashed" your NIST FOIA twoof claim from earlier, why don't we agree that you have completely misread Tom's post, like I explained above? Baby steps, Derek, I like to clean up your messes as we move along.

Then I'll be happy to go back and address 1212.

Deal? Oh yeah;

 

[Derek Johnson]

[More #1212 ducking]

It's ok beachnut, the lurkers will know that you "really could" answer #1152 / #1172 if you wanted to.

 

[Derek Johnson]

[And yet more #1212 question ducking]

It's ok 16.5, the lurkers will know that you "really could" answer #1152 / #1172 if you wanted to.

 

[AZCat]

Why would either beachnut or 16.5 (or anyone else) want to answer your questions?

 

[Derek Johnson]

Why would either beachnut or 16.5 (or anyone else) want to answer your questions?

1. Settle my curiousity
2. Make me go away
3. Show their technical ability
4. Explain what NIST didn't
5. Explain NISTS many screw ups
6. Demonstrate the root cause so future WTC 7-like "weaknesses" will be circumvented.

Maybe this should have been the "Invitation to Derek Johnson to duck his easy questions" thread?

 

[The Big Dog]

It's ok 16.5, the lurkers will know that you "really could" answer #1212 if you wanted to.

It's Ok Derek, people know that not only could you "really could" admit that you misunderstood Tom's earlier post if you wanted to, but that you "really could" have helped file an action for judicial review "if you wanted to," and that you "really could" have addressed the entire post that featured this graph:

well, maybe I went to far, you've had dozens of posts since it was first posted, but I am sure "you wanted to."

hee hee! Good night everybody!

 

[Derek Johnson]

It's Ok Derek, people know that not only could you "really could" admit that you misunderstood Tom's earlier post if you wanted to, but that you "really could" have helped file an action for judicial review "if you wanted to," and that you "really could" have addressed the entire god damn post that featured this graph:

[qimg]http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9636/ffavswtc7northwallaccel.png[/qimg]

well, maybe I went to far, you've had dozens of posts since it was first posted, but I am sure "you wanted to."

hee hee!

Misquoting NIST and then backtracking away from the misquote is not the best twoof killing weapon. Just sayin.

Now how are those #1152 / #1172 soft pitches working out for you. Progress?

 

[The Big Dog]

Misquoting NIST and then backtracking away from the misquote is not the best twoof killing weapon. Just sayin.

Now how are those #1212 soft pitches working out for you. Progress?

Misunderstanding and misrepresenting a simple post is not the best twoof weapon. Just sayin'

You know what is? A federal lawsuit seeking judicial review.

Now how is that soft pitch workin' out for ya, computer boy?

Now I am really going to bed.

 

[AZCat]

1. Settle my curiousity
2. Make me go away
3. Show their technical ability
4. Explain what NIST didn't
5. Explain NISTS many screw ups
6. Demonstrate the root cause so future WTC 7-like "weaknesses" will be circumvented.

Maybe this should have been the "Invitation to Derek Johnson to duck his easy questions" thread?

I don't find any of those particularly compelling.

1. If you're curious, why don't you answer the questions yourself instead of asking us?
2. Why would we want you to go away? You seem interesting to me.
3. Why is this important? Most of us have daily confirmation of our abilities, whatever they are. Why would we need to seek it out on the internet?
4. I'm not sure I have the time or the inclination to fulfill this task. There are plenty of things NIST didn't address, and some of them were omitted for good reason.
5. On a project this size, I would be surprised if there weren't screw ups.
6. Was the flaw really a flaw? Are you willing to support changing the building codes (prescriptive or performance-based) to consider unusual situations like the failure of fire suppression systems? Remember that this might result in severely over-designed buildings, which means more construction costs.

On Edit: I'm an idiot and totally missed #3. Sorry.

 

[beachnut]

Maybe you .

... any progress?

It is my opinion that a more complete and thorough FEA survey than the one I performed will help erode the credibility of the 9-11 report of record, and provide political pressure to bring those responsible for the 9-11 murders to trial.

You don't go proving your own claims by eroding the credibility of the 911 report, I assume you mean NIST. You prove your own ideas, your own claims and you are done. But you attack reports due to your paranoid conspiracy theories you can't define! You need to do your own work, and prove your own points. Better hurry, so fare your 911 truth movement is 9 years deep in delusions and complete failure; faster than free-fall.

So who did it?
Was it thermite?
How was it done?
How much thermite was used?
Got any equations to go with this; you never came up with the Lagrangian equations for your questions; why not?

Does an engineer ask questions when he said he has the answers, and fail to answer or acknowledge other questions.


Derek is trying to get technical. The dictionary seems to get close...

Definition of LAGRANGIAN: a function that describes the state of a dynamic system in terms of position coordinates and their time derivatives and that is equal to the difference between the potential energy and kinetic energy.

I asked him to supply the equations in question? Will it take 9 more years?
His talks are designed to fool laypeople, Lagrangian may help fool them, or is it when Gage sweet talks everyone to ask for a new investigating based on Gage's implied ignorance.

Now do I have to figure out why Ross was off by 20 percent?

 

[tfk]

Derek,

The questions Tom, thanks buddy.

Did any questions get answered? What is holding you back?

Are you able to answer the 5 questions? Care to try?

And how many times have I asked the same questions and how many have gone unanswered or severely underanswered?

Come come Oystein, step right up. You're a mighty twoof debunker and I want to see some Oystein-9-11 twoof-crushing debunking....

Speaking of unanswered questions, here I am telling you that I'll address ALL of your questions. One at a time.

All I'm asking of you is a little cooperation from you & some honest dialog. And that you answer a few of my questions too.

Now let's tally up the questions that I've asked you ... which you've steadfastly ignored ... over the course of a mere 1/2 day.

[posts #992, 1004, 1019 (indirectly), 1031]
[1, asked 4 times] Please state PRECISELY WHAT PART of the building NIST said fell at APPROXIMATELY "g".

You replied to me 3 times (posts #993, 1022 & 1034). You never made the slightest effort to answer my question, even tho I explicitly said that "the answer to your question was buried inside an accurate statement of the question" (post 1019).

When it became evident that you had no intention of even attempting to get into an honest discussion, I provided my version of what NIST really said in post 1049.
__

[#1049]
[2] Does Jesus tell you to be intentionally deceptive? Or did he suggest that simple honesty has some intrinsic ethical value?

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

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

[#1105]

[5] 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?

[6] 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?

[7] 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?

[8] 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?

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

[10] 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"?


[#1135]
[11] Please show me anywhere, in any of my posts, that I said that I was quoting NIST from page 602 in that "NIST specifically says ..." statement above.

[12] Now, in reference to what NIST does say on page 602 of NCSTAR1-9, what part of "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration" is impenetrable to you??

[13] Did you not find the specific quotes on pages 598 & 599 that I referenced that prove that NIST was talking about the north wall & not about the whole building??

[14] Are you unable to stretch your intellect to realize the inevitable conclusion that is contained within the sentence "The horizontal progression of buckling interior columns could not have been observed from the street..."? Meaning that "the collapse of the interior of the building was occurring, but not visible from the street."

[15] If your contention is true, then WHAT THE HELL is NIST saying is collapsing for 13 full seconds before the north wall begins to fall??

[16] Please explain what you think that NIST suggests "broke" (on page 609, NCSTAR1-9) during:
"3. Initial Local Failure...
4. Vertical Progression of Failure ...
5. Horizontal Progression of Failure ..."

[#1149]
[17] Why don't you provide us all with a description of an "object in free fall".

[18] Tell me how many forces act on such an object in a vacuum?
How many forces act on an object in free fall in air?

[19] Now, if there is a downward force on a falling object (like, for instance, that exterior wall) in addition to gravity, then what would be the object's resultant downward acceleration? Would it be equal to, less than or greater than "g"?

[20] Are you so clueless that you cannot imagine any way in which a downward force could possibly be applied to a portion of a building during the building's collapse?

Care to reply to some of those questions before you whine about others not answering you?

I am asking those questions for the specific purpose of answering your questions.


tom

 

[Myriad]

Tom's post was not a quote, so it could not be a misquote. It was a summary of NIST's statements on a particular point. You have accused that summary of being in error, but you have not shown any error.

Your insistence on judging Tom's assessment by to what extent it uses the exact same words is bizarre. What NIST said on that page clearly means exactly what Tom says it means.

It's as though Tom had said "The train schedule says a train that travels from New York to Philadelphia starting at 10:15" and you're yelling "The schedule only says it departs from New York and arrives at Philadelphia, it never uses the word 'travels' or says the train actually moves between the two cities so you're misquoting the timetable." That amounts to nothing but a form of childish whining. (Familiar to most parents of toddlers in the form of arguments like "You said I had to GO to bed but you didn't say I had to STAY in bed!")

The NIST report does say, quite clearly, that the external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at approximately g.

It does not anywhere say that the entire building fell at approximately g at any time.

I was hoping to be reading an engineering dialog between engineers in this thread, instead of boring semantic tangents, but at least this issue does involve one of my own areas of professional expertise: technical writing. Thus I can confirm that not only do the passages in the NIST report tfk has cited mean what he says they mean, they express it with more than adequate clarity for a technical publication.

Of course I can't make you agree with that, but I can inform you that like the child who insists that he doesn't have to stay in bed because Mommy only actually said "go to bed," you will find that insisting on disagreeing will not impress or influence anyone whose opinion matters.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tfk]

No, Derek did not claim that. I worked for the gov't in the Navy. No expertise needed for that job, none aquired either. I worked in steel fabrication (pressure vessels), foundry and construction. No expertise needed for those jobs, none aquired either. Eventually I had a brief chance to go to school when I was 27, graduated @ 31...no expertise aquired, but made it through a pretty tough program.

You made it thru what program?

I'm no expert, and never will be,

... too easy ...

is there such a thing anyway?

Uh, yes, in fact. There is.

I do, however, have questions hitherto under-answered or outright avoided like the plague.

I've told you that I'll address and/or answer ALL of your questions. If you discussed things honestly, and answered direct questions back to you directly, we'd be on question #5 by now, instead of mired down in question #1.

They go to the root: could thermal expansion do that to WTC 7? Especially the awkward way NIST has it framed:

“At > 300o C in the shear studs, differential thermal expansion of the floor beams and floor slab resulted in significant [whatever significant means in the land of NIST] shear studs and caused them to fail” – NCSTAR 1-9, p. 473

Yet they get this "differential" through heavy model manipulation.

Wrong.

If we ever get there, I'll be more than happy to point these NISTisms out.

When we get there.

or even better:

“Primarily for the east tenant floor, when a floor beam thermally expanded, the beam displaced the girder at the interior end of the floor beam but did not displace the exterior frame at the other end of the floor beam.” - NCSTAR 1-9, p. 526.

If the beams are unrestrained at one end, how can they develop the compressive force necessary for buckling to occur? TFK? Can you at least get this one straight?

Easy. Once we get there.

or even better still

“Many of the east floor beams on Floors 12, 13, and 14 failed by buckling, as shown in Figure 11-27 and Figure 11-35” – NCSTAR 1-9, pp. 526-27

How can the beams push the girder laterally if they have buckled in compression? TFK? Anyone?

Easy. Once we get there.

If you simply start some honest dialog, this whole process will go a LOT faster.

Please let me know right away if you intend to BEGIN to respond honestly & openly. Or if this is all a sham. A lie.

If so, I'm inclined to stop wasting my time & to let you flounder about, immersed in stupid.


tom

 

[beachnut]

Yet you can't explain the thermally expanding AND buckling beams that vexed the 79 to 44 girder, can you rational thinking pilot and engineer?

Nor can you explain the missing damping, energy dissipation that would have occured through those wimpy puny W14x730 columns. Some with built up sections, no less. Can you rational thinking pilot and engineer?

It's not me that is delusional, your argument can't pass elementary physics, solid mechanics, energy methods or system modeling. Keep your head up you rectum, pilot engineer, I tried to pull it out...but your comfortable ducking #1152 and #1178 in favor of your little JREF/NIST fairy tail.

Fairytale! Get something right!
You are the one with delusions of CD. Not me.

I did not mean you were delusional, your ideas on 911 are delusional and you can't help it. You can't prove your CD lie so you are getting upset and failing faster than free-fall.

When will you tie your thermite theory to your failure to understand structural engineering and fire science. I have to see this leap.

Oops, you are letting your answers out early.

... for 911 it takes a grade school education to understand fire destroyed many buildings in the WTC complex. Only fire. Sorry, but all your engineering is a waste on this issue. Now for improving buildings, engineering is needed and grade school education is not capable of the work required to ensure buildings can do better against idiots who come to kill us because they promised to in the 90s. While you are wasting time on NIST, I skipped NIST and figured out on 911, it was FIRE, and I am right, as are millions of other rational engineers who are not affected by some paranoid conspiracy junk so crazy it defies definition, it is too stupid.

I can't believe you are stuck on a non terrorist target, and failed to comment on Flight 77 and 93. Which take zero engineering skill also to figure out the terrorists did it. UBL told me and the world he would do it; he left out the details like you are, but he promised, and he will do it again. Too bad you can't help figure out if it will be sleepers in mini-vans at some event, or some other end run to kill Americans. UBL thinks in decades, as you and 911 truth fail for a decade real soon at your present rate of not seeing your delusions as delusions.

If you 911 truth guys are right, there is unused thermite in the Capitol right now, waiting for the the plane to hit. Go get it.

You agree fire did WTC 7 in! Good. If not, then please explained what caused WTC 7 to collapse if it was not fire. Can you do that?

 

[R.Mackey]

If there was an engineer looking for a job, say, and when I asked her to answer a technical question or explain the reasoning behind her own questions, she insisted first that I answer a bunch of questions... and just kept repeating them, over and over...

... she'd be looking for a long, long time.

Just sayin'.

 

[beachnut]

#1152 and #1172. Don't let Newton or Lagrange get in your way.

Fire did it, simple layman terms. Why do you fail to understand fire? When the General called me in to tell him, he wanted the simple answer. Fire did it, I am right. What is the problem, is my answer too simple for your Lagrange equations you failed to fill in for us? Numbers please. Got some?

The only purpose of NIST is to make improvements to buildings and to make sure the buildings were up to code. There were no explosives or thermite. We don't need NIST to explain 19 terrorists did 911. As you look for unknown imaginary bad guys with thermite. A delusion.

Where are your equations? Filled out for the case you have.

Answer your own questions. #1152, and #1172, Please. hurry, tick tock

If fire did not do it please explain what did.

 

[ProBonoShill]

No you have not and we are 27 pages into this thread. Images of various molten compounds have been provided for you in multiple posts throughout this thread. Oystein has repeatedly requested that you identify the different substances and as of yet you have not. Why haven't you? I think both of us know the answer, don't we?




So each picture is that of a bronze or copper alloy?




Do you even know why he is asking you to identify these metals?

I do.




Snip>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of the post is irrelevant.


So you're admitting there was a mistake in your presentation then?

Or did you err in this thread?

Would you agree that "Molten Steel" and "Molten Metal" are two different things?

Derek, it's okay you can admit you were wrong. You have clearly demonstrated throughout this thread that you:

a) aren't capable of identifying molten metals, which is hardly a surprise considering most people who are not metallurgists cannot either.

b) are confused by the terms "molten metal" and "molten steel" , using one in your presentation and the other in this thread to describe the same thing.

c) have relied too heavily on witness accounts describing molten "________" (mostly secondhand) who do not have the relevant expertise to determine what in fact they thought they saw.

In conclusion:

I am sick of debunkers not answering questions.

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

The other two have already been debunked.