Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[excaza]

How many is a specific few? How do you prevent the other thousands of people at GZ from noticing something was amiss? Magic?

 

[excaza]

I really like the buzz words. Good use of Lagrangian, makes you seem smart!
Could you please explain why using Lagrangian equations is necessary? I'm not seeing any advantage over Newtonian equations, perhaps you could enlighten me?

This should help you get started on your buckling load questions. You'll need the material properties of whatever strucural material was used as well. The architects will probably have that.

We also need your justification for the statement that "no energy was dissapated."

 

[D'rok]

Do me a favor, if you quote NIST. Quote NIST. If you paraphrase NIST. Paraphrase NIST.

I read Tom's post. The distinction between quotes and paraphrases was clear.

Is that clear?

Quite.

Now that we've got that sorted, do you agree with this statement? (Which, just in case you are wondering, is me quoting Tom paraphrasing NIST).

"The external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at approximately g."

 

[excaza]

Care to try? I'll walk you through it, but you have to try.

I thought y'all were 9-11 debunkers? Debunkers should be able to handle these easy questions, right? Anyone?

Can you please enlighten us on why using Lagrangian equations is necessary? I don't see any benefit to using them over Newtonian equations, they don't offer any more insight for this problem. Care to explain?

Also, please provide the justification for the assumption that "no energy was dissipated."

 

[Derek Johnson]

I read Tom's post. The distinction between quotes and paraphrases was clear.
Quite.

Now that we've got that sorted, do you agree with this statement? (Which, just in case you are wondering, is me quoting Tom paraphrasing NIST).

"The external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at approximately g."

Tom made a poor word choice: specifically. Specifically is strong enough to indicate a quote, which he did not do; he paraphrased...then he tried in vain to weasel out. Completely pathetic.

Say, can you answer #1152/#1172? Care to try?

 

[DGM]

Care to try? I'll walk you through it, but you have to try.

I thought y'all were 9-11 debunkers? Debunkers should be able to handle these easy questions, right? Anyone?

Care to try what, Answering a "engineers" questions? Don't you guys do that for us? At least that's what I pay my engineer to do.

 

[Sabretooth]

I was going to sit down and actually answer your questions…but then I woke up and realized I don’t want to do your legwork for you…

2a. How did no energy dissipate from the WTC 7 columns? Explain this in terms of the Lagrangian energy theory. Tell me all about the dissipation term, please don't forget that ol' serpent in the garden.

You want one of us to basically start from scratch finding and plotting data using Lagrange’s theorem to see if your numbers are accurate, right? I’ll tell you what, if you tell us what conclusions you’ve come to based on your own research, then we’d all be happy to oblige.

2b. What were the critical buckling loads of the 24 interior WTC 7 columns? Assume w14x730 without built up, and then with the built up sections.

Again, I’d like to know your data before I waste my time.

2c. Will this handle with the 8th floor gravity loads? Answer with and without respect to the built up sections, please.

Again, I’d like to know your data before I waste my time.

2d. What were the critical buckling loads of the 57 exterior WTC 7 columns?

Again, I’d like to know your data before I waste my time.

2e. Will this handle with the 8th floor gravity loads?

Again, I’d like to know your data before I waste my time.

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?

Am I reading this right? Doesn’t NIST show floor 13 already collapsed in figure 2-2? I don’t see how this is a relevant question to push a CD theory. I’m too tired to answer this crap. Give me something to work with or go home.

 

[Derek Johnson]

I don’t want to do your legwork for you…

Start with NCSTAR 1-9. Most of what you need is there. I really look forward to you answers.

 

[AZCat]

Tom made a poor word choice: specifically. Specifically is strong enough to indicate a quote, which he did not do; he paraphrased...then he tried in vain to weasel out. Completely pathetic.

Say, can you answer #1152/#1172? Care to try?

I don't agree with your assessment, but if we're going to start nitpicking word choices you're in for a rude awakening.

 

[leftysergeant]

Care to try? I'll walk you through it, but you have to try.

I thought y'all were 9-11 debunkers? Debunkers should be able to handle these easy questions, right? Anyone?

And you, if you are half as brilliant as you think yourself, should be able, after all the yammering you do in your videos about thermite in the WTC demolitions, to tell us what concievable form of thermite was used and how and where it was placed and why you have the wierd idea that it was used.

All your posturing and snark are pointless unless you can justify your absurd notion of thermite as a demolition tool.

What possible kind of thermite would you use to demolish an upright structural steel member and how would you apply it and then hide the residues?

Failing this explanation, you are farting in the wind.

 

[Derek Johnson]

I don't agree with your assessment, but if we're going to start nitpicking word choices you're in for a rude awakening.

He had a chance to back out, one "my bad, I meant to say NIST roughly says...(or similar)" would have been fine. But digging in his heels after he knew he misquoted tells me something about his propensity to deceive, and absolute insistence on being right....even when its clear he's wrong.

 

[D'rok]

Tom made a poor word choice: specifically. Specifically is strong enough to indicate a quote, which he did not do; he paraphrased...then he tried in vain to weasel out. Completely pathetic.

No. The "specifically" in his sentence referred to NIST's repeated emphasis that the measurements in question were approximations. Indeed, NIST specifically said that the measurements were approximations. This was repeated several times in the paragraph that Tom quoted and properly cited.

Tom made it quite clear when he was directly quoting NIST's language and when he was explaining, summarizing, or paraphrasing.

Say, can you answer #1152/#1172? Care to try?

No and nope. Not an engineer. But you are, so you could help me understand by answering mine. Do you agree with this statement?

"The external north wall fell, for approximately 100' at approximately g."

 

[AZCat]

He had a chance to back out, one "my bad, I meant to say NIST roughly says...(or similar)" would have been fine. But digging in his heels after he knew he misquoted tells me something about his propensity to deceive, and absolute insistence on being right....even when its clear he's wrong.

No, I don't think this is correct. He didn't quote NIST, and it is clear he didn't quote NIST. You want to hold him accountable for his claims - I understand that - but you have picked one that is reasonably defensible on his part. Now you have spun a difference in interpretation of a term (where I agree with tfk and Myriad) into a claim that he has a "propensity to deceive". This is unfortunate.

 

[leftysergeant]

He had a chance to back out, one "my bad, I meant to say NIST roughly says...(or similar)" would have been fine. But digging in his heels after he knew he misquoted tells me something about his propensity to deceive, and absolute insistence on being right....even when its clear he's wrong.

Stop the snark and account for your superstitious belief about thermite at the WTC or wear the name of charlatan. All you have done here is thump your chest and call yourself an engineer and tell your betters that you are smarter than they.

Prove it. Show us how thermite could possibly have been used.
And don't think that you can BS us. One need not be an engineer to know when you are full of beans.

 

[twinstead]

Incompetence and arrogance is a very bad combination.

 

[DGM]

#1152/#1172. These have been offered for a while. Who will be first to take the bait, you? Go on....

That's exactly what you are offering "bait". You are an arguer. You will never do anything more with this "insight" you think you have then sell some tickets to people that want to believe what your telling them. Your nothing more then a "snake oil salesman". I know this because you have never specifically proved anything you've ever said.

Show me that I'm wrong.

 

[leftysergeant]

#1152/#1172. These have been offered for a while. Who will be first to take the bait, you? Go on....

Stop that. You made the whackadoodle assertion that there was thermite involved and you have offered not one shred of acceptable evidence. You're just shucking and jiving. You have no expalnation that anyone with an IQ over 70 would buy for any of the events. You're almost as far off the page of reality as Bill Smith.

 

[leftysergeant]

Your nothing more then a "snake oil salesman". I know this because you have never specifically proved anything you've ever said.

Snake oil is passe'. These days, the hip thing is moxibustion. But incense cones are out. Thermite is in.

 

[Chorduroy]

#1152/#1172. These have been offered for a while. Who will be first to take the bait, you? Go on....

I think it's very telling that you used the word "bait" ...

I know why you won't address the very simple question that everyone wants you to ponder ... the question of "why" ...

It's because as soon as you start to think about it, you realize that all the superfluous nonsense you're rambling about completely falls apart and has NO MEANING. It's irrelevant in the light of the simple fact that there is no explanation that makes sense for WHY "they" would demolish WTC7.

 

[BigAl]

'Debunking' in the jref lexicon means dozens of debunkers decending upon the innocent purveyor of the Truth and them all saying 'NO' to everything he says. This technique is a well known propaganda tool . Asserting the opposite or wall-to-wall denial can eliminate mountains of evidence.

See what Noam Chomsky says on the matter though from a slightly different angle in this short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

Chomsky says Twoofers are nuts. Anything he says about anything else is irrelevant to the fact that 4 hijacked planes and 19 hijackers led by bin Laden caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

Chomsky on 911 Truth and JFK cults
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM

Discussed : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150852


​