• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

Derek Johnson said:
Sure, first take #1152/#1172 head on. Go on. Dive right in, and we'll be wallering in Lagrangian energy methods as applied to column buckling in no time.

You will answer these questions then?
Click to expand...

That's not an answer to either one of my questions. Do you even know the purpose of the Lagrange equations?

I recommend this text if you don't, it's a very good one.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
'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.
Click to expand...

:v:

If you're so distressed about the behavior on JREF, why even bother bringing the theories here in the first place? Why not bring them to the press, or publish them in a journal instead of hacking away on some obscure web forum with no bearing on the community, scientific or otherwise? Even if someone did present a teneble theory here, it's still a pointless endeavor. What JREF thinks doesn't really matter to the world.
 
Last edited:
Derek Johnson said:
Start with NCSTAR 1-9. Most of what you need is there. I really look forward to you answers.
Click to expand...

Funny...I can't find anything about Lagrange’s theorem in NCSTAR 1-9.

How about sharing your data?

Do you even have any data? Or are you pulling the usual truther crap and pretending to know what your talking about?

WTF...33 pages and you haven't even ATTEMPTED to answer a single question or proving any offerings of what you're trying to imply.
 
This is begining to annoy me. I'm not an engineer and my math sucks, but I am still certain that I am brighter than most people I know. And twoofers make me feel like a freaking giant.

What has this Lagrange BS to do with this discussion? Is it some magical incantation that nullifies the ability of heat to cause steel to expand and buckle?
 
Don't sweat it. Derek is simply a trolling. Because he MAY have an engineering degree doesn't make his trolling any more palatable.

Now watch...in response to this, as per trolling protocol, Derek will post a request for me to address his list of questions (engineering questions that he says he knows the answers to, but yet feels compelled to have someone here answer...trolling). His post will, like his intellect, be small.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
In a nutshell, the Lagrange equations are a conversion of the differential forms of Newton's laws that allow you to use a generalized coordinate system (for example, a curve instead of the traditional XYZ) to simplify the equations describing the system. I don't have much experience with them (only touched on them briefly in my dynamics class), but I've only seen them used in modeling complex dynamic systems (gyroscopes, for example). I've never seen them used in structural analysis, and I don't really see the point of using them for his question when classical mechanics will work just fine. I was hoping DJ knew something I didn't.
 
Last edited:
Look at the long list of debunkers who have posted against Derek on this thread > Is this the cream of the jref engineering crop that Tfk offered to Derek ?



PS.

....and with a click of my fingers......lol
 
Last edited:
I wasn't aware that JREF was suddenly an authority on engineering. Last I checked, it was an obscure web forum with no bearing on the real world. Has something changed?
 
sabretooth47 said:
says the guys that believes there is a 7ft molten pool of lava under the remains of WTC7...
Click to expand...

Not under WTC7 Sabretooth. That had no basement- remember ? It was above a con-ed station. Though they did use nanothermite I believe in smaller targeted quantities. Not like the Twin Towers where massive targeted melting went on..
 
excaza said:
In a nutshell, the Lagrange equations are a conversion of the differential forms of Newton's laws that allow you to use a generalized coordinate system (for example, a curve instead of the traditional XYZ) to simplify the equations describing the system.
Click to expand...
For the purposes of this thread, it's enough to know that the Lagrangian formulation is a mathematical technique that produces a nice abstraction for many different physical problems. It is not limited to Newtonian mechanics or gravitation.

So far as I can tell without reading the entire thread, Derek Johnson was the first person to use the word "Lagrangian", in this post:
Derek Johnson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because the Lagrangian formulation is a general technique, Derek Johnson's reference to "the Lagrangian energy theory" didn't really make any sense. For example, there doesn't have to be a dissipation term in the Lagrangian; even if there is, there are many different dissipation terms that could appear.

Before we could comment on the particular Lagrangian formulation Derek has in mind, he'd have to state that Lagrangian. Needless to say, he has refused all requests for clarification.

In other words, Derek is using the word "Lagrangian" to impress the gullible.
 
leftysergeant said:
What has this Lagrange BS to do with this discussion? Is it some magical incantation that nullifies the ability of heat to cause steel to expand and buckle?
Click to expand...

It's a buzz word in this context.

As excaza said, a Lagrangian is a representation of dynamic equations in the form of an operator. The Lagrangian is computed from the kinetic and potential energy terms of the system, and by substituting it into the Euler-Lagrange Equations one gets back the equations of motion.

One typically learns how to write equations of motion by deriving an Lagrangian in second- or third-year Physics. Dr. Seffen's paper on the WTC Towers collapses includes derivation of a Lagrangian, where he has written the equations of motion for the progressive collapses in terms of energy and instability.

In the case of WTC 7, where the overwhelming majority of structure is already destroyed before the perimeter begins to fall, any Lagrangian is not obvious because one has to make strong assumptions about what structure is left -- assumptions I have yet to see from any Truther, not just impetuous young Derek here.

Looks like a stupid bluff to me. It isn't clear from the commentary (a) if Derek knows what a Lagrangian is, (b) why he thinks it would be superior to a Hamiltonian or any other representation of motion, force, or energy, or (c) what he'd do with it if he had it in the first place. Talk about your non sequiturs.

ETA: Cross-posted with W.D.Clinger. We concur.
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
In a nutshell, the Lagrange equations are a conversion of the differential forms of Newton's laws that allow you to use a generalized coordinate system (for example, a curve instead of the traditional XYZ) to simplify the equations describing the system. I don't have much experience with them (only touched on them briefly in my dynamics class), but I've only seen them used in modeling complex dynamic systems (gyroscopes, for example). I've never seen them used in structural analysis, and I don't really see the point of using them for this problem when classical mechanics will work just fine. I was hoping DJ knew something I didn't.
Click to expand...

Maybe DJ thinks the top of WTC7 was spinning like a top.
 
Derek,

You have serious trouble focusing on questions or requests that I've put to you. (Is there an ADD issue here?) So I'll highlight them for you in red.

History:

When I first stumbled on your Youtube videos (last December), the conversation went similarly to yesterday. You bouncing off the walls from one topic to another. Me trying to answer a few of the main points before moving on to the next.

You said that you didn't have time to do any fact-checking, because you were preparing an upcoming public lecture for ae911t (in Georgia, IIRC). I STRONGLY recommended that you find an unbiased, experienced, successful structural engineer and review both your assertions & my responses. And I strongly recommended that you do this before you got up on stage & (while impressing the daylights out of the clueless) humiliated yourself in public amongst knowledgeable engineers with your nonsense

Please explain to me why you clearly chose to ignore this advice. From that day to this.
___

Quotations:

Derek Johnson said:
Do me a favor, if you quote NIST. Quote NIST. If you paraphrase NIST. Paraphrase NIST.
Click to expand...

I asked you before if you understood the purpose of quotation marks. Typically, you did not respond.

If I put something in quotation marks or in a quote text block, then it's a quote.

If I don't use quotation marks or a quote text block, then it is NOT a quotation. It is my statement. Even if I use a word like "precisely".

See. Simple.

But, since this seems to be the only arrow in your quiver, I'll be rigorously clear about quotations from here out with you.
____

Focus

Meanwhile, if the discussion here is going to continue, I've got some requirements.

I don't have time for your bouncing off the walls, going from one topic to another.

If you can't focus, this is a waste of time. If you can focus, you can learn a lot.

Focus requires that we take one topic at a time, get it DONE & put to bed, before we move on to the next.

Focus requires that you state your question clearly & precisely.
Focus requires that you answer my questions.

I will do everything that I ask from you.

Please state clearly that you agree to these terms.
___

The first topic is the fall of WTC7.

1. First, NIST's statement of the sequence & timing.

In other words, "what fell, & when".

This takes zero engineering ability & little time. Just the ability to read & comprehend. It should take no more than ONE posting.

Here's the order for the follow up questions that I'd suggest. You can choose to change this order any way you want. But we will finish off this topic first before we move on to the others.

2. The rate of the fall,

3. the implications of the rate of fall on energy considerations.

3. Thermal expansion vs. buckling

4. NIST's statement on the origins of (I presume) Biederman, Bartlett & Sassoon's samples, since they are the ones referenced in FEMA 403 App. C.

5. (If you want) the issue of "molten metal vs. molten steel".

6. (If you want) the issue of NIST withholding the FEA info on WTC7.

Derek Johnson said:
My questions raised in #1152 and #1172 should be no problem for an ME that graduated when I was 3....what's holding you back?
Click to expand...

First, we'll address the questions (above) that you asked in post 905. We'll get to a conclusion. We will both agree that we've reached a conclusion. We will both agree what that conclusion is. Then we will move on to the next question.

After we are done with the first set of questions, you can select any group of questions that you want.

If you want, these can include your six new questions (post 1152) and your three new ones (#1172).
___

It's a real shame that you haven't yet met some old fart engineer or manager who FORCED you to implement this sort of discipline.

As a direct result, you are an absolutely classic case of "All motion, no progress".

tom
 
bill smith said:
I will post this hyperlink as often as you make it necessary Al and others.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6328555&postcount=3336 hyperlink
Click to expand...
A promise to SPAM. At least you support Derek and his lies about 911 as you lie about firemen. You better report yourself for being "fully involved" with liars who can't providence evidence. We already know you are a SPAMer, posting lies and delusions for the false information special team of liars, 911 truth, wrong, evidence free for over 9 years.

Like you, Derek preaches lies in his presenting of big lies by 911 truth.
He says Leslie Robertson said, "molten steel was still running". Robertson never said it, this is a lie, even Gage knows this is a lie, but they leave it in the presentation to fool the gullible and bring in the money; fraud.

I love it when he says in his presentation "he doesn't have to have probable cause..." Derek is a big defend the constitution guy but he says he can waive our rights on the spot. But the dump part follows this hint of breaking the constitution. ""he doesn't have to have probable cause, if a police officer sees evidence of a crime." What is probable cause Derek? lol

Derek thinks he has probable cause to go get the imaginary men who set off the CD. Wow. He can't post his own answers he says he has and he fails to support ONE of his claims in his presentations. Why? 9 years and he is sitting on what 911 truth claims as overwhelming evidence, but he can't name them, or tell the FBI. Because the FBI will laugh, and all engineers not in 911 truth, millions ignore the nut case ideas.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom