• 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

Oystein said:
I told you before: nano-thermite necessarily has LESS energy per mass unit than ordinary thermite. You'd need even MORE of that to melt your 8.000 tons of steel.

Educate yourself on the subject matter beforre you talk stupid.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's why they go to such enormous expense,effort and technical knowhow to mill the particles down to micrsocopic sizes.

And incidentally Oystein I am not that bothered about what you 'tell' me if the Truth be told.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Derek,




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
Click to expand...

Derek's response:
Derek Johnson said:
tfk said:
I am asking ducking questions
Click to expand...

Just #1152 and #1172 for now Tom. Thank you.

And do be more careful when you "specifically" quote from NIST.

K?
Click to expand...



tfk tries again:
tfk said:
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:



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.



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
Click to expand...

Derek's only response:
Derek Johnson said:
#1152 - #1172...."twoofie destroyers".

tick tock
Click to expand...


What's the point of going on with this thread, if it's crystal clear that Derek refuses to engage into an honest dialog and instead throws a red herring ("bait", by his own words) to avoid addressing any of tfk's questions?
 
pgimeno said:
Derek's response:




tfk tries again:


Derek's only response:



What's the point of going on with this thread, if it's crystal clear that Derek refuses to engage into an honest dialog and instead throws a red herring ("bait", by his own words) to avoid addressing any of tfk's questions?
Click to expand...

Tsk Tsk Pg....Derek asked T.first.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Nope. I worked out the 9/11 inside job all on my own. My very first conspiracy theory too.
Click to expand...

Bill, do you have any particular reason for being in this thread?

The title of the thread states: Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

It doesn't state: Invitation to Bill Smith to discuss his 9/11 delusions.

There are many other threads where you can discuss your nonsense, this one was created for Derek.

If you would like, I will create a thread just for you.

ETA - Here you go Bill

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6340735#post6340735
 
Last edited:
ProBonoShill said:
Bill, do you have any particular reason for being in this thread?

The title of the thread states: Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

It doesn't state: Invitation to Bill Smith to discuss his 9/11 delusions.

There are many other threads where you can discuss your nonsense, this one was created for Derek.

If you would like, I will create a thread just for you.

ETA - Here you go Bill

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6340735#post6340735
Click to expand...

Thanks. I just wanted to be sure that ae811truth.org (through Derek) would be aware of these possibilities. Imagine if Harrit for instance had never ever thought about the interior of the hollow core columns ? Where could he put his 100 tons of nanothermite ? But NOW !!!!

Do you see the point ?

The next time you open a thread for me allow me to set the title and we will go from there.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Wow Derek you must be making waves. It looks like all leave has been cancelled on this thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah Bill, I was lying with my wahinie on Waikiki Beach when i got the word that a new champion had appeared, Beechnut was down in flames, Gravy had taken his lumps, T.A.M. had botched the Operation and Mckay was no true Scotsman so no more fun in the sun for this NWOO*.:mad::)

*New World Order Operator (1st class)
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Yeah Bill, I was lying with my wahinie on Waikiki Beach when i got the word that a new champion had appeared, Beechnut was down in flames, Gravy had taken his lumps, T.A.M. had botched the Operation and Mckay was no true Scotsman so no more fun in the sun for this NWOO*.:mad::)

*New World Order Operator (1st class)
Click to expand...

Now that you are here tsig...does RM work for NIST or NASA ? I'm sure I heard somewhere that he works for NIST.
 
Last edited:
If you want to get to the bottom of WTC 7, JREF friends, then we should discuss those magic expanding AND buckling floor beams that magically pushed the 79 to 44 girder off (NIST said it walked off) its seat.

We need to discuss the columns too. They dissipate energy in buckling. I want to talk about this energy at great length.

Is there anyone here that is willing to take me up on this challenge?

I eagerly await this challenge.

Thank you.
Derek
 
Derek Johnson said:
If you want to get to the bottom of WTC 7, JREF friends, then we should discuss those magic expanding AND buckling floor beams that magically pushed the 79 to 44 girder off (NIST said it walked off) its seat.

We need to discuss the columns too. They dissipate energy in buckling. I want to talk about this energy at great length.

Is there anyone here that is willing to take me up on this challenge?

I eagerly await this challenge.

Thank you.
Derek
Click to expand...
Why do you need someone to "take you up on the challenge" of "talking about this energy at great length"?

If you want to talk, talk.

But you don't want to talk, do you? You want to ask questions, and unfortunately you're not bright enough to understand the answers.

Pitiful.
 
I thought engineers "talked" at length by publishing? Why not "talk" via JEM or something like it?

Or one could present at a conference maybe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom