Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Oystein]

See? I told ya:

I have often noticed that a fail-safe way of making sure truthers won't answer a question is by preceding postceding it with "Please be honest". Works every time with RedIbis, jammonius, Derek, bio.
...

So I tried this with Derek, by asking...

Derek, answer this honestly: Did Tom answer these questions already, or did he not?
If you saw hiw answers, have you acknowledged or discussed them? Yes or no?

...and what was the result? Right! Derek did not dare answering this directly!
Instead, he hides the following lie in another post:

Hi Carlos!

...
Tom did not answer the question.
...

This is blatantly wrong. He gave very good answers by explaining lucidly, why the questions were bad in this post, which I will abbreviate to highlight the pertinent results:

Derek,

...Since it is obvious that you have neither the integrity nor the ability to address the issues that I've already answered, I'll take a crack at your new gotcha's now.

Your premise is incorrect. ...
Irrelevant. ...
Irrelevant. ...
Irrelevant. ...
Irrelevant, as explained above.
...
tom

Instead of addressing the argument, Derek unleashes another unordered random JAQs.

It is high time, very high time, for Derek to stop the lying and start the answering.

Derek, stick to one topic! Discuss it in a civilized manner with tfk!
Your dodging informs lurkers here that you are afraid that your inaptness as an engineer will be clearly exposed.
But I got news to you: You are exposed already!

 

[Oystein]

nope... I should be more clear...

he posted a group of images which show some molten material, can you identify them on sight?

Better oy?

Better, but I'd advise you to also consider the possibilty that some of the materials aren't even molten

See, that is one thing that is also questionable in some accounts: Like we heard that they pulled steel beams from the rubble that had glowing ends dripping molten steel. This would indicate that that end was resting in a puddle of molten steel in the rubble, and raises the question: What kept the liquid from dripping deeper into the pile, or from solidifying, up until the beam was bulled out?
A better explanation for that dripping might be that red-hot, but solid chips and parts broke off as the piece of debris was jerked out of the mumble-jumble. If you see large pieces of ember dropping, it is near impossible to say if they are solid or liquid.

 

[Carlos]

Hi Carlos!

Actually, many of the questions that I raise go unanswered, so I sympathize completely. But this question has been underanswered. The sticky point is how do these buckling beams, that have lost their vertical support (fig 11-35) push off? The buckling can't happen if they are allowed to push the 79 to 44 girder, and NIST describes exactly that. This is describing a pin-roller. A pin-roller won't allow the force development necessary to buckle. If so this is new to me, and I'd like an explaination from you. Just cite it in your own words, how can beams that are restrained by the stiff exterior with moment connections at the columns (although they say at one point that the exterior columns buckling while this buckling-push is occuring - amazingly enough) can push off the 79 connection and then buckle? This defies the accumulated practice of solid mechanics. But with NIST, a lot of things are new.

Derek, the pushing could be occurred before the buckling, not after. (it's just a gess)

Plus, i'm not sure about the loss of the pushing capacity of a laterally buckled beam.

Buckling of columns is one thing, buckling of beams (also called lateral buckling) is another thing. Both are failure phenomena, but the cause and the consequence (in terms of deformation and behavior) is different.

A column buckles when the compression force is greater than its buckling critical load. The consequence is a excessive flexure deformation and the loss of the capacity of bearing axial forces, the mainly function of columns.

A beam buckles in a different way. Beams, as you know, are members designed to mainly support gravity transversal loads. So, unlike the columns, where the whole cross-section stays under compression stress, the top of the cross-section of a beam stays under compression and the bottom of the cross-section under tension.

So, the buckling on a beam occurs only at the top (under compression).

The consequence is a flexure deformation only at the top of the cross section while the bottom (under tension) try to keep aligned, so the beam has a twist/warp deformation losing its capacity of bearing transversal loads (the mainly function of a beam). But, can we say the same about its capacity of transmit axial loads? Well, I really don't know.

 

[bill smith]

If I have knowledge of the control volume, of course I can. If I am beamed down (think Star Trek) then I need information. The dross forms differently on different metals, that is one clue, but guess what? This kind of information that you assume is not available actually is available if you are vaguely familiar with the fractions of metals in building construction. This is a big help, given the context of the firefighter’s statement.

Now you buddy:

1. Will you answer the questions raised just above, yes or no?
2. Will you answer the column questions, yes or no?
3. Will you tell me the metal fractions of WTC 7, yes or no?

I look forward to the acrobatics the refusal that is sure to come.

Thanks!
Derek

You start to understand what a tortured explanation really is on the jref. lol

 

[triforcharity]

If I have knowledge of the control volume, of course I can. If I am beamed down (think Star Trek) then I need information. The dross forms differently on different metals, that is one clue, but guess what? This kind of information that you assume is not available actually is available if you are vaguely familiar with the fractions of metals in building construction. This is a big help, given the context of the firefighter’s statement.

Now you buddy:

1. Will you answer the questions raised just above, yes or no?
2. Will you answer the column questions, yes or no?
3. Will you tell me the metal fractions of WTC 7, yes or no?

I look forward to the acrobatics the refusal that is sure to come.

Thanks!
Derek

Really? So now you're a qualified metallurgist? How cool!!

Now, identify the metals in the photos. Your post should look like this...


1-Iron
2-Steel
3-Aluminum
4-Copper
etc. etc. etc.

GO!!

 

[Oystein]

Derek, if you think that eye witnesses know molten steel when they see it, then surely you will be able to pass this test:

Exhibit #1:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/293967938_fefbfba958.jpg?v=0
What is it?

Exhibit #2:
http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/io9/2008/08/79060530.jpg
What is it?

Exhibit #3:
http://www.lawrenceport.com/images/chuquiLiquid.jpg
What is it?

Exhibit #4:
http://www.jameslockman.com/jamesblog/down_the_hole.jpg
What is it?

Exhibt #5:
http://gallery.usgs.gov/images/05_26_2009/nr2Tlx8KKf_05_26_2009/medium/Drip2.JPG
What is it?

Exhibit #6:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/368337809_e92e87064f.jpg?v=0
What is it?

Exhibit #7:
http://www.amemco.us/exported photos/foundry.gif
What is it?

Bumped for Derek.

 

[WildCat]

Bumped for Derek.

I'm going to use my psychic powers to predict that Derek will continue to run from this question like a schoolgirl from a spider.

The $1 million will be mine, all mine!

Wait, what do you mean I don't get the $1 million for the equivalent of predicting the sun will rise in the east tomorrow?

 

[bill smith]

Better, but I'd advise you to also consider the possibilty that some of the materials aren't even molten

See, that is one thing that is also questionable in some accounts: Like we heard that they pulled steel beams from the rubble that had glowing ends dripping molten steel. This would indicate that that end was resting in a puddle of molten steel in the rubble, and raises the question: What kept the liquid from dripping deeper into the pile, or from solidifying, up until the beam was bulled out?
A better explanation for that dripping might be that red-hot, but solid chips and parts broke off as the piece of debris was jerked out of the mumble-jumble. If you see large pieces of ember dropping, it is near impossible to say if they are solid or liquid.

Remember this Oystein ? If an entire column was filled with nanothermite and melted instantly the molten iron would be thinner than usual by virtue of the lowering of it's melting point by additives like sulpher for example in the mamothermite mix. In addition I have heard it said that the thermite reaction is ongoing and continues even after the steel is molten.

So doesn't the sunlight on the sidewalk look thin today ? lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EuWmvYMk2s

PS Could that be under the window in WTC2 ?

 

[Carlos]

Remember this Oystein ? If an entire column was filled with nanothermite and melted instantly the molten iron would be thinner than usual by virtue of the lowering of it's melting point by additives like sulpher for example in the mamothermite mix. In addition I have heard it said that the thermite reaction is ongoing and continues even after the steel is molten.

So doesn't the sunlight on the sidewalk look thin today ? lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EuWmvYMk2s

PS Could that be under the window in WTC2 ?

How do you fill a H-cross-section column with thermite?

Is there any experiment that prove you're right?

 

[Derek Johnson]

You start to understand what a tortured explanation really is on the jref. lol

I know right? What's cute about their jumping up at down and screaming foul is that the fractions of what they are showing me does not show up in terms of building materials...no coalesence possible, so the firefighters were not describing these. The firefighters were describing molten steel, based on what they say. They said molten steel.

Tom went out on a limb. Tom said they saw molten aluminum (not a bad stab, but wrong color), tin (not much of this in WTC 7....< 0.00001% of total metal) or molten lead. Molten lead

"When you'd get down below you'd see molten steel LEAD, molten steel lead, running down the channel raid."

Will they ever answer my questions about the columns? I doubt it, they can't, it takes work, and its not in the NIST report for them to copy-paste.

Will they ever explain clearly NIST's pushing/buckling floor beams? I doubt it. These clowns "skeptics" will believe anything

At least the lurkers can see their manifold question ducking and incompetence with basic science.

 

[carlitos]

Can someone please help Tom with these questions? I'm not sure why this "fire-breathing twoofie-crusher" aka JREF TFK-Tom would be challenged by them.

Derek, I have explained this to you before, but maybe my sarcasm prevented it from getting through to you. You seemed to be familiar with quotations, when discussing NIST, but I guess not.

When you put something in "quotations," it makes it seem like you are quoting someone. When you put "fire-breathing twoofie-crusher" in quotations, it makes you look insane. Because you are quoting your own imagination.

Do you understand now?

PS - If you would tone down the arrogance about 3 orders of magnitude, it would also help.

Regards,
c

ETA - the appeal to "lurkers" is evidence of Dunning-Kruger effect, and also not encouraging in terms of mental state.

 

[Derek Johnson]

Derek, the pushing could be occurred before the buckling, not after. (it's just a gess)

Plus, i'm not sure about the loss of the pushing capacity of a laterally buckled beam.

Buckling of columns is one thing, buckling of beams (also called lateral buckling) is another thing. Both are failure phenomena, but the cause and the consequence (in terms of deformation and behavior) is different.

A column buckles when the compression force is greater than its buckling critical load. The consequence is a excessive flexure deformation and the loss of the capacity of bearing axial forces, the mainly function of columns.

[qimg]http://www.aplaceofsense.com/uploaded_images/Buckled_column-702779.png[/qimg]

A beam buckles in a different way. Beams, as you know, are members designed to mainly support gravity transversal loads. So, unlike the columns, where the whole cross-section stays under compression stress, the top of the cross-section of a beam stays under compression and the bottom of the cross-section under tension.

So, the buckling on a beam occurs only at the top (under compression).

[qimg]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:MXVU88bHpK4G7M:http://www.fec.unicamp.br/~estruturastubulares/vivencia/img05.jpg&t=1[/qimg]

The consequence is a flexure deformation only at the top of the cross section while the bottom (under tension) try to keep aligned, so the beam has a twist/warp deformation losing its capacity of bearing transversal loads (the mainly function of a beam). But, can we say the same about its capacity of transmit axial loads? Well, I really don't know.

Hi Carlos!

I don't know either. But I know enough to know that beams that have lost vertical support or are buckling sure can't push off an intersecting girder's connection. This compressive force development from thermal expansion requires both vertical support and axial integrity that NIST denies, and therefore defeats the possibility of pushing off this 79 to 44 seated connection at the bottom connetion (2 7/8" A490) and clip connection at the top (2 7/8" A490). I think AISC 8th's allowable for each of these bolts is 36 kip, but I'll double check.

NIST's grabbing at Cardington Test #3 as their "ya see" is equally confusing. Cardington Test #3 defeats their claim, read the report.

And when I can't see the FEA data to support this hard-to-believe loss of vertical support AND buckling AND pushing claim, I get skeptical. Is that unreasonable?

 

[Derek Johnson]

Derek, I have explained this to you before, but maybe my sarcasm prevented it from getting through to you. You seemed to be familiar with quotations, when discussing NIST, but I guess not.

When you put something in "quotations," it makes it seem like you are quoting someone. When you put "fire-breathing twoofie-crusher" in quotations, it makes you look insane. Because you are quoting your own imagination.

Do you understand now?

PS - If you would tone down the arrogance about 3 orders of magnitude, it would also help.

Regards,
c

ETA - the appeal to "lurkers" is evidence of Dunning-Kruger effect, and also not encouraging in terms of mental state.

Can someone please help Tom with these questions? I'm not sure why this fire-breathing twoofie-crusher aka JREF TFK-Tom would be challenged by them.

Ok Carlitos, that better?

 

[WildCat]

Hey Derek, are you ever going to admit you can't identify the material's in Oystein's vids by sight alone?

Run away Derek! Run away!

 

[carlitos]

Can someone please help Tom with these questions? I'm not sure why this fire-breathing twoofie-crusher aka JREF TFK-Tom would be challenged by them.

Ok Carlitos, that better?

Marginally so, yes. If you would like further advice, I'd remove the religious stuff from your presentations. And, of course, engage with Tom honestly instead of what you are doing here. Best of luck.

 

[DGM]

Can someone please help Tom with these questions? I'm not sure why this fire-breathing twoofie-crusher aka JREF TFK-Tom would be challenged by them.

Ok Carlitos, that better?

Tom's doing just fine. You on the other hand have demonstrated perfectly your worth to the "cause".

 

[bill smith]

I know right? What's cute about their jumping up at down and screaming foul is that the fractions of what they are showing me does not show up in terms of building materials...no coalesence possible, so the firefighters were not describing these. The firefighters were describing molten steel, based on what they say. They said molten steel.

Tom went out on a limb. Tom said they saw molten aluminum (not a bad stab, but wrong color), tin (not much of this in WTC 7....< 0.00001% of total metal) or molten lead. Molten lead

"When you'd get down below you'd see molten steel LEAD, molten steel lead, running down the channel raid."

Will they ever answer my questions about the columns? I doubt it, they can't, it takes work, and its not in the NIST report for them to copy-paste.

Will they ever explain clearly NIST's pushing/buckling floor beams? I doubt it. These clowns "skeptics" will believe anything

At least the lurkers can see their manifold question ducking and incompetence with basic science.

They will put up a show and use their numbers to try and give the impression that you are wrong. But the discriminating Reader will have no problem seeing through that.
Our problem is that they do not really care about the discriminating Reader. They only care about the mass of people who just want to believe the majority. The people for whom propaganda was designed.

'' ...............most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.''--Mike Rivero

 

[bill smith]

How do you fill a H-cross-section column with thermite?

Is there any experiment that prove you're right?

Think hollow box-column Carlos. Like the core columns of the WTC up to the 88th floor or thereabouts.

 

[DGM]

They will put up a show and use their numbers to try and give the impression that you are wrong. But the discriminating Reader will have no problem seeing through that.
Our problem is that they do not really care about the discriminating Reader. They only care about the mass of people who just want to believe the majority. The people for whom propaganda was designed.

'' ...............most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.''--Mike Rivero

Derek's biggest hurdle is education, fortunately for him his audience has little.

 

[Carlos]

Hi Carlos!

I don't know either. But I know enough to know that beams that have lost vertical support or are buckling sure can't push off an intersecting girder's connection. This compressive force development from thermal expansion requires both vertical support and axial integrity that NIST denies, and therefore defeats the possibility of pushing off this 79 to 44 seated connection at the bottom connetion (2 7/8" A490) and clip connection at the top (2 7/8" A490). I think AISC 8th's allowable for each of these bolts is 36 kip, but I'll double check.

NIST's grabbing at Cardington Test #3 as their "ya see" is equally confusing. Cardington Test #3 defeats their claim, read the report.

And when I can't see the FEA data to support this hard-to-believe loss of vertical support AND buckling AND pushing claim, I get skeptical. Is that unreasonable?

The question I raised was exactly about the capacity of a lateral buckling beam to push something (I mean to transmit some axial force).

Remember, buckling of columns and lateral buckling of beams are not the same.

Anyway, the push could had been occurred before the buckling. I don't understand why do you keep ignoring this possibility.