Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Carlos]

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

What about WTC7? No hollow box-column was used.

 

[beachnut]

You are telling more lies; your engineering skills are zero. Never will you provide filled out Lagrangian equations of motion.

Derek's engineering questions are a smoke screen to hide the fact he has no evidence to support his thermite CD claims.

In his presentations he uses zero engineering and talks woo. This is a slide and Derek is essentially saying hearsay is evidence of rivers of steel flowing in the WTC. Like to see his numbers on thermite.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/lie10232.jpg
Derek leaves out the source; WHY?

http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

And here is the original.
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." Good cut and paste job...

Called hearsay Derek. Good job.

She never said she saw molten steel. Not a witness, not a source, it is hearsay.

... a real researcher asks her to explain her quote. Wow, you mean ask the source?
http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_alison_geyh.html
She says.
"I personally saw open fires, glowing and twisted I-beams. I was told, but do not remember by whom, that the workers were finding molten steel."

Derek uses hearsay and lies to support his failed thermite CD delusion.

Derek please discuss why you make up this stuff. You are misleading people. Robertson never saw melted steel, another lie already presented.

Can someone explain why Derek will not Discuss his lies?

Can someone explain in detail why Derek lies?

His nonsensical questions must be a smoke screen to cover up his lies he has in his 90 minute Presentation of WOO.

His engineering questions are nonsense; If they were not nonsense he would package them up in a paper and publish them. Remember he already has the answers. When will he publish it?

I thought Derek was here to discuss his lies he presents in his long presentations. So far I can't find a single claim he makes in his presentations that supports thermite or CD.

 

[bill smith]

What about WTC7? No hollow box-column was used.

A lot less nanothermite was used there I suspect. There was no basemant to drain away a lot of molten irion like in WTC1.

Nanaothermite can be painted on in layers. In the channel rails of the H or I columns for instance. Then a nice thick jacket of fireproofing and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Carlos]

A lot less nanothermite was used there I suspect. There was no basemant to drain away a lot of molten irion like in WTC1.

Nanaothermite can be painted on in layers. In the channel rails of the H or I columns for instance. Then a nice thick jacket of fireproofing and Bob's your uncle.

Is there any experiment that prove it?

 

[bill smith]

Is there any experiment that prove it?

No, I don't think so. But think about this. When National Geographic did their debunkjing piece They put a bag pf thermite standing beside a column section where ut spluttered uselessly as you would expect.

I would have much preferred if they had filled a column section with thermite and let rip. We would have seen a whole different show. Even with only regular thermite.

Do you think that they maybe just didn't think of putting it inside a hollow column . I mean after all the core columns were hollow at the WTC ?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No, I don't think so. But think about this. When National Geographic did their debunkjing piece They put a bag pf thermite standing beside a column section where ut spluttered uselessly as you would expect.

I would have much preferred if they had filled a column section with thermite and let rip. We would have seen a whole different show. Even with only regular thermite.

Do you think that they maybe just didn't think of putting it inside a hollow column . I mean after all the core columns were hollow at the WTC ?

Umm that wouldn't work Bill. You wanna know why it wouldn't work to fill a column up with thermite?

Take a thermite grenade from WWII for instance. When they put it inside an artillery gun barrel, it sealed the breach to the barrel itself. Thus rendering it useless.

Now if you put thermite into a column & ignite it, the thermite would run down the length of the column. There it would pool inside the column at the bottom & harden. Then you'd only have a column that's solid at the bottom.

So no matter what kind of thermite you're talking about, you can never guess what kind of physics affects it.

 

[excaza]

No, I don't think so. But think about this. When National Geographic did their debunkjing piece They put a bag pf thermite standing beside a column section where ut spluttered uselessly as you would expect.

I would have much preferred if they had filled a column section with thermite and let rip. We would have seen a whole different show. Even with only regular thermite.

Do you think that they maybe just didn't think of putting it inside a hollow column . I mean after all the core columns were hollow at the WTC ?

So why don't you do it, irrefutably proving 9/11 as an inside job? You'd probably get someone a Pulitzer for it.

 

[Carlos]

No, I don't think so. But think about this. When National Geographic did their debunkjing piece They put a bag pf thermite standing beside a column section where ut spluttered uselessly as you would expect.

I would have much preferred if they had filled a column section with thermite and let rip. We would have seen a whole different show. Even with only regular thermite.

Then do you think painting nanothermite on WTC 7 H-profiles would have the same effect of NatGeo experiment?

Do you think that they maybe just didn't think of putting it inside a hollow column . I mean after all the core columns were hollow at the WTC ?

So, why doesn't A&Efor9/11Truth or Whateverfor9/11Truth conduct an experiment like this?

I wonder what happens if they do that and the column doesn't melt/fail. Do you think they would post a video on Youtube saying "well, unfortunately our experiment has failed" or they would just "forget" about the experiment?

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

So this means what again?

That you can identify what a molten material is by sight alone? Is that correct?

I wish you would just answer the question. It really is very simple.

I will be more than happy to answer your questions when you definitively stay on topic and answer mine.

Can you identify a molten substance by sight alone? yes or no.

ETA:

As soon as you admit that you cannot identify a molten material by sight alone, we will move on to basic experimental design and methodologies... but I am just waiting for you to honestly admit that you can't identify molten materials by sight alone. But I expect you to keep up with this dodging and handwaving.

 

[bill smith]

Then do you think painting nanothermite on WTC 7 H-profiles would have the same effect of NatGeo experiment?




So, why doesn't A&Efor9/11Truth or Whateverfor9/11Truth conduct an experiment like this?

I wonder what happens if they do that and the column doesn't melt/fail. Do you think they would post a video on Youtube saying "well, unfortunately our experiment has failed" or they would just "forget" about the experiment?

A Thick layer of nanothermite in the channel rails on both sides ignited and the heat reflected back from the fireproofing.. no problem I think.

That's a very good idea. Maybe Derek can mention it to Richard at ae911truth,org and see if he is interested..It would be very televisual and dead cheap to set up.

 

[excaza]

For someone so obsessed with exposing The Truth, you're pretty lazy.

 

[bill smith]

For someone so obsessed with exposing The Truth, you're pretty lazy.

Mycroft Holmes was very lazy and yet better at detective work than his more energetic brother Sherlock...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

A Thick layer of nanothermite in the channel rails on both sides ignited and the heat reflected back from the fireproofing.. no problem I think.

That's a very good idea. Maybe Derek can mention it to Richard at ae911truth,org and see if he is interested..It would be very televisual and dead cheap to set up.

Did someone say about bringing any sparklers to this Nano-thermite debate?

I have some nano-thermite sparklers Bill, you can play with them later when you have evidence that nano-thermite or any kind of thermite was used.

 

[tfk]

God, I LOVE it when truthers actually SAY something.

It is sooooo revealing.

It also explains exactly why they go into months of JAQ-off mode immediately after each foray. The beatings they get...

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.
...
If thermal expansion of the floor beams did not displace the exterior frame, then how would buckling of exterior columns occur?

OK, I've just got time to read Derek's first question, and noticed the last one...

Tell me that you aren't serious about these questions....

The fact that you hold this up as as some sort of mystery is nothing short of stunning.

This is the first time I've heard of, or looked at this "issue", but the answer seems trivially obvious. Obviously we'll talk about this (probably VERY briefly) over the next couple of days.

But for now, I have 3 questions for Derek.

1. How long have you been struggling with this question?

Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years?

2. How many calls have you made to either NIST or to an experienced structural engineer and asked him this same question.

3A. If you have, what was his/her reply?

3B. If (the very short odds) you have not, please explain to us "why not".

As a matter of fact, please answer these questions for all of your issues.

Your answer will be extremely enlightening.


tom

 

[bill smith]

For someone so obsessed with exposing The Truth, you're pretty lazy.

A friend of mine was interviewing someone for a job recently. The guy had written down that one of his interests was current affairs and politics. My friend asked him 'Who is the current Prime Minister of Britain' ?

And the guy said 'I said I was interested- I didn't say I was obsessed'

 

[tfk]

While Derek is working up an answer evasion to my question, I'll drop a couple of hints for where I believe this will end up.

Derek suffers from a severe handicap. He sees a still frame (e.g., fig 11-35) and is unable (and massively unwilling) to imagine the sequence of events that led up to this frame.

He is also making a couple of simple mistakes.

First, beams that have torsionally (or laterally) buckled lose some, not all, of their force generating ability. In fact, it is the very fact that they are generating their axial force (due to heat & thermal expansion) that is CAUSING them to torsionally buckle. If they were not generating that force, then there would be nothing to cause them to buckle, even if their shear studs failed.

Second, things fail by stress, not load. You've got several huge beams, acting in conjunction, putting their combined load on a couple of small bolts & flange webs. It is not hard at all to see that the beams expansion can generate forces many, many times the max sustainable load of the bolts & webs.

Finally, the big hint. If I've got eight horses pulling a wagon that only takes one healthy horse to pull, then it doesn't matter if one horse dies (loses vertical support & drops) and three others get cramps in their legs (buckles), and can only pull with 25% of their healthy strength. Together, they can still pull the wagon.

Derek keeps looking at events in the framework of just one beam.


tom

PS. BTW, I already know where this WILL end up: NIST did this the right way, with an FEA. Which, because you have lots of competing, interacting effects, is the single most reliable way to arrive at the right answer. Which is exactly why that technique is the gold standard for this type of analysis.

We may, or may not, be able to puzzle out the answer by SWAGing. But the right answer is contained in the FEA analyses. Derek's conviction that the NIST engineers lied about their results, or entered fraudulent criteria, is just one unsavory aspect of his personality.

And if Derek REALLY wanted an answer, he would have gone to NIST or an experienced structural engineer a long, long time ago. And, even if he thought that they were a pack of "Dr. Evils", he would have listened to their answer to see if it made sense to him.

Who wants to wager that he's talked to nobody but other truthers about these issues?

 

[Toke]

If thermal expansion of the floor beams did not displace the exterior frame, then how would buckling of exterior columns occur?

I am not sure I understand what he means here.
Is it something like how columns that have lost their lateral support can buckle without further sideways load?

I wonder how they could not buckle?

 

[Oystein]

...
Who wants to wager that he's talked to nobody but other truthers about these issues?

If "talk" is to mean "JAQing off meaningless questions, condescending insults and evading questions", then I won't wage in.

If "talk" is to mean "Asked questions, considered the answers, and offered his own shot at analysis up for scrutiny", then ... uhm 100 Euros for starters

 

[Derek Johnson]

. But the right answer is contained in the FEA analyses.

Please (re)read #1400 and 1475. There are manifold charges therein that speak contrary to your statement:

"But the right answer is contained in the FEA analyses".

Which is correct?

Tom: "But the right answer is contained in the FEA analyses"

or

The NIST objections regarding the FEA analyses in posts #1400 & 1475?

They can't both be right, please review these comments and questions (and keep ducking answer the questions if you're able) and tell me what is incorrect in either of these posts. Pick out all the error, otherwise what is there we establish as true, and sharply contradicting Tom's ""But the right answer is contained in the FEA analyses" statement.

Not so much Tom, you meant the wrong answer is contained in the FEA analyses, and I'll accept your apology for this error whenever you ever get around to answering (and not making excuses not to answer) #1152. Your welcome to seek council to help you with your column analysis, it appears that you are struggling a bit. It’s ok Tom, I know the lurkers think that you can really do this analysis, after all, you’re a 9-11 twoofie-eradicator.

Whether you realize this or not, you're making great strides for the debunking 9-11 truth movement as your credibility becomes further unwound as this thread continues. But I don’t want to interrupt this process, it’s good for you, I should really just keep silent.

In the end Tom, the serpent in Eden the lost collapse energy just might make you regret inviting me here. I look forward to that day. Unitl then, keep ducking, evading, tap dancing, working on #1152. I’m sure the lurkers are impressed.

Any engineering professor that cannot IMMEDIATELY see the glaring flaws in the 911T engineering claims should be fired.

I hope “engineering professors” really are watching the mess you’ve made of yourself evading basic questions throughout this discussion. Column analysis is pretty basic stuff. So is poking holes in magic thermally expanding/vertical support loosing/and buckling column 79 to 44 girder vanquishing beams that you buy off hook line and sinker without seeing the NIST the break strength data, remaining input and all results are files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code, ANSYS (FEA) scripts files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS (FEA) file, all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities and connection models. What is really sad is that you claim to be an engineer.

Now get back to working on #1152, I look forward to your answers.

Thanks,
Derek

 

[excaza]

If you're so concerned,

Why don't you ask NIST, instead of wasting your time on some obscure message board?

Why don't you publish your objections, instead of posting them on some obscure message board?