Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[leftysergeant]

We have only two vaguely possible examples of molten metal, but none of them are highly llikely to be steel.

We have the pouring liquid from the area of Fuji Bank's power supply. This seems to me more likely to be some mixture of lead and aluminum with, perhaps, some copper. As it falls, in breaks into smaller and smaller bits. But it seems, to my eye, to be rather lighter-colored at the lower levels as it falls.

Watching steel being poured, I have seen it go from yellowish to a dull red very quickly. Aluminum or lead, in my experience, after losing its glow seem to go almost directly to a bright metalic appearance.

I still have to think that that was lead.

The fire fighters talking about steel running down the channels were, as far as I can tell, under WTC 6.

It was brass. Molten brass is no surpise.

 

[beachnut]

... The WTC 7 collapse required energy. What I can prove is the stability. This is where #1152 leads. Avoid it like the plague JREFers, there is no light for you at the end of that alley.

...Derek

E=mgh - Derek's missing energy, solved by physics. Ask a physics teacher, they know.

oops, Derek is right, the collapse requires, and has energy, but he ignores reality. That is why he presents presentations filled with lies and false information to mislead people. 9 years, and 911 truth has failed to present evidence of anything. Derek is no exception.

You fail to support your presentations, why? Because they are filled with lies? He uses the "pull it" lie to impress his audience, when "pull it" refers to fire fighting support! NOT CD! A lie you push. That is not what engineer should be doing; spreading false information to sell a delusion of CD, and the insane claims of thermite. Jet fuel has ten times the heat energy of thermite, wood has more energy than thermite. Why would you bring thermite to fires which already beat thermite? Only in the fantasy-land of 911 truth, where Jones' insane claims are adopted, and his fake paper is called evidence. Why is Derek's entire graduating class of engineers not supporting him? Because his ideas on 911 are false.

If he fails to present his answers to his own questions on the next post, he is a fraud. It is that simple. If his questions and answers mean anything to prove his claims on 911, then publishing them is the key to earning respect of his peers.

But CD and thermite are delusional claims backed with nothing. No paper will be presented, no fame, no Pulitzer Prize, no joy. This is the end...

Derek, if you believe you own lies, one day you will be upset you were mislead by 911 truth. Real upset. Good luck gaining logic, and rational thinking to help you climb out of the pit of ignorance, known as 911 truth. Reality is waiting for you. Please stop posting the idiotic # crap, it is dumber than dirt. We have mimicked you to make you see how stupid it is. Stop. I will not be answering questions which have no purpose, when you offer no equations with numbers to fill in the Lagrangian equations of motion. You said you had answer but you don't. Equations of motion you implied you have, will they prove some fantastic not enough energy lie? No.

Why did you lie about what Robertson said? Discuss your presentations which you try to sell thermite, and CD. The OP topic, you discussing your ideas; like in your presentations. Everyone you say is watching wants to know why you tell lies. Why did you do it? Why do you exaggerate and make up junk so you can have your CD/thermite fantasy?


Those you are trying to mislead, they don't have to worry if they are not an engineer, your engineering questions do not support CD or thermite claims. A grade school education, backed with critical thinking, and being a skeptic, are enough to refute and defeat the lies you preach. You say in your presentations you are on mission to serve God, but God and Christ would and will refute you at the gates, as you mislead people looking for guidance, instead filling them with lies and delusions. You must be breaking some commandment, oops, you are; a false witness, you have failed your religion, at a skeptic forum. It is Saudi Tuesday, what will you do? What would Jesus do? I like Jesus, too bad you are not more Christ like. He shared his answers with everyone. Would Jesus approve of your "pull it" scam?

I would do the silly clap trap # junk you do, but you will not discuss your presentations which fail to prove anything you claim. Where are you answers to your own questions you day you have? To hot to publish? 9 years, and you go the answers, but you can't let the world see how smart you are. cool

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm still waiting for an answer on what sort of thermite could have been used to cut a standing column and how it would be applied.

I only know of one kind, and there is no way that that would have been missed by all the iron workers and fire fighters on the pile.

 

[pgimeno]

(massive wall of claims snipped)

The horizontal progression of failure was sensitive to the extent of the estimated initial structural damage in WTC 7 due to the collapse of WTC 1. NCSTAR 1-9, p. 612.

"The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was [sic] not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1." NCSTAR 1-9, p. 625.

Which is it? What changed NIST's opinion of this "sensitivity" between NCSTAR 1-9, p. 612 and p. 625?

(remaining massive wall of claims snipped)

I'll have a go at this one. It looks to me like the difference is due to p. 625 being a summary.

My opinion is that the keyword there, what makes a change, is "initial".

The progressive collapse started anyway regardless of the damage, but the extent of the affected part was sensitive to the damage.

 

[D'rok]

I'm not playing any game. And you will see the column analysis that I presented in Atlanta twice last weekend in a few months. The analysis was checked by other structural engineers with considerable more experience than myself.

What I am offering TSJREF (The SOMETIMES James Randi Educational Forum) twoofie-debunkers is a challenge that I'm guessing they can't meet. I hope there is at least one person here that can get #1152 answered, I'm losing hope at a rapid rate that anyone here has the technical ability to answer these question unaided, but who knows?

You can scream prove it all you want. Or you can print these questions out and commence your own research with an open mind. My mind is still open. Others that frequent this board, not so much it appears.

Thanks,
Derek

If you were honest, you would present your analysis for discussion.

This is simply trolling.

 

[Miragememories]

I'm still waiting for an answer on what sort of thermite could have been used to cut a standing column and how it would be applied.

I only know of one kind, and there is no way that that would have been missed by all the iron workers and fire fighters on the pile.

You are speculating on the side of ignorance.

Because thermite is not practical for commercial CD, you rule out
any possibility that it would be viable for non-commercial CD.

A ceramic collar could be used to contain a thermite reaction with a column.

Depending on where the collars were applied, the destructive effects of the subsequent
crushing building failure could easily obscure the thermite induced breaks in the columns.

Add to that, the fact that iron workers and fire fighters would not be looking for such evidence.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

I was taught the subject you bring up in Nuke school, not much, but it got a more thorough look later at UTA. I absolutely agree upon the phenomena, but I (and many others) challenge NIST's woo claims in posts #1400 and 1475. Please read them and we'll further discuss thermal expansion vs. differential movement.

You're right triforcharity, I admit that I can NOT identify molten metal by photos alone. You got me, da twoofie is vanquished....or maybe not so much.

However, in person, as the firefighters were, there are other factors: smell is one, dross formation and appearance is another, the available fuel, availible oxygen, ambient conditions (light, wind, temperature), spatter, smoothness, flow rate, coalescence, radiance and so forth all factor in. The hard part for me to understand is the coalescence of the metals TFK-Tom landed on (lead, aluminum and tin). Not much mental strain is needed to rule out lead and tin, therefore the coalescence of molten aluminum is your best argument.

Did the firefighters really see "molten aluminum" as Tom suggests they might have? This is the only reasonable alternative theory from their repeated "molten steel" statement, and it is worthy of futher discussion.

You'd have to have a concentration of aluminum for this coalescence, not to mention just the right light and dross for this mistaken identification. The aluminum in buildings is pretty scattered and distributed in a manner that is not highly amenable to easy coalescence. You may be right, I admit that, but given the tiny fraction of aluminum of this structure (compared to steel), not to mention the unlikely coalescence, which renders this argument as one that is leaning more towards "da twoofs are nasty America-hating, Islamic extremist supporting, idiotic tinfoil hat morons" wishful thinking than simple reason. This is why I asked the question: please give me the metal fractions of WTC 7. This leads the twoofie-slayers down a very dark alley as well.

Those are my thoughts. A favor please, seek answers to the questions I raise in post #1152 and let's have a chat about those answers, ok?

Also please do me another favor, point out all the error in posts #1400 and 1475. What remains unchallenged will stand as correct, and should be brought to NIST for a correction.

Is that fair?

Thanks,
Derek

Finally, you admitted that you cannot identify a molten object by sight alone.

Now, all that other word salad, let me say this again. I FIREFIGHTER is NOT trained to identify MOLTEN ANYTHING by sight, smell, or anything of the sort. It just ISN'T taught. We don't need that information. It would be like teaching an IT guy about the Higby Notch Indicator. He DOESN'T need that information.

The engineering questions have been addressed by the ENGINEERS in this forum. You handwave them away time and time again. You could be the solution to global warming all by yourr self!

The issues that you have with the NIST report, as far as I can tell, are an argument from personal ignorance. Tom has told you, beach has told you, and some of the other more qualified poster here have told you.

I see you brushing your teeth with butt cream. We have all told you it's butt cream, and yet, you continue. Hey Derek, it's still butt cream!!

 

[triforcharity]

You are speculating on the side of ignorance.

Because thermite is not practical for commercial CD, you rule out
any possibility that it would be viable for non-commercial CD.

A ceramic collar could be used to contain a thermite reaction with a column.

Depending on where the collars were applied, the destructive effects of the subsequent
crushing building failure could easily obscure the thermite induced breaks in the columns.

Add to that, the fact that iron workers and fire fighters would not be looking for such evidence.

MM

No, the NYPD, the FBI, ATF, and the other local, state, and national LEOs at Fresh Kills, most certainly would be looking. And they did.

Not to mention the fact that something like that would have been noticed. Kinda hard to conceal that....

 

[BigAl]

You are speculating on the side of ignorance.

Because thermite is not practical for commercial CD, you rule out
any possibility that it would be viable for non-commercial CD.

A ceramic collar could be used to contain a thermite reaction with a column.

Depending on where the collars were applied, the destructive effects of the subsequent
crushing building failure could easily obscure the thermite induced breaks in the columns.

Nobody put ceramic collars around many or any beams in a secure 24x7 fully-occupied building, especially when all the construction and operation staff are union.

Nobody gets stuff on the loading dock or up the elevators without paperwork and people from several unions and departments bring aware.

.

 

[tfk]

Derek,

You've complained that others haven't answered your questions. I've addressed each one directly. (Not finished answering yet, but I've acknowledged & started on every one.)

You have replied seriously (i.e., something other than childish snark) to very few (perhaps zero) of the points that I made in any of my answers. Except to falsely claim that:
1. I haven't answered you &
2. that I'm "terrified" to answer you.

Meanwhile, you've answered not one of my questions.

Please answer these questions directly and sincerely. Without snark, please.

1. These are your issues. Have you taken them to NIST, or an unbiased (i.e., non-ae911t), experienced professional structural engineer, or structural engineering professor?

2. You have tied the problem with the 2.25 seconds of freefall to the core column collapse. (see post 327). NIST stated clearly & unequivocally that the 2.25 seconds did not refer to the core collapse, but rather to the collapse of the north wall.

Please state whether you agree or disagree that this is NIST's position.
Please state whether you agree or disagree that this is true.

3. NIST also stated that the collapse of the external north wall began AFTER the core had collapsing for several seconds.

Do you agree that this is NIST's position?
Do you think that it is true?

4. If the 2.25 seconds of "near free fall" (or even "at free fall") does not refer to the collapse of the core, then this renders your "2.25 seconds of core free fall" statement false.

Do you agree or disagree?

Simple questions. Please provide simple, direct answers.


tom

PS. I would appreciate it if you would stop the "Twoofie-annihilator" childishness, without me having to call on the moderators.

 

[Miragememories]

"... there is no way that that would have been missed by all the iron workers and fire fighters on the pile."

"...the destructive effects of the subsequent crushing building failure could easily obscure the thermite induced breaks in the columns.

Add to that, the fact that iron workers and fire fighters would not be looking for such evidence."

No, the NYPD, the FBI, ATF, and the other local, state, and national LEOs at Fresh Kills, most certainly would be looking. And they did.

Not to mention the fact that something like that would have been noticed. Kinda hard to conceal that....

All assumptions.

None of those organizations gave any indication that they were actively monitoring for such evidence.

They couldn't "see the forest for the trees".

MM

 

[triforcharity]

All assumptions.

None of those organizations gave any indication that they were actively monitoring for such evidence.

They couldn't "see the forest for the trees".

MM

They also were not looking for keys, or money, but both were found at Fresh Kills. Remember that? hundreds of LEO's trained in forensic investigation were searching the rubble. All of it. By hand. Nobody found anything like you claim.

 

[Miragememories]

Nobody put ceramic collars around many or any beams in a secure 24x7 fully-occupied building, especially when all the construction and operation staff are union.

Nobody gets stuff on the loading dock or up the elevators without paperwork and people from several unions and departments bring aware.

.

BS

As a union member I'm well aware of how easy it is to circumvent procedures, and installed security, if one has the mind and resources to do so.

You might as well say; "No way the Japs could make a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor!"

MM

 

[tfk]

Derek,

I don't know either.

True. You don't know.

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.

Has it ever occurred to you that you are simply reversing cause & effect??

A beam has lost vertical support BECAUSE (and AFTER) it has pushed the girder supporting one end of the beam off of the girders support.

Has it occurred to you that, WHILE the beam was pushing on the girder it had not lost its vertical support?

Has it occurred to you that, looking at one of NIST's images that simply shows the girder having been pushed off its supports and the beams lacking vertical supports tells you nothing about the time sequence of those events?

Has it occurred to you that shearing of the 7/8" diameter restraining bolts may take a small amount of force ("small" compared to the forces that one of those massive I beams can generate thru thermal expansion), but that to then slide the girder off of its support takes pretty darn close to zero force? And that even a torsionally buckled beam, if continued to heat, could easily generate this amount of force.

Just curious...


tom

 

[Miragememories]

They also were not looking for keys, or money, but both were found at Fresh Kills. Remember that? hundreds of LEO's trained in forensic investigation were searching the rubble. All of it. By hand. Nobody found anything like you claim.

Human artifacts were certainly an aspect of their search.

But unsought subtle clues of thermite, in ground, crushed, soiled steel remains amongst a mountain of fine debris?

Not a chance, especially given there was no such suspicion behind their search.

MM

 

[BigAl]

Human artifacts were certainly an aspect of their search.

But unsought subtle clues of thermite, in ground, crushed, soiled steel remains amongst a mountain of fine debris?

MM

Make stuff up much?

 

[triforcharity]

Human artifacts were certainly an aspect of their search.

But unsought subtle clues of thermite, in ground, crushed, soiled steel remains amongst a mountain of fine debris?

Not a chance, especially given there was no such suspicion behind their search.

MM

Argument from personal ignorance noted.

 

[Chorduroy]

BS

As a union member I'm well aware of how easy it is to circumvent procedures, and installed security, if one has the mind and resources to do so.

You might as well say; "No way the Japs could make a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor!"

MM

It depends greatly on the activities you're trying to get away with. I think we can safely say that preparing two 110 storey buildings for demo would be virtually impossible to "circumvent security" for. And your status as a "union member" doesn't give you any more credibility on the subject I'm afraid.

You need to put a ceramic collar on your brain to contain some of the thoughts that form there.

 

[BigAl]

BS

As a union member I'm well aware of how easy it is to circumvent procedures, and installed security, if one has the mind and resources to do so.

You might as well say; "No way the Japs could make a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor!"

MM

You demonstrate lack of familiarity with secure 24x7 buildings in post-1993 Manhattan.

I manages facilities in a couple of these buildings including bare-concrete renovations that made use of the loading docks and elevators and I worked with the unions.

Manhattan real estate is so valuable I don't know where one would put tons of secret material. Every square foot is protected turf by some department or tenant.

 

[Oystein]

Derek,

You've complained that others haven't answered your questions. I've addressed each one directly. (Not finished answering yet, but I've acknowledged & started on every one.)

You have replied seriously (i.e., something other than childish snark) to very few (perhaps zero) of the points that I made in any of my answers. Except to falsely claim that:
1. I haven't answered you &
2. that I'm "terrified" to answer you.

Meanwhile, you've answered not one of my questions.

Please answer these questions directly and sincerely. Without snark, please.

Tom, I admire your patience and restraint with Derek. Well structured post.
Allow me to provide a model answer to your questions, to demonstrate to Derek how a serious and honest answer would look like:

1. These are your issues. Have you taken them to NIST, or an unbiased (i.e., non-ae911t), experienced professional structural engineer, or structural engineering professor?

I have talked about the typical behaviour of steel beams in ordinary fires with my friend Christian Feist, who has a Master's degree (Dipl.-Ing.) in civil engineering, and works for "ACME Structural Engineering" in Cologne which testifies the structural planning of special buildings.

I have not discussed the issues I raised in the NIST report with anyone, though.

2. You have tied the problem with the 2.25 seconds of freefall to the core column collapse. (see post 327). NIST stated clearly & unequivocally that the 2.25 seconds did not refer to the core collapse, but rather to the collapse of the north wall.

Please state whether you agree or disagree that this is NIST's position.
Please state whether you agree or disagree that this is true.

I agree with both

3. NIST also stated that the collapse of the external north wall began AFTER the core had collapsing for several seconds.

Do you agree that this is NIST's position?
Do you think that it is true?

I agree with both

4. If the 2.25 seconds of "near free fall" (or even "at free fall") does not refer to the collapse of the core, then this renders your "2.25 seconds of core free fall" statement false.

Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree. I did not mean to imply the core fell at FFA. I admit my wording was ambiguous there. To clarify: It was only a specific spot on the north face that is shown to have fallen for 2.25 seconds with an average acceleration of g.
I am unable to understand how this could have happened without the sudden removal of 4000 tons of structural steel below that part of the north wall. Can you explain it to me, please?

Simple questions. Please provide simple, direct answers.

tom

Let's see if Derek's answers are as direct and concise as my example above