Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[DC]

Absolutely yes.

If I've made any unreasonable geometric, fixity, material (or whatever) assumptions, then my choices should be challenged.

The IGES data and FEA (materials, fixity and boundary) assumptions should be clear and understood with respect to the "means to an end" framework for the given FEA scenario. The more accurate the IGES data (this is why we need the contract docs from NIST), the more FEA scenarios, the better the understanding.

pls PM me once it is finished.

 

[bill smith]

Sorry, I missed your response earlier as I've been rather busy the past several days, but this is great! I'm sure that Ron will be happy to accommodate your Flight 93/7WTC story as well. For your debut, would you prefer the one on one interview format or would you prefer the FDNY presence format? Personally, I think that either would be good, the latter probably better, but the choice is yours. Either way, I look forward to seeing you bring your story to life, indeed.

I will pass on to Ron your acceptance of the suggestion to appear on the show, and I will send you his contact information by PM as well so that you and he can work out the details. Looking forward to seeing you on air, Bill!

For a supposedly cautious lawyer you sure do run before you can walk. I have not yet agreed to anything as I guess the Readers can see for themselves.

However if Ron, using you as his proxy wishes to discuss possible terms and conditions I suggest we do it out here in the open for transparency.On this page or even in a new thread if you want to open one . Then the Readers and other posters can follow the progress of any negotiation and offer their input.

Teaser:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6358707&postcount=347 Hyperlink

 

[leftysergeant]

catawompus?

The WTC 1 steel was going more down (y part on a 2D graph) than north (x part of a 2D graph) that hit WTC 7, correct?

So freaking WHAT? The one piece that we see hitting the top of the building probably struck with the energy of a good dozen 155mm rounds. I'll leave it up to one of the real engineers to figure out what kind of terminal energy it had compared to one of the aircraft on impact. And that is just ONE of several objects which hit it. We do not know what all hit it inside the dust clouds. If you look at the overhead views after the dust had cleared, it appears that several standing stories of the north wall of the north tower started to fall away in a single large piece and was broken apart over WTC 5, And pieces of it are seen laying in the space between 5 and 7. Given the amount of rubble propelling it at that point and the kinetic energy that it picked up as it toppled, whatever pieces of that facade hit WTC 7 must have been a total mutha.

This has to have knocked a few things at least slightly out of alignment. I should be surprised if this were not part of what took out the stairs. We cannot be sure that, after being struck and to some degree twisted out of shape by such an impact, the building returned to its original shape, nor can we calculate with any precison what the resonnances of such an impact might do to whatever sorts of fasteners held the structural elemnets together.

In case you missed it, each of the perimeter column panels was horrendously heavy.

Then there are the fires. They were hot, they were scattered, and they moved from room-to room. Just exhausting the available Class A fuels does not mean that a fire is finished wirth a single room or a single floor. Look up "flashover." Hot gases can be seen migrating throughout the building in the FDNY videos. Bear in miond that the impact of the perimeter columns also knocked off a lot of the spray-on fire protection, just as the palnes did in the towers. So you now have a big bite taken out of the building at the bottom and fires that come and go and heat steel at random and make it push or pull on other steel structures. This has to contibute somewhat to the collapse sequence.

As for your BS about thermite, you need to do some real mental gymnastics to show how the temperatures in the pile could still be related to thermite days later.

Assume that thermite did, in fact, melt some steel.

How does it aggragate into a mass ccapable of passively holding that kind of heat without solidifying .

You show less and less knowledge of metal working every time you raise the possibility of thermite

 

[Derek Johnson]

So freaking WHAT? The one piece that we see hitting the top of the building probably struck with the energy of a good dozen 155mm rounds. I'll leave it up to one of the real engineers to figure out what kind of terminal energy it had compared to one of the aircraft on impact. And that is just ONE of several objects which hit it. We do not know what all hit it inside the dust clouds. If you look at the overhead views after the dust had cleared, it appears that several standing stories of the north wall of the north tower started to fall away in a single large piece and was broken apart over WTC 5, And pieces of it are seen laying in the space between 5 and 7. Given the amount of rubble propelling it at that point and the kinetic energy that it picked up as it toppled, whatever pieces of that facade hit WTC 7 must have been a total mutha.

This has to have knocked a few things at least slightly out of alignment. I should be surprised if this were not part of what took out the stairs. We cannot be sure that, after being struck and to some degree twisted out of shape by such an impact, the building returned to its original shape, nor can we calculate with any precison what the resonnances of such an impact might do to whatever sorts of fasteners held the structural elemnets together.

In case you missed it, each of the perimeter column panels was horrendously heavy.

Then there are the fires. They were hot, they were scattered, and they moved from room-to room. Just exhausting the available Class A fuels does not mean that a fire is finished wirth a single room or a single floor. Look up "flashover." Hot gases can be seen migrating throughout the building in the FDNY videos. Bear in miond that the impact of the perimeter columns also knocked off a lot of the spray-on fire protection, just as the palnes did in the towers. So you now have a big bite taken out of the building at the bottom and fires that come and go and heat steel at random and make it push or pull on other steel structures. This has to contibute somewhat to the collapse sequence.

As for your BS about thermite, you need to do some real mental gymnastics to show how the temperatures in the pile could still be related to thermite days later.

Assume that thermite did, in fact, melt some steel.

How does it aggragate into a mass ccapable of passively holding that kind of heat without solidifying .

You show less and less knowledge of metal working every time you raise the possibility of thermite

Address the questions in #1702 please.

Thanks,
Derek

 

[bill smith]

delete

 

[leftysergeant]

Can you justify less than 98.5-99% steel?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/CSEC/Salvarinas_1986.pdf

So what, exactly, did the firefighters see Oystein?

Don't put it on Oystein to answer that. Not his field of greatest expertise.

Even 2% of a building of that size would still be a staggering amount of metal. We have already told you repeatedly that there would be tons of lead, brass, copper and aluminum subjected to horrendous heat. I know that brass glows red and melts at a pretty low temperature (or it would not be as useful for "brazing." (You do know what "brazing" is, don't you?) This is, in all likelihood what the fire fighters saw "running down the channels like lava" under building 6. In that enclosed space, if it were possible for steel to remain hot enough to run for more than a few seconds, it would have to be hot enough to have cooked the fire fighters.

First, what is screaming at you in this Lagrange method energy equation?

Nothing, because you do not plug in numbers descriptive of what you expect me to remember.

I will now allow an actual engineer, if any are so inclined, to tell me just what the hell this blather about Lagrange is supposed to mean. It still looks to me like you are saying that the building could not be broken.

And stop with your squaking that Lagrange does not permit anything that happened. Real engineers say that it does.. You think they're wrong, YOU need to show your complete analysis on paper, with concrete figues .

 

[D'rok]

Can you justify less than 98.5-99% steel?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/CSEC/Salvarinas_1986.pdf

So what, exactly, did the firefighters see Oystein?



First, what is screaming at you in this Lagrange method energy equation?

Second, let me tell you some problems involved when trying to handle indeterminate systems, which is one reason why I've been harping the same questions (1659, how are we coming on these?). The stability issue needs to be worked out, and is far easier than hanlding the collapse. But assuming that the initiation happened (and NIST does not establish this well), we have to use the most appropriate method.

Coordinate functions involving hand calculations with geometrically complex, discontinuous loads, discontinuous material or geometric properties can turn into a lifetime chore. Even in cases where the coordinate functions are available, the computation of associated coefficient matrices can't be automated for a fixed class of problems (W shape columns, bars, plates) because coordinate functions are not always algebraic polynomials and they depend on the boundary condition of the specific problem. Each time the essential boundary condition or conditions are changed for the same differential equation, the approximation functions are changed and the coefficient matrices have to be recalculated. Even state space numerical integration and similar methods are not readily adaptable to ever changing coordinate functions.

FEA (Finite element analysis) uses the philosophy of traditional variation methods to derive the equations relating undetermined coefficients. FEA is an energy method. FEA differs in two ways from the traditional variation methods in generating the equations of the problem. First, the approximation functions are often algebraic polynomials that are developed using ideas from the interpolation theory. Second, the approximation functions are developed for sub domains into which a given domain is divided. The sub domains, called finite elements, are geometrically simple shapes that permit a systematic construction of the approximation functions over the element. The division of the whole domain into finite elements not only simplifies the task of generating the approximation functions, but allows representation of the solution over individual elements. Therefore, geometric and/or material discontinuities can be naturally included and since the approximation functions are algebraic polynomials, the computation of the coefficient matrices of the approximation can be automated by the software. The construction of the approximation solutions with FEA is systematic, and the process is independent of the boundary conditions of the data of the problem. In short, FEA is a piecewise application of classical variation methods. The undetermined parameters often, but not always, represent the values of the dependent variables at a finite number of preselected points, whose number and location dictate the degree and form of the approximation functions used. FEA is modular and therefore suited for our use as applied to problems such as this. This is the appropriate choice for the initiation and collapse. I agree with NIST 100% for selecting this energy method. It’s their roughshod application and refusal to show the details of what went into the model that I have issues with.

No matter which energy theory you draw from, there are going to be characteristic polynomials that involve transient (time-dependent) functions and damping. This "damping" term is very explicit in Lagrangian mechanics, as well as Hamiltonian mechanics and even in classical plate theory. The friction involved in the buckling of the 81 (built up and non built up) heavily defies NIST's "stage 2". Simply, it is impossible without manipulation or at least more information. Tranparancy?

With that stated, the Lagrange energy method equation I am presenting you points out some obvious things without the need for exhaustive FEA, what are they?



http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/calc_column_structural_steel.cfm

Yes, definitely from you. You don't have to be an engineer. Don't be lazy. You want to figure this out or not? There is such a thing as Lagrange mechanics or Lagrange energy method, which is simply one of many energy methods. The friction is more explicitly defined than it is in classical plate theory, which makes it more suitable for discussion when your dealing with a system that is one minute very stable and somehow became very unstable. The stable to unstable condition of WTC 7 on 9-11-2001 has not been well established by NIST, and their refusal to release the critical data of how they arrived at answers is begging for deeper study and 3rd party investigations.

For right now, let's establish the structural stability in terms of the column load carrying capacities (critical and allowable) vs gravity loads, let's see if we can get a fire-breathing "twoofie-crushing" JREFer to work through the column analysis. TFK told me there were plenty here "more than able" to answer my questions. Is this really true?

TFK also made this statement in response to my prodding for him to do a quick column buckling analysis check:

"I'll leave the "brainlessly plug into on-line calculators" to you. One thing that you might do first is to produce a sketch of the constraint & loading conditions at the moment of buckling of any particular column that you (not me) might be interested in. C'mon, kid. You can do this. Come to think of it, you probably can not do this. Either way, it's a virtual certainty that you won't do it, of course. That takes effort..."

This is not a statement any engineer would make. There are strict guidelines when performing column analysis and software is common for such analysis. The equations are ultimately derived from Euler's buckling theory, but with many refinements since his time. Column buckling equations, graphs and so forth are ubiquitous to solid mechanics and structural design textbooks at the present. Telling me to sketch "constraint & loading conditions at the moment of buckling of any particular column that you..." is like telling me to breathe. I’ve worked out some of the Stability Council’s numerical equations and methods in C++ as an exercise. Pencil and paper is fine the extent of understanding algorithms, but TFK’s comment is revealing. There is only "brainless" activity if the origin of the solving mechanism, equations, graphs etc is not understood with respect to the Stability Research Council.

The question TFK, (if he really is an engineer) should have asked is, what is the basis of the algorithm of the calculator, software or program? Are they derived in accordance with the Stability Research Council?

TFK appears to be posing as an engineer. If he really is, he has hitherto made a litany of statements that defies engineering practice, thought, knowledge, culture, methodology, testing and analysis.

I'm just a humble Arts grad, but that huge wall of theory-lecture text strikes me as having exactly zero actual engineering in it.

What was it that newton3376 said?...oh yeah, "without the data yo chatta don't matta."

Amen to that. Less talk, more rock, eh? How about showing some work?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I’ve worked out some of the Stability Council’s numerical equations and methods in C++ as an exercise.

Excellent! Now we're talking MY area of expertise!

Let's see the code.

 

[twinstead]

I'm just a humble Arts grad, but that huge wall of theory-lecture text strikes me as having exactly zero actual engineering in it.

Indeed. Word salad worthy of Jammonius himself

 

[leftysergeant]

Address the questions in #1702 please.

Thanks,
Derek

Most of that is engineering stuff and outside my area of greatest expertise. That's not what I'm here for.

The nerds can do that mathy stuff. I, as an arson investigator, am here to tell you that it looks to the educated people here that you are ascribing to Thermite properties that it simply cannot have.

You haven't even come up with a plausible explanation as to how the temperatures in the pile are in the slightest unaccounted for, or how it would support any of you other whacky theories.

 

[Oystein]

Can you justify less than 98.5-99% steel?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/CSEC/Salvarinas_1986.pdf

So what, exactly, did the firefighters see Oystein?

I very roughly estimate the amount of steel in WTC7 to be somewhere near 50.000 metric tons, give or take a couple of tenthousand. Agreed?
If that is 99$ of all the metals in that building, then we'd have 500 metric tons of other metals.
You know, just a ball park number. Copper plumbing, aluminium has plenty of uses, you name it.

How much molten metal did the firefighter alledly see? And when did they see it? And where?
Can you account for more than a few 100kg on the premises of WTC7?
In fact, I am not aware of any firefighter mentioning molten metal specifically at the WTC7 site. Then again, I have not looked into that. It's your claims, you clue me in!
When I know there are 500 tons of metals that have a melting point far below that of steel, then it doesn't matter how many tens of thousands of tons of steel there are also - the first to melt will be the others! Always!

Agreed?

First, what is screaming at you in this Lagrange method energy equation?

It screams "DEREK! FILL ME WITH NUMBERS! SOLVE ME!"

Second, let me tell you some problems involved when trying to handle indeterminate systems, which is one reason why I've been harping the same questions (1659, how are we coming on these?). The stability issue needs to be worked out, and is far easier than hanlding the collapse. But assuming that the initiation happened (and NIST does not establish this well), we have to use the most appropriate method.

...FEA is modular and therefore suited for our use as applied to problems such as this. This is the appropriate choice for the initiation and collapse. I agree with NIST 100% for selecting this energy method. It’s their roughshod application and refusal to show the details of what went into the model that I have issues with.

Great. I understand that you want the data to check it. I am not here arguing that NIST should keep it locked up.
But may I point out that you are very much basing your whole argument on incredulity? You agree 100% that they used an appropriate method, you just don't like the result.

So you must charge incompetence or malfeasance.

No matter which energy theory you draw from, there are going to be characteristic polynomials that involve transient (time-dependent) functions and damping. This "damping" term is very explicit in Lagrangian mechanics, as well as Hamiltonian mechanics and even in classical plate theory. The friction involved in the buckling of the 81 (built up and non built up) heavily defies NIST's "stage 2". Simply, it is impossible without manipulation or at least more information. Tranparancy?

Ah! Now there is a definite claim, at which, I am sure, you arrived at with evidence?! Using a Lagrangian, even? If so, show the work! If not, then I guess your claim is moot.

With that stated, the Lagrange energy method equation I am presenting you points out some obvious things without the need for exhaustive FEA, what are they?

But the FEA is still good, isn't it?

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/calc_column_structural_steel.cfm

Ok... Like I said, I am not an engineer. What I see there is no mention of "Langrange", no mention of "energy" either. What's that link to do with "the Lagrange energy method"?

Yes, definitely from you. You don't have to be an engineer. Don't be lazy. You want to figure this out or not?

No. Actually, I am mainly here to figure out why you keep inflating this "molten steel" nonsense, and how you propose to wrap that molten steel into a theory of intentional collapse. How you gonna explain molten steel 16 days after the collapse, or even weeks later, with any criminal activity on 9/11. I know that explosives won't cause molten steel to appear 16 days later. I know that hydraulic devices won't, and I know damned sure that thermite can't do it because it contains so pathetically little energy.
So, really, all I want to figure out is: Why do you, and the liars over at AE911truth, keep mentioning reports of supposed molten steel?

There is such a thing as Lagrange mechanics or Lagrange energy method, which is simply one of many energy methods.

Hm ok the other day I googled one of you variations of the phrase "Lagrange energy method" and found only this thread, but I see now that this wording does yield results. Never mind.

The friction is more explicitly defined than it is in classical plate theory, which makes it more suitable for discussion when your dealing with a system that is one minute very stable and somehow became very unstable. The stable to unstable condition of WTC 7 on 9-11-2001 has not been well established by NIST, and their refusal to release the critical data of how they arrived at answers is begging for deeper study and 3rd party investigations.

Okay...

For right now, let's establish the structural stability in terms of the column load carrying capacities (critical and allowable) vs gravity loads, let's see if we can get a fire-breathing "twoofie-crushing" JREFer to work through the column analysis. TFK told me there were plenty here "more than able" to answer my questions. Is this really true?

My reading of this thread is: You have not posed your question well enough. What exactly do you want to have explained, and what are the assumptions at the base of your question?
I understand that you need this explained to you, because you are yourself unable to do it? Is that right? Or are you able to do it, have done it, and came up with a different result? Then you should show your work, so the engineers here know what you are talking about.

TFK also made this statement in response to my prodding for him to do a quick column buckling analysis check:

"I'll leave the "brainlessly plug into on-line calculators" to you. One thing that you might do first is to produce a sketch of the constraint & loading conditions at the moment of buckling of any particular column that you (not me) might be interested in. C'mon, kid. You can do this. Come to think of it, you probably can not do this. Either way, it's a virtual certainty that you won't do it, of course. That takes effort..."

This is not a statement any engineer would make. There are strict guidelines when performing column analysis and software is common for such analysis.

So you are saying it is impossible to explain to you anything in the format of a forum discussion, because it can't be done without software?

The equations are ultimately derived from Euler's buckling theory, but with many refinements since his time. Column buckling equations, graphs and so forth are ubiquitous to solid mechanics and structural design textbooks at the present. Telling me to sketch "constraint & loading conditions at the moment of buckling of any particular column that you..." is like telling me to breathe.

We haven't exactly seen you breathe...

I’ve worked out some of the Stability Council’s numerical equations and methods in C++ as an exercise.

Oh great! Where's the code, the data, and the results? Going to publish these?

Pencil and paper is fine the extent of understanding algorithms, but TFK’s comment is revealing. There is only "brainless" activity if the origin of the solving mechanism, equations, graphs etc is not understood with respect to the Stability Research Council.

The question TFK, (if he really is an engineer) should have asked is, what is the basis of the algorithm of the calculator, software or program? Are they derived in accordance with the Stability Research Council?

If you think that is a good question, what is your answer?

TFK appears to be posing as an engineer. If he really is, he has hitherto made a litany of statements that defies engineering practice, thought, knowledge, culture, methodology, testing and analysis.

Hmmm I have read both of y'all's posts here, and tfk's, franky, seemed to be a lot better structured, reasoned, and straighter to the point. He's gone out of his way to actually answer a few questions, even though those were merely "gotchas" in an (admitted by you) set-up.
So far tfk has come across to me as an experienced engineer, and you have come across as an arrogant punk.

I can't competently judge the deeper engineering points made by either of you, as I am not an engineer and haven't looked very deep into these things.

However I CAN judge the issue of "molten steel", and I find that you treat that issue, too, like an undereducated, arrogant young punk would. That behaviour does not help my perception of your engineering skills much.

 

[bill smith]

Don't put it on Oystein to answer that. Not his field of greatest expertise.

Even 2% of a building of that size would still be a staggering amount of metal. We have already told you repeatedly that there would be tons of lead, brass, copper and aluminum subjected to horrendous heat. I know that brass glows red and melts at a pretty low temperature (or it would not be as useful for "brazing." (You do know what "brazing" is, don't you?) This is, in all likelihood what the fire fighters saw "running down the channels like lava" under building 6. In that enclosed space, if it were possible for steel to remain hot enough to run for more than a few seconds, it would have to be hot enough to have cooked the fire fighters.



Nothing, because you do not plug in numbers descriptive of what you expect me to remember.

I will now allow an actual engineer, if any are so inclined, to tell me just what the hell this blather about Lagrange is supposed to mean. It still looks to me like you are saying that the building could not be broken.

And stop with your squaking that Lagrange does not permit anything that happened. Real engineers say that it does.. You think they're wrong, YOU need to show your complete analysis on paper, with concrete figues .

How long would a pool of steel 10,000 tons in weight take to cool Sarge ? Six months ?

What else could have burned for six months at those temperatures ?

 

[DC]

How long would a pool of steel 10,000 tons in weight take to cool Sarge ? Six months ?

What else could have burned for six months at those temperatures ?

how much thermite would you need to keep the reaction going for 6 months?

 

[pgimeno]

I think Jones was around before AE911T, so check that.

Right, Gage just recycles old lies.

Firefighters claiming they say molten steel first hand, hot surface temperatures for a long time (USGS 9-16-01 aerial photo), other first responders saying "it's probably 1500 degrees down there", Frank Sileccila's 9-27-01 all help add to a thermite theory,

REALLY?

Can you please explain how thermite explains 1500 degrees (or whatever) at 9-27-01?

This is something that I've seen stated again and again with no satisfactory explanation ever. But then, you're an engineer, so maybe you're more qualified to answer than those I've asked. IIRC Jones' ridiculous excuse was that a thermitic reaction went on by itself with the aluminium and the iron oxide that were there from the building. I hope you can give a better explanation than that. So far, they *disprove* thermite, showing instead how (smoldering in this case) fires can melt things making them red hot.

----

Giving presentations to a non-technical audience and convincing them doesn't really mean anything either.

I wouldn't be so sure. They surely mean something to Richard "5% of the donations" Gage. And presumably to the lecturer as well.

----

Without actually saying it, NIST are suggesting that controlled demolition does sometimes, or at least could, prepare just one column.

Yes they do. And they measure the sound of the explosive needed to destroy that one column. 130-140 dB at ~800 m if it was in the open.

----

How long would a pool of steel 10,000 tons in weight take to cool Sarge ? Six months ?

Less than two days, by radiation alone.

What else could have burned for six months at those temperatures ?

Hydrocarbons. Take a look at this link, talking about a coal fire in Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm.

Excerpt:

The fire burns 30 metres underground, moving at the slow rate of one metre south every year. The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

[...]

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.
​

(Emphasis mine)

 

[Disbelief]

Did they consider whether hydraulic rams could have been used to create the same effect as thermal expansion?

Why would they have considered that since there was no reason to consider it?

Also, wouldn't the equipment be pretty obvious? You would need a reservoir, hosing and the ram(s). How big would the set up have to be? What happened to all of the hydraulic fluid? When was it installed? If early, how did it resist the fires?

 

[Sabretooth]

how much thermite would you need to keep the reaction going for 6 months?

Perhaps more importantly...how does 99 days = 6 months?

 

[Sabretooth]

Firefighters claiming they say molten steel first hand, hot surface temperatures for a long time (USGS 9-16-01 aerial photo), other first responders saying "it's probably 1500 degrees down there", Frank Sileccila's 9-27-01 all help add to a thermite theory

REALLY?
Can you please explain how thermite explains 1500 degrees (or whatever) at 9-27-01?

It's statements like these that completely discount Derek's profession and his inane theories.

Here we are 44 pages into this nonsense, and he hasn't answered or validated a single point. Instead, he spams demands for answers to questions while dodging the folks who know what they are talking about.

I'm calling shenanigans.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

the 1500 degrees claim is using the fact that the guy wasn't "specific" about the units he was referring to. 1500 Fahrenheit and 1500 celsius are far apart. Conspiracy theories like this love information vacuums.

 

[bill smith]

Right, Gage just recycles old lies.


REALLY?

Can you please explain how thermite explains 1500 degrees (or whatever) at 9-27-01?

This is something that I've seen stated again and again with no satisfactory explanation ever. But then, you're an engineer, so maybe you're more qualified to answer than those I've asked. IIRC Jones' ridiculous excuse was that a thermitic reaction went on by itself with the aluminium and the iron oxide that were there from the building. I hope you can give a better explanation than that. So far, they *disprove* thermite, showing instead how (smoldering in this case) fires can melt things making them red hot.

----


I wouldn't be so sure. They surely mean something to Richard "5% of the donations" Gage. And presumably to the lecturer as well.

----


Yes they do. And they measure the sound of the explosive needed to destroy that one column. 130-140 dB at ~800 m if it was in the open.

----


Less than two days, by radiation alone.


Hydrocarbons. Take a look at this link, talking about a coal fire in Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm.

Excerpt:

The fire burns 30 metres underground, moving at the slow rate of one metre south every year. The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

[...]

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.
​

(Emphasis mine)

So you think a 10,000 ton pool of molten steel would cool in two days ? 'By radiation alone' Radiation to where ? It was beautifully insulated from the outside air by compressed rubble.

In fact as one fireman put it they pumped 'lakes of water' in there to try and force it to cool down but in the end they had to give it up when train stations as far away as Jersey began to flood. Sabretooth will tell you that he and his cohorts pumped out about 4.2 million gallons of water in the end.

You have seen the meteorites ? Well they were rubble that was melting into the central pool when they were frozen in mid-melt by the lakes of water. It's not a big problem to work it out. It's just plain obvious.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The meteorites are a joke... the idea that they're rocks of molten steel is crap invented by people who don't know what concrete looks like.