Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[pgimeno]

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.

My assumption was the time for an iron sphere at 3000K (about the burning temperature of thermite) irradiating in air at 300K, to go below 1500K (about the melting temperature of iron); it's hard to calculate otherwise. But it's hard to keep it at that temperature for weeks anyway by itself, given any reasonable explanation of how insulated it could be, and the smoke of the fires was evident so they're a more likely explanation, as in the coal mine I showed you burning for 1,500 years at 1,700°C.

Plus, such a 10,000 ton pool would be VERY visible after being solidified, when they extracted it from GZ. It would be an extremely complicated operation to clean it up, cutting it with torches or who-knows-what, in order to carry the pieces in trucks. It would have raised the attention of anyone, but no such thing was ever observed. It's a fantasy.

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.

Not very impressive, especially if it was escaping through the tunnels. And that water could have caused another exothermic iron oxidizing reaction.

You have seen the meteorites ? Well they were rubble that was melting

I haven't seen meteorites of melted rubble. I've seen meteorites of concrete floors and oxidized, but clearly not melted, rebars.

 

[Oystein]

...
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.
...

Yeah. Because of the fire. That's what firemen do: They dump lots of water on fire.
Every 4-year-old knows this.
Twoofers wasted 9 years and still don't get the basics of 9/11.

 

[bill smith]

My assumption was the time for an iron sphere at 3000K (about the burning temperature of thermite) irradiating in air at 300K, to go below 1500K (about the melting temperature of iron); it's hard to calculate otherwise. But it's hard to keep it at that temperature for weeks anyway by itself, given any reasonable explanation of how insulated it could be, and the smoke of the fires was evident so they're a more likely explanation, as in the coal mine I showed you burning for 1,500 years at 1,700°C.

Plus, such a 10,000 ton pool would be VERY visible after being solidified, when they extracted it from GZ. It would be an extremely complicated operation to clean it up, cutting it with torches or who-knows-what, in order to carry the pieces in trucks. It would have raised the attention of anyone, but no such thing was ever observed. It's a fantasy.


Not very impressive, especially if it was escaping through the tunnels. And that water could have caused another exothermic iron oxidizing reaction.


I haven't seen meteorites of melted rubble. I've seen meteorites of concrete floors and oxidized, but clearly not melted, rebars.

You may as well give it up is all I can say. Denial at your level is pathological. But I suppose it may have a certain propaganda value. Not a lot any more though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9nE372Ymc4

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5989/meteorite.jpg


;This Fused element of molten steel and concrete and...' At 6:45.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-9e...t_fuel_did_not_cause_this_destruction_period/

 

[beachnut]

How are we doing in #1659 beachnut, making any progress yet? Need help? I provided a link to Oystein to help with the column analysis and you're welcome to use it. I know that your mind is not made up with the amazing 9-11 structural anamalies and you are just as curious as I am for answers.

How you doing trying to explain why you tell lies in your presentation? You are not the truth, you are in Gage's spreading lies business. Do you know you have lies in your presentation? Do you care? When is your next presentation of lies on 911?

Got numbers to go with your Lagrangian equations? Wrong about the dissipation being too great. But then you present lies. Does god like liars on 911 issues?

You have all the answers so how are we doing on #1659 SPAM question, which you claim to have the answer? lol, you can't explain your lies, and you claim thermite brought down WTC7. Does that apply for 1 and 2?

You can copy equations, can you fill them in?

 

[beachnut]

You may as well give it up is all I can say. Denial at your level is pathological. But I suppose it may have a certain propaganda value. Not a lot any more though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9nE372Ymc4

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5989/meteorite.jpg


;This Fused element of molten steel and concrete and...' At 6:45.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-9e...t_fuel_did_not_cause_this_destruction_period/

Derek, these are lies. Can you tell bill smith she is spreading lies and the "meteorite" has no melted steel in it, just floors smashed together? If not it is indicative of your presentations filled with lies and the idiotic claim of thermite. bill smith is as good at engineering as you are, here she spreads the lie of melted steel meteorite. Good for you and bill, you could date and spread lies in the name of god. Wow

If you don't correct bill, you are not living up to your bible slide or ethics of an engineer. But then your delusion of thermite is not living up to your belief in god, and lies are not what you expect from engineers.

Is bill right Derek? Does Derek have any ethics left?

bill lies on 911, you lie on 911; you could get married and do the presentations of lies together. It is sad you failed to play your god card here to support your number free posts of the differential equations you have not presented.

 

[Oystein]

Indeed. Word salad worthy of Jammonius himself

Folks, please be fair!
I did not understand everything he wrote there, but it seemed like there was real effort and some real understanding involved. Definitely a base from which to continue.

Not every wall of text is tl;dr

And sure no one comes close to the jam-man!

 

[bill smith]

Derek, these are lies. Can you tell bill smith she is spreading lies and the "meteorite" has no melted steel in it, just floors smashed together? If not it is indicative of your presentations filled with lies and the idiotic claim of thermite. bill smith is as good at engineering as you are, here she spreads the lie of melted steel meteorite. Good for you and bill, you could date and spread lies in the name of god. Wow

If you don't correct bill, you are not living up to your bible slide or ethics of an engineer. But then your delusion of thermite is not living up to your belief in god, and lies are not what you expect from engineers.

Is bill right Derek? Does Derek have any ethics left?

bill lies on 911, you lie on 911; you could get married and do the presentations of lies together. It is sad you failed to play your god card here to support your number free posts of the differential equations you have not presented.

I suggest that Derek take no public position on this.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I suggest that Derek take no public position on this.

So you want to conspire with him so he can keep his mouth shut, is that it Bill? You want a real conspiracy to hide all these Truther lies so you idiots can place blame on the U.S. rather than Al-Qaeda??

 

[BigAl]

You may as well give it up is all I can say. Denial at your level is pathological. But I suppose it may have a certain propaganda value. Not a lot any more though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9nE372Ymc4

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5989/meteorite.jpg


;This Fused element of molten steel and concrete and...' At 6:45.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-9e...t_fuel_did_not_cause_this_destruction_period/

VIDEO (2 Minutes ) Construction worker gives panoramic view of the pit, describes 14 floors of material compressed into 8 feet. Also describes how standing columns were cut down. No molten steel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfgSr2eBXls

 

[D'rok]

Folks, please be fair!
I did not understand everything he wrote there, but it seemed like there was real effort and some real understanding involved. Definitely a base from which to continue.

Not every wall of text is tl;dr

It was purely a lecture on theory. There was no substantive content. It was the English language version of posting an equation without solving it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Folks, please be fair!
I did not understand everything he wrote there, but it seemed like there was real effort and some real understanding involved. Definitely a base from which to continue.

Not every wall of text is tl;dr

And sure no one comes close to the jam-man!

Agreed, but Derek Johnson's posts have not been much of an improvement over those of Tony Szamboti and bill smith. Regarding the particular post in question, I'm with D'rok:

It was purely a lecture on theory. There was no substantive content. It was the English language version of posting an equation without solving it.

Consider this howler:

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?

Derek's
"Lagrange energy method equation"
is a general equation that describes a butterfly's flight just as much as it describes anything having to do with 9/11. For Derek Johnson to pretend it "points out some obvious things without the need for exhaustive FEA" is just another ploy to impress the gullible.

 

[leftysergeant]

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

Stupid question. There would have been no way for it to form in the first place. The molten steel would have been fragmented along with everything else and given up its heat in short order.

And nobody found a ten-ton pig of cast rion in the wreckage. The very idea is stupid.

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

Coal. It would also account for the Swiss cheese steel.

Thermite burns out in a single big rush or not at all.

 

[bardamu]

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.

NIST worded the sentence to make it ambiguous and misleading. To make the meaning clear, they could have written:

“Controlled demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, never just one column."

instead of:

“Controlled demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, not just one column.”

But, then again, that wouldn't have made such a good preamble to their "column 79 did it" theory.

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

What reason was there to consider explosions?

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?

It's NIST's job to look into these questions when they consider all the possibilities.

 

[carlitos]

Argument from incredulity is noted. NIST also did not specifically consider and rule out Mothra.

 

[pgimeno]

NIST worded the sentence to make it ambiguous and misleading. To make the meaning clear, they could have written:

“Controlled demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, never just one column."

instead of:

“Controlled demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, not just one column.”

Huh?

I think they didn't mean "never". They meant "usually... not just one", just as they say and contrary to what you're saying in your first quoted sentence.

Please reread my post. Repeating:

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

I mean, NIST considers the possibility of attaining a controlled demolition by preparing just one column with explosive charges, just as you understood in a previous message that I've quoted. I think your understanding was right and that's why my reply was "Yes they do". But in your last reply you seem to understand that I'm saying the contrary and you suggest a wording that matches the opposite of what I was saying.

[ETA: Correction to my previous post included within the quote]

 

[leftysergeant]

It's NIST's job to look into these questions when they consider all the possibilities.

It is not something that would be done in a rational world, and there were no residues to suggest anything remotely like it, thus no reason to suspect it or include it in factors to be ruled in or out. Thus there is no reason to pursue it.

 

[Disbelief]

What reason was there to consider explosions?

There wasn't. They were just getting out in front of the loons who were babbling about the towers.

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?

It's NIST's job to look into these questions when they consider all the possibilities.

How does this response answer the questions posed? These things would have been obvious and found by the clean up crews.

 

[Oystein]

Agreed, but Derek Johnson's posts have not been much of an improvement over those of Tony Szamboti and bill smith. Regarding the particular post in question, I'm with D'rok:

Oh come on, bill is a troll, Tony is a one-trick-horse. Derek at least tries to take on the whole world in one go. Ok ok, so he hasn't actually loaded a weapon yet and saddled and keeps flogging a couple of dead horses...

Consider this howler:

Yeah, and I did pick on this by pointing out that even Derek admits that the more thorough FEA is 100% the right method.

Derek's
"Lagrange energy method equation"
is a general equation that describes a butterfly's flight just as much as it describes anything having to do with 9/11. For Derek Johnson to pretend it "points out some obvious things without the need for exhaustive FEA" is just another ploy to impress the gullible.

Yeah, but it is, or might well develop into, an actionable proposal on which we can take him to task: Have spell out the obvious things, and fill them with numbers!

 

[triforcharity]

I'm not afraid of anything, and I'm working on a floor 13 project with a team of engineers: taking a closer look at the expanding/buckling beams i.e. the building destroying root cause.

Thanks

GREAT!! Maybe you can ask those guys the same questions you ask us, then write down their answers, and then PUT IT IN A PAPER!!

What's holding you back??

 

[Newtons Bit]

GREAT!! Maybe you can ask those guys the same questions you ask us, then write down their answers, and then PUT IT IN A PAPER!!

What's holding you back??

I'm sure they'll publish it in the echo chamber of JONES.