• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

bardamu said:
If that's the case, how can they say with absolute certainty that nobody has ever demolished a building without bursting eardrums and smashing windows in nearby buildings?

What they could have said was: "it's completely unknown for somebody to demolish a large building with charges to one column only".
...
Click to expand...

Yeah, they could have,. I am sure, the English language provides even more ways to say the same in different words.

NIST doesn't talk about "bursting eardrums and smashing windows in nearby buildings". What they do say is the minimum charge to kill one crucial column of WTC7, specifically, and the sound level that such a charge would necessarily exhibit.
 
bardamu said:
If that's the case, how can they say with absolute certainty that nobody has ever demolished a building without bursting eardrums and smashing windows in nearby buildings?

What they could have said was: "it's completely unknown for somebody to demolish a large building with charges to one column only".
Click to expand...


A charge on just one column would be heard for thousands of yards and cause barotrauma injuries to anyone nearby.

Everyone would have heard it. No such explosion happened.
 
Oystein said:
Yeah, they could have,. I am sure, the English language provides even more ways to say the same in different words.
Click to expand...

Some ways are intentionally ambiguous and misleading.


Oystein said:
NIST doesn't talk about "bursting eardrums and smashing windows in nearby buildings". What they do say is the minimum charge to kill one crucial column of WTC7, specifically, and the sound level that such a charge would necessarily exhibit.
Click to expand...

NIST failed to consider that columns could be removed without the use of explosives.
 
Oystein said:
Some people intentionally misunderstand unambiguous and precise language.
Click to expand...

How can "unambiguous and precise language" lead to so much uncertainty over the meaning?

Here's one interpretation:

BadBoy said:
I think this could be read as meaning, they usually prepare "most columns", but somtimes they prepare ALL columns.

In other words, if its not most of the colmns, then its all of them.

Rather than "they usually prepare most if not all, but sometimes prepare only a few or even one".
Click to expand...


and here's mine, which pgimeno apparently approves of:

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


Even that interpretation is ambiguous - there's a big difference between saying it's done occasionally and merely suggesting it could be done.

It would be simple to word it in a slightly different way and clarify the meaning.


Oystein said:
The TM has failed to demonstrate the viability of any other method.
Click to expand...

Whether this is true or not, it's beside the point. NIST were supposed to be considering "intentional demolition". According to their own theory, the collapse could have been triggered by pushing a single truss to one side. They explicitly considered using charges on a single column, even though nobody in the truth movement would claim that to be a viable method.
 
bardamu said:
...
Whether this is true or not, it's beside the point. NIST were supposed to be considering "intentional demolition". According to their own theory, the collapse could have been triggered by pushing a single truss to one side. They explicitly considered using charges on a single column, even though nobody in the truth movement would claim that to be a viable method.
Click to expand...

You are thick on purpose, right?

You don't expect NIST to first invent every method that could potentially be (albeit is not actually) used to knock out one column, do you? The reasonable approach would be to consider all methods of such intentional (controlled) demolition of columns of the size of #79 that are known to exist and are known to work in the real world. Here is a comprehensive list of asuch methods:
- high explosives.

You see, that list is exceedingly short. Hydraulic methods (such as verinage) is ot included, since it is not known to work on such massive columns; thermite is not included since it has never been used at all in any controlled demolition. Likewise, African elephants or armies of midgets with gold hammers have not been considered.

If you want to have another method considered, you must first describe it and show that it is actually able to sever columns in a timed and controlled fashion. This is what the TM has failed to do.
 
Oystein said:
You don't expect NIST to first invent every method that could potentially be (albeit is not actually) used to knock out one column, do you?
Click to expand...

I don't expect a team of engineers to invent any scenario where the failure of a single column could bring down the upper section of the building "in a unit", but since they'd already gone down that road, they might have considered a few more possibilities for the cause of the initial failure.
 
bardamu said:
I don't expect a team of engineers to invent any scenario where the failure of a single column could bring down the upper section of the building "in a unit", but since they'd already gone down that road, they might have considered a few more possibilities for the cause of the initial failure.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
I hope Derek Johnson is still monitoring this thread. What if ae911truth.org set up a counter-organisation to themselves. Call it say 'ae911facts.org'. An organisation of architects and engineers willing to sign up as defenders of the OCT ? You would only need one guy to be the 'Richard Gage' of ae911facts.org. Then he could write to all the known supporter-engineers/architects to ask/demand that they sign up to validate their stance on 9/11 as a group.

There are so many spinoffs to this it would make you dizzy. Cheap as chips too.

Debunkers always claim that the ASCE and ASME are their supporters but that of course is not true. Virtually none of them have put their name to an official piece of paper supporting the goverment claims. ae911truth,org on the other hand has about 1,300 signed-up degreed/licenced building professionals staking rheir reputations on the fact that the government story is a lie.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I hope Derek Johnson is still monitoring this thread. What if ae911truth.org set up a counter-organisation to themselves. Call it say 'ae911facts.org'. An organisation of architects and engineers willing to sign up as defenders of the OCT ? You would only need one guy to be the 'Richard Gage' of ae911facts.org. Then he could write to all the known supporter-engineers/architects to ask/demand that they sign up to validate their stance on 9/11 as a group.

There are so many spinoffs to this it would make you dizzy. Cheap as chips too.

Debunkers always claim that the ASCE and ASME are their supporters but that of course is not true. Virtually none of them have put their name to an official piece of paper supporting the goverment claims. ae911truth,org on the other hand has about 1,300 signed-up degreed/licenced building professionals staking rheir reputations on the fact that the government story is a lie.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah, appeal to authority, blah blah blah.

Would their office be next to the Flat Earth Society?

Here are a bunch of properly peer-reviewed papers, published in respectable journals, that agree with NIST.


Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Standards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
 
Still, it would be interesting to monitor the replies and see how many would dare to join. A 100% blanket refusal to join from all of them would be tantamount to saying that 9/11 was an inside job. See the point ? It would make absolutely excellent TV footage too..

This could be all done inside a couple of months and could bring insupportable pressure to bear on the perps and their puppets.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
...An organisation of architects and engineers willing to sign up as defenders of the OCT?...
Click to expand...

The sane and and rational stance needs no organisation.

Religions must usually be organized in churches to control the superstitious. Atheismn stands on its own.
 
Oystein said:
The sane and and rational stance needs no organisation.

Religions must usually be organized in churches to control the superstitious. Atheismn stands on its own.
Click to expand...

Well Oystein, I guess they can all say that in their letters of refusal to join an organisation of experts defending the OCT. It all makes for good TV whichever way the cat jumos.

Possibly people will wonder how they could have technically supported and justified the OCT right after 9/11 and are now unwilling to stand up for it . We have a list of notable names to begin with. You saw triforcharity's list ?
 
Last edited:
I can't help wondering how many qualified members I would get if I set up an organisation called "Electricians for Ohm's Law"?
 
Thank you :)
And as you noted, the idea may be met with some resistance with my profession.
 
bill smith said:
Jeez Toke- another brilliant post right after the other nominated one. You are sure to win the prize this month.
Click to expand...
(No, as stated that one was Oystein's. :D)
I would like you to come with a serious explanation of any difference in our two ideas. That was kind of the intention with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom