Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[excaza]

ASTM A36 and A572 (the majority of WTC 7) melts at 2750 deg F...wrong?

H₂O melts at 32 deg F

About as relevant.

 

[Derek Johnson]

Derek, as the mighty OCT-slaying super-engineer, do you understand the meaning of eutectic?

And how did the sulfur attack, exactly? Where did this "attacking sulfur" come from?

 

[excaza]

Do you, or do you not understand?

 

[Derek Johnson]

H₂O melts at 32 deg F

About as relevant.

Not so much, ASTM A36 and A572 both melt at 2750 deg F, right or wrong?

 

[excaza]

correct, do you want a gold star for posting irrelevant specs?

 

[Derek Johnson]

correct, do you want a gold star for posting irrelevant specs?

Not so much, ASTM A36 and A572 both melt at 2750 deg F. They were a large part of the rubble, right or wrong?

As for the eutectic 1800 deg F "liquid steel" mentioned in FEMA Appendix C, where did that attacking sulphur come from, exactly?

 

[excaza]

Not so much, ASTM A36 and A572 both melt at 2750 deg F. They were a large part of the rubble, right or wrong?

Can you just make your point?

As for the eutectic 1800 deg F "liquid steel" mentioned in FEMA Appendix C, where did that attacking sulphur come from, exactly?

Look it up, surely you don't need my help.

 

[beachnut]

No melted steel at the WTC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

...

I am the one who is lying here? Let others decide that on beachnut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

Again, Please explain line by line the statements in the video above.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Again, please explain your "liquified the steel really means something else" theory to me beachnut? Your theory of the true meaning of this is what, exactly?

Zero photos, zero evidence, no melted steel found. OOPS, you messed up and used hearsay as evidence. You lost this one, ask god if hearsay is evidence. Go ahead make my day. Ask god, you need all the help you can get, because god told me hearsay is not evidence. You lost; Jesus agrees with me too, ask him. Pray harder and get a refund from the university.

Wow, you show corrosion as melted steel. Get a clue, melted steel leaves a pile of iron, not corrosion of steel, melted steel; the hearsay stuff you use as evidence, but it is not evidence. You use talk as evidence, you have to have piles of melted steel, and piles of iron from your fantasy of thermite.

My prayers are powerful, you keep posting nonsense exposing your ignorance of fire. Good job! Pray harder! Now that god has let you down, will you keep your religion slides in your thermite delusion briefing/presentation? Yes, no, maybe?

When will you answer/discuss your lies in your presentations?

 

[excaza]

Sorry, what I meant to say was that the sulfur obviously came from thermate, and the towers were brought down by CD.

That's what you want me to say, right?

 

[tsig]

That deserves an award. Maybe you could elaborate just a bit? Or maybe offer how conventional incineration could last for 5 days (or until mid December according to some first responders and/or firefighters) rendering WTC 7 site surface USGS temps of 1340 deg F on 9-16-01? How did the air get to the fuel? From forced convection from underneath? What's your "theory" on that?

*tosses tsig a walking cane, top hat, tap shoes and a video of Sammy Davis Jr *

Thanks for the walking cane, top hat, tap shoes and a video of Sammy Davis Jr but you're not hired.

Your attitude exceeds your aptitude.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Hah! It is screaming more than that. Pick your time interval, that dissipative term and the F term on the opposite sides have meaning. Is energy conserved or not? This much I need to establish.

What that paragraph screams to me is that you don't know how to explain the meanings of the dissipative term and the F term, you don't know whether energy was conserved, and you think you need to establish that energy was conserved but you don't know how to go about doing that.

I'm trying (in vain) to establish the needed energy for buckling initiation...and then establish the needed energy for dissipation once initiation begins. The Lagrangian equation will point some things out that defy unopposed collapse for 100 feet.

Nonsense. The "Lagrangian equation" you've been posting is a general equation that describes the fall of a rock I kicked off an overhanging granite cliff this afternoon just as much as it describes anything else. If that equation points "some things out that defy unopposed collapse for 100 feet", then those things, whatever they might be, apply just as much to the rock I kicked.

Until you fill in the details you have repeatedly refused to supply, you're just using that "Lagrangian equation" to impress the gullible.

LOL, I was metaphorically stating that if TFK is an engineer, I'm a baboon. And I get my baboon kicks from laying banana peels in front of Tarzan.

If you say so. Having interacted with tfk on several previous occasions, I'm quite sure he's an engineer. Had you been a credible source, your statement above would have convinced me you're a baboon, which raises an obvious question: Why should I pay any more attention to vocalizations of the genus Papio than to tfk and other engineers of my own species?

Maybe I come across as an arrogant punk, that's fine.

If you say so.

And this undereducated laborer somehow managed his way through a BS in Mech Engineering, somehow.

If you say so. I have only your word for that, so your claim to have a BS in mechanical engineering belongs in the same category with your claim to be a baboon.

But don't let facts, logic or science get in your way Oystein.

Please throw some facts, logic, or science our way. Your Lagrangian bluff isn't working for you. Claiming to be a degreed baboon isn't likely to work much better.

 

[beachnut]

...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Again, please explain your "liquified the steel really means something else" theory to me beachnut? Your theory of the true meaning of this is what, exactly?

No liquid steel in this article, the overall conclusion is...

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

The steel samples did not melt, they corroded. oops, back to the failed thermite, better start praying you will read before you post! Comprehend before you post hearsay, comprehend that hearsay is not evidence.

And I pray you will find the knowledge to recognize your lies in your fantasy thermite presentations, and figure out 911 truth is a fraud built on lies and delusions.

BTW, Derek, http://911research.wtc7.net/ is a site of pure stupid on 911, if you follow the references and sources, you can debunk all the woo there. Maybe you can't but the editorial you/we can! Why can you debunk woo too?
Right! You are presenting lies to support your CD thermite fantasy. my bad


I asked you to fill in your equations before you were exposed as a fraud; I was praying this would not happen to you!

...
Nonsense. The "Lagrangian equation" you've been posting is a general equation that describes the fall of a rock I kicked off an overhanging granite cliff this afternoon just as much as it describes anything else. If that equation points "some things out that defy unopposed collapse for 100 feet", then those things, whatever they might be, apply just as much to the rock I kicked.

...

oops, Derek should have taken heed of my warning, albeit not as elegant as this post; thanks W.D., for taking the time to teach, and explain; nice job!!!

 

[GlennB]

The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

Liquified the steel excaza? Your theory of the true meaning of this please?

Some catches for you -

1. Photos of the WTC7 debris pile show massive voids close to ground level. There was absolutely nothing to prevent conventional fires being present above ground

2. Eutectic 'melting' is a different phenomenon from the gross phase-change that we normally refer to as 'melting'. The event here occurred along grain boundaries within the steel and would be more usefully described as corrosion or slow disintegration grain by grain. Had it been conventional melting there would be iron slag present and gross deformation of the entire section.

That you haven't yet grasped these simple facts speaks volumes for your belief-driven agenda.

 

[Oystein]

That's above twice the actual steel according to Salvinaris' article:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/CSEC/index.html

So at 1% we would have 116 metric tons, the two metals you named are a large fraction of the remaining 1%: Aluminum, then copper.

Ok, cool. Let's keep that in mind! About 100 metric tons of of aluminium and copper.

I agree with you here, I don't know where the firefighters were either, nor do I know how much molten whatever they say. But plenty of statements are made here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

There are several first hand witnesses that ID the material as molten steel. That suggests that there were metals other than copper and aluminum in a molten state. Watch the video please.

Great. So you agree that you have exactly zero (0) evidence for any molten metal, let alone molten steel, on the WTC7 premises? Fine. Then I hope you will also agree that the question about proportions of metals in WTC7 is entirely irrelevant? The answer wouldn't explain anything, since there is zero (0) to be explained.
Makes me wonder why you asked that loaded question in the first place....

I agree, and this is why FEMA C is so interesting:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

"2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

See under figure 1-8. Because this suggests that there were conditions that not only melted Al and Cu, but also steel. How is this possible?

a) This eutectic melting does not lead to "rivers of molten steel", it leads to erosion on the surface.
b) Plenty of sources of SO₂ are available in a building that burns. Half a ton of sulfur is contained, for example, in the bodies of the people who perished. The rain that falls, and the ground/sea water that seaps through, contain SO₂

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/398534c994a804bd8e.bmp[/qimg]

Hah! It is screaming more than that. Pick your time interval, that dissipative term and the F term on the opposite sides have meaning. Is energy conserved or not? This much I need to establish.

Of course energy is conserved. But "time interval" would be a number with a dimension, and the terms you are focussiong on could be numerically very small, zero even, or quite large. We'll kniow after you do fill in the numbers.

No, they picked the right method, the right ENERGY method (FEA), and I tried to explain why this is "right". But not showing me the input to this FEA method is like telling a cop that you're ok to drive and don't need to take the stupid breathalizer test, no matter how much you we swerving and running over trash cans on the sidewalk. Will he believe you. Will real engineers believe NIST without seeing what “WENT INTO THEIR MODEL?”

Highlighted the important word here. So my question that you responded to there still stands:
"But may I point out that you are very much basing your whole argument on incredulity?"
You are free not to believe. But you do much more than not believe. You insinuate that the FEA was done wrongly, and the result would be different if done correctly. That is a claim without evidence, and merely rests on faith.

When a redundant structure (from column loading capacity) plunges to the ground like our eyes all saw, seeing all the

[1. ... 6.]

that made up the "energy" fea analysis is important. Otherwise, how can anyone believe the result?

Hmmm I, being a non-engineer, do not believe the result as gospel, but I understand that a number of engineers put a lot of effort into it, used the correct method, probably had good input data...
So yes, I am going by faith here.
You must assume incompetence or malfeasance. I have onbe assumption less.

Actually, I stated why theory won't allow no resistance, and the best analytical approach is FEA, due to the reasons stated in #1712.

I guess you are here referring to that brief episode of near-freefall of one part of the building after most of the structure had already disintergrated, all structural redundancy disappeared, and support collumns (or their connections) at the 8th floor buckled?
Well, we have seen you make FALSE statements about that episode.

Yes, third party FEA. More FEA than NIST alone. Do you agree?

No. But I am not stopping you.

I'm trying (in vain) to establish the needed energy for buckling initiation and then establish the needed energy for dissipation once initiation begins.

Ah - so you have nothing. Your arguments seems to rest on that Lagrangian energy theory and energy disspipation, and you have tried in vain to fill the terms with numbers? That's what I told you all along!

The Lagrangian equation will point some things out that defy unopposed collapse for 100 feet.

How do you know? Should that conclusion not wait until after you have filled the equations with numbers, and or run your own FEA?
The north face had lost both its lateral and vertical supports wheh the core fell, and when the columns buckled around the 8th floor. Given these conditions, I am fairly convinced your Lagrangian will predict nearly freefall until that piece of the building hits the gound.

I'm only interested in understanding how those buildings fell like they did. I'm puzzled beyond belief as to why and how these statements were made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

Maybe you could help me since you are interested in the thermite claims.and then establish the needed energy for dissipation once initiation begins.

Easy. I watched the first few seconds. The guy posing the question is basing that question on a false premise: The mythical "huge pools of molten steel" did not exist.

The thermite stuff has nothing to do with that energy dissipation, unless you have a theory for it. I sure don't.

Which type of energy? Be specific.

Eqn. 1: Fe2O3+ 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3+ 181.5 kcal
Eqn. 2: 3Fe3O4+ 8Al → 9Fe + 4Al2O3+ 719.3 kcal

These thermite equations are highly exothermic, and the energy release depends on the amounts and availabilities. Pathetically little energy is unspecific and perhaps an overstatement with respect to your intention to persuade away from a thermitic technology possibly applied.

Eqn. 1: These 181.5 kcal per mol are 3.9 kJ/g. Compare this to the heat released by burning paper, computers, carpets, and you will find that thermnite does not even come close to any of these. Even if you burn a human body, with all its water content, you get more net heat than from burning the same mass of thermite!
Do you understand this?
Eqn. 2: No one, not even Dr. Steven Jones, has found these compounds in any meaningful composition. Besides, I kind of doubt the kcal. Got a source?

The liars? Which, all are liars? List the AE911t lies, and list who among the 1317 (or however many) are guilty of your charges of lying.

The main talking points of AE911truths contain lies:
- the inflated claims of molten steel
- the characteization of the Harrit, Jones e.al. paper as "peer reviewed"
- the assertion that no imnvestigation has been done
I have seen and heard Richard Gage tell these lies. Everybody at AE911t who repeats these is a liar.
Your own presentation contains lies, as beachnut does not tiure to point out.

...
Lagrange made huge contributions to Newton's equations in regards to energy methods for analysis. And the equation I've presented above gives clarity to the dissipative energy that he developed and occurs when columns buckle and steel deforms.

No. the equation only gives a very generalized framework. The individual terms mean nothing until you have filled them with numbers derived from a solid model.

Thread #1659 has questions I've repeated for a long time. I want these questions answered, and I want a discussion on their answers and how they relate to dissipative energy.

I asked you, but you did not answer:
- Are you unable to answer them? (Then don't lecture us here)
- Or have you answered your own questions? Then give those answers, and show work!

Of course not. TFK's statement (and many of his other statements) make it plain to me that he is not an engineer. Hand methods are fine. Numerical methods, computer software, tables, empirical analysis are fine as well. As long as the underlying principles and assumptions are also fine.

LOL, I was metaphorically stating that if TFK is an engineer, I'm a baboon. And I get my baboon kicks from laying banana peels in front of Tarzan.

Ok, We'll quote you

I've worked through it, and yet I'm looking for others who are so convinced that the NIST results are acurate to run through this buckling analysis. How can you be so certain if you don't know how redundant the column load capacity is?

Well, as for the part that you find most puzzling, namely the fall of the north face at g for a brief time, I hope you don't assume that assembly had any redundancy left at that moment?

Again, 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. Real data comes from testing real physical evidence. Claiming that no evidence physical evidence is necessary all while not minding NIST withholding

I think I asked you before: Do you believe that the red-grey chips anbalysed by Jones e.al. are thermite and not paint, despite the fact that they don't tell you which paint they analysed for comparison, and didn't test any actual variant of thermite?

[1. ... 6. repeated]

And supporting the result is suspect. Engineers do not practice this way. And buying of wholesale on NIST's statements, with respect to what I just said, puts TFK's so called "engineering education and experience" in a very suspect light.

Hm. On the contrary, it is general practice in all engineering fields that engineers trust the results of fellow engineers. Generally, engineering tasks are not done twice.

Maybe I come across as an arrogant punk, that's fine. I'm sorry, but still, the points raised in #1400 and #1475 still stand. The questions raised in #1659 are not challenging, especially for engineers. The answers to the questions are the challenging part. That’s the gotchya. Anyone can already recognize that I am leading to a point in which I will show you, using accepted methods, that the columns were able to handle their gravity loads…and then some.

Cut the arrogant punk gotcha crap, and go ahead! show us, using accepted methods!

And then a lot.

You will certainly not show that external columns without lateral and vertical support can handle a lot of redundant gravity loads.

If this forum truly wants a skeptic and lively debate…#1659 is a good starting point. #1400 and #1475 are good points that we need to discuss as well, agreed?

No. Not agreed. You have failed to convince us that the questions are even relevant. You might convince us if you cut the arrogant punk gotcha crap and got to wirk like a competent engineer.

Ok, but keep in mind that this undereducated punk has worked in a steel (Jewett, TX) and aluminum foundry (Ft. Worth, TX).

You did, but non of your witnesses did. We know already from you that the sight alone does not suffice to ID metals.

And this undereducated laborer somehow managed his way through a BS in Mech Engineering, somehow.

Yeah. We are all amazed.
A BS ain't all that impressive, really.

This same undereducated punk melts scrap steel in a half zero size (9 inches diameter) cupola furnace for parts. This undereducated punk has also asked easy questions in #1659 and raised a slew of points in #1400 and #1475 that remain unanswered or grossly underanswered and remain largely unchallenged. But don't let facts, logic or science get in your way Oystein.

Appeal to authority?

 

[leftysergeant]

Not so much, ASTM A36 and A572 both melt at 2750 deg F. They were a large part of the rubble, right or wrong?

As for the eutectic 1800 deg F "liquid steel" mentioned in FEMA Appendix C, where did that attacking sulphur come from, exactly?

I have mentioned that numerous times right here on this forum. Maybe even in this thread. There were hundreds of lead-acid batteires in all the WTC buildings as power back-ups. Lead-acid batteries contain sulphuirc acid.

Copper was found intergranularly in the steel. There was copper wire and piping all over the pile. Sulphuric acid from the batteries created copper sulphate solutions. A copper sulphate solution will despoit metalic copper on steel. (Try it, if you don't believe me. This is grade-school science.)

There were traces of pyrites in the steel. Pyrite forms at relatively low temperatures, lower than thermite would cause. It is refined to produce sulphur by simple roasting. It is not in any way related to thermite. It can be formed by exposing steel to hot steam and fumes of sulphuric acid.

Some of the steel shows vermicular markings which closely resemble those left on steel that has been dipped in sulphuric acid.

I think the batteries caused the Swiss cheese steel.

 

[Oystein]

...
You stated:

"Wood has more energy than thermite"

This is not true in terms of thermal energy (heat release) and energy concentration once a reaction is occuring. You needs lots of dry oak and pure oxygen to prove your point, good luck with that one.

Ah. here lies the crux. You don't understand thermodynamics. You don't understand energy and heat. You mistake heat as temperature, I suspect.

You can compete with thermite with hydrocarbons, namely wood, but the framing to make this happen would be a chore. Also the reation mechanism is very different in thermite, no oxidation occurs as in conventional incineration.

C6H12O6 + 6 O2 = 6 CO2 + 6 H2O or
4C6H11O5 + 25O2 -> 24CO2 + 22H2O for wood (there is a bit more to it than this: the ash will have unreacted lignins, tannins etc and likely small traces of hemicellulose and cellulose)

You forgot to insert the kcal here!

vs

Fe2O3+ 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3+ 181.5 kcal or
3Fe3O4+ 8Al → 9Fe + 4Al2O3+ 719.3 kcal for thermite

To melt steel in a cupola (smelter) you would need extremely dry wood, high density like white oak, and probably pure oxygen supplimented through your tuyeres. This will probably only render a very short campaign, as the stack gasses will spend the wood charges and halt the campaign prematurely if your lignins and tannins wouldn't clog the stack first. This is one reason why charcoal works and petro coke is greatly preferred over charcoal. If your goal is to measure energy in terms of thermal release for a steel melting application, the best wood is very difficult in the situation I've framed (and one I know well), the worst thermite does this effortlessly...

You are assuming the consequent: That any steel at all was melted. You are looking at the temperatures that can be reached with either method.
But Derek, your assumption is certainly untrue, at least it's unproven!

Don't let facts disturb your 19 hijacker fantasy though. And don't let your 19 hijacker fantasy disturb your mission of answering #1659 and knocking down #1400 and #1475. You will answer these questions some day, correct?

Are you saying no planes were hijacked?

 

[Oystein]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

"Figure C-8 Qualitative chemical analysis.

Summary for Sample 1

The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

Liquified the steel excaza? Your theory of the true meaning of this please?

For the umpteenth time:
- Eutectic corrosion is a very localized process, very different from the kind of "melting steel" that would produce "pools" or "rivers" or "flows like lava"
- It needed only 1000°C! You say it yourself! Actually, if you read carefully, the app. C says it needs UNDER (up to) 1000°C. Yes, plastics and stuff burning can reach that under the right conditions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

What did these firefighters really mean? Are they just making stuff up? Your theory of the true meaning of their statements please?

For the umpteenth time:
- The firefighters had no method at their disposal to reliably ID the material. If you disagree, them please state what that method would be, and why you think that method was applied by the witnesses.
- There is no corroborating physical evidence
- Most such reports are second hand
- Many speak of metal, not steel
- They are almost certainly mistaken if they report molten steel
- Any molten steel seen a day after the collapses would have NOTHING to do with the collapse. When you weld rails with thermite, the stuff cools to full structural strength in 45 minutes!

Why do you put so much faith in these statements?

 

[Oystein]

...
"Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said "Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."

Is molten steel red-hot?

 

[Oystein]

That deserves an award. Maybe you could elaborate just a bit? Or maybe offer how conventional incineration could last for 5 days (or until mid December according to some first responders and/or firefighters) rendering WTC 7 site surface USGS temps of 1340 deg F on 9-16-01? How did the air get to the fuel? From forced convection from underneath? What's your "theory" on that?

*tosses tsig a walking cane, top hat, tap shoes and a video of Sammy Davis Jr *

Oh dear, here lies another crux!
Are you saying ground fires don't exist? Or burn out in seconds?
Do you seriously think that it was solely thermite that burned for months???

 

[Oystein]

No melted steel at the WTC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

Please explain line by line the statements in the video above....

Unnecessary, as not a single statement talks about "huge pools of molten steel". Several of the statements are in direct contradiction. That religious person with the cross is talking out of his field of expertise. We see the beams he is talking about, and they clearly never lost their shape! That means they never melted! Same goes for any bent beams: Yep, maybe they were hot when they were bent, but noweher near melting.

And then we see Richard Gage himself telling lies about a piece of compressed debris.