Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[beachnut]

Exactly which is why I pointed out 1469, his answer to my previous post was nothing more then Derek cutting and pasting from Brookman and Derek adding his own ass hat comments on to those. He mentions Brookman but does not explain that his answers come from that source. Within the statement he made, that prompted my first question, was another un-cited reference to Brookman. Which he plagiarized to answer my question. What a guy.

It appears he also took pages directly out of a textbook for another of his long and dull posts.

...

That is why I looked up Brookman's work, and you were right. After seeing his presentations that are published on youtube, I am not surprised he has no substance, no evidence, no numbers to go with his failed claims.

 

[leftysergeant]

Basicly, some psychopath with credentials in something or other makes a statement and other nutjobs declare it inviolable dogma.

 

[tfk]

It's become clear that Derek doesn't really want to have a discussion about much of anything. My guess would be that he never really did. And probably never really will.

Amazing how dispensable the religious burden of "honesty" can be for some folks, if it gets in the way of notoriety or people stroking your ego.

I'd suggest that we take a different tack: Shut down this thread and discuss Mr. Brookman's paper.

At least he actually says a few things.


tom

PS. Hey Lefty,

You've always struck me as a man of consummate common sense & judgment. You're not shaking my confidence by indulging in the hapless / hopeless exercise of trying to have a "serious" conversation with ole billy, are ya??

Damn, boy. You get taken with such moments of lunacy, what's to become of us...??

 

[SRW]

I expect we have been discussing Mr. Brookman's paper, with someone who didn't get it but thought is sounded all sciency.

 

[Miragememories]

That is why I looked up Brookman's work, and you were right. After seeing his presentations that are published on youtube, I am not surprised he has no substance, no evidence, no numbers to go with his failed claims.

Sort of like having a pilot's license that is a knee deep in dust.

Too funny.

MM

 

[leftysergeant]

You've always struck me as a man of consummate common sense & judgment. You're not shaking my confidence by indulging in the hapless / hopeless exercise of trying to have a "serious" conversation with ole billy, are ya??

As earnestly as I fire my Mosin-Nagant on every opportunity, and for the same reason.

 

[bill smith]

It's become clear that Derek doesn't really want to have a discussion about much of anything. My guess would be that he never really did. And probably never really will.

Amazing how dispensable the religious burden of "honesty" can be for some folks, if it gets in the way of notoriety or people stroking your ego.

I'd suggest that we take a different tack: Shut down this thread and discuss Mr. Brookman's paper.

At least he actually says a few things.


tom

PS. Hey Lefty,

You've always struck me as a man of consummate common sense & judgment. You're not shaking my confidence by indulging in the hapless / hopeless exercise of trying to have a "serious" conversation with ole billy, are ya??

Damn, boy. You get taken with such moments of lunacy, what's to become of us...??

I guess you don't fancy picking up where Sarge left off yourself then T ? About the standing 'items' I mean ? I rather think that you won't. There is a reminder in the hyperlink .

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6384159&postcount=1897 hyperlink

It's better to leave this thread open as it can be seen as a direct link to ae911truth.org which is a good thing isn't it ? Then researchers like my good self can freely pass on our observations and you debunkers can make a show of yourselves for the entertainment of the Readers.

 

[beachnut]

I expect we have been discussing Mr. Brookman's paper, with someone who didn't get it but thought is sounded all sciency.

That appears to be a fact.
Derek will not discuss lies he has in his presentation, I have to assume his intent is to mislead people.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Sort of like having a pilot's license that is a knee deep in dust.

Too funny.

MM

Nah, the only funny thing in this forum are truthers like you, who play keyboard warriors for a failed movement, that has been laughed at for nine plus years.

 

[Toke]

Bill,
The members of "Electricians for Ohms Law" are not exactly pouring in.

Do you have any idea what I could be doing wrong?

 

[bill smith]

As earnestly as I fire my Mosin-Nagant on every opportunity, and for the same reason.

I'm not trying to say that T. was being transparently condescending to you but if it was me I would argue any valid 9/11 subject. But I guess it's up to you..

 

[tfk]

You are right about two things.

You are right that there were only two people involved in my note: Lefty & you.

You are right that I was being transparently condescending to someone.

You guessed that I was being condescending to Lefty.

Bad guess.

 

[bill smith]

You are right about two things.

You are right that there were only two people involved in my note: Lefty & you.

You are right that I was being transparently condescending to someone.

You guessed that I was being condescending to Lefty.

Bad guess.

Sure,if you say so. Fancy exploring the mystery of the 'standing artifacts' together ?

 

[tfk]

Sure,if you say so. Fancy exploring the mystery of the 'standing artifacts' together ?

There are only two responses that I've been giving to you for years:
1) total disregard, or
2) "You're incompetent. You're illiterate. You don't know your ass from your elbow on any of these issues. You exhibit zero seriousness or belief in your own garbage." etc. etc. etc.

You know that this will be exactly my response to you.

And yet, still you go thru the ludicrous, insincere charade of offering to "explore some 9/11 issue together".

Stunningly clueless. Amazingly masochistic.

There is one, and only one, mystery that I'd ever consider "exploring together with you", bs.

"The Mysterious Pathology Of People Who Enjoy Public Self-Humiliation"

You want to traipse down that path, lemme know.

 

[bill smith]

There are only two responses that I've been giving to you for years:
1) total disregard, or
2) "You're incompetent. You're illiterate. You don't know your ass from your elbow on any of these issues. You exhibit zero seriousness or belief in your own garbage." etc. etc. etc.

You know that this will be exactly my response to you.

And yet, still you go thru the ludicrous, insincere charade of offering to "explore some 9/11 issue together".

Stunningly clueless. Amazingly masochistic.

There is one, and only one, mystery that I'd ever consider "exploring together with you", bs.

"The Mysterious Pathology Of People Who Enjoy Public Self-Humiliation"

You want to traipse down that path, lemme know.

Oh Dear...that's a shame. The Readers will be disappointed. Still, don't worry Readers we will have it out in the open soon enough..Perhaps some other debunker (like Sarge maybe) would like to take it for a spin around the block with me ?

 

[tfk]

Well, it appears that Derek has left the building.

... again ...

The conversation got a little too uncomfortable for his taste.

It is evident to me that he realized that he was between a rock & a hard place.

He realized that he could not answer my request for a competent sketch of the forces & moments on Col 79 just before buckling. That the only sketch that he could produce for his "easy critical buckling load analysis" was the completely irrelevant (and analytically incompetent) single beam with simple supports on each end.

He realized that his "Lagrangian dissipation factor" was essentially irrelevant to the argument, and that fact would become obvious as soon as we began to discuss it.

He realized that he could not answer a dozen other questions that people put to him.

So, rather than stick around & face the truth, he decided to take a powder.

Thereby allowing himself to continue to spew lies.

It's amazing how many twoofers claim to be "honestly in search of the truth". But as soon as the truth becomes undeniable, they run away & hide from it.

I fully expect Derek to be off someplace, claiming that he gave us all a good smack-down. I fully expect to come back at some point &, pretending this entire discussion never existed, continue his nonsense.

As soon as he thinks that the heat is off.

Clearly, Derek's religious convictions do not prohibit him from lying thru his teeth.

Nor does his (utterly absent) sense of professional decorum prevent him from accusing other engineers of fraud, incompetence or lying about their credentials.

Someday I expect that this will get him into some serious professional hot water.

If the engineers with whom he works learn of this level of incompetence & unprofessionalism, I predict that he'll become a pariah in short order.


tom

 

[Toke]

Someday I expect that this will get him into some serious professional hot water.

If the engineers with whom he works learn of this level of incompetence & unprofessionalism, I predict that he'll become a pariah in short order.

Unless he is really really good at compartmenting his professional and internet life.
I can't imagine any work group putting up with a member like his internet persona for long.

 

[TSR]

Now that's just crazy talk. Unless Batman has some Kryptonite handy, obviously.

.
In "The Dark Knight," Bats has a suit of powered armour and was holding his own until Bats fakes his own death.

/OT
.

 

[Oystein]

Unless he is really really good at compartmenting his professional and internet life.
I can't imagine any work group putting up with a member like his internet persona for long.

He uses his real name. Just google
"Derek Johnson" engineer
and the damage is done

 

[Toke]

He uses his real name. Just google
"Derek Johnson" engineer
and the damage is done

Kind of scary what search engines can reveal.
And quite likely something a sensible employer would use.