Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

No, I am comparing the scientific method with the scientific method. Why do you ask?

And I'm comparing the availability of physical evidence.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

And I'm comparing the availability of physical evidence.

So what physical evidence is available to those who study black holes?

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

And I'm comparing the availability of physical evidence.

We have to work with the evidence we have, not the evidence we'd like to have.

Not having "column 79" or whatever does nothing to disprove the basic conclusions we draw from the evidence and engineering knowledge we do have that shows that protracted fire and lack of firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

[dtugg]

I demand to see the iceberg that supposedly sunk the Titanic. Otherwise I am going to believe that it was an inside jobby job.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by dtugg

I demand to see the iceberg that supposedly sunk the Titanic. Otherwise I am going to believe that it was an inside jobby job.

Source

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Bell

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ic_iceberg.jpg

Source

Here's some Youtube video from 1912 that proves something or other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0K-P9hSSWM

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by Bell

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ic_iceberg.jpg

Source

Where is it now? Doesn't exist anymore? How convenient.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Where is it now? Doesn't exist anymore? How convenient.

Shipped off to China

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

So what physical evidence is available to those who study black holes?

Do you really want to risk starting another Jerome da Gnome "no evidence of black holes" thread?

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

WTF is wrong with you?

I'm not the one saying there is "no problem" with a 1/2 billion pound building that drops unopposed for 100'.

Originally Posted by A W Smith

I posted a direct link to the NIST report which shows the girder layout of the initiation floors. You can see plain as day that there is nothing to restrain...[snip]

Thanks for that link AW, but I hate to disagree (ok that's not true) but there is something to restrain indeed. The girders are all tied to the concrete deck above via the welded shear studs every foot or so, and they may be doubled up (or more) on such a structure as this. The metal deck is not shown in the direct link (NIST report) you provided me, but this metal deck as well as the steel reinforcement within the concrete slab sort of nukes your usage of the word "nothing" in this context of NIST's thermal expansion woo. There is actually much that restrains the west face of the beam (girder) connecting 44 to 79, not to mention all the other laterally attached beams, girders, and diagonal bracing with A36 welded built up in this area of the building. This renders thermal expansion non sequitur from the "walking girder" hypothesis.

Originally Posted by A W Smith

to restrain the west face of the beam connecting 44 to 79 from thermal expansion of the row of girders terminating on the east face of that beam. It doesn't even need to be pushed off its seat.

It doesn't even need to be pushed off its seat? What-ever-you-say, sir.

Originally Posted by A W Smith

All it has to do is be deflected enough to become eccentric and it will rotate off its seats and collapse.

By your logic, why not just an angry look or a growl with one eye squinted? Maybe just a fart will do...

What about the 1"-1.5" dia (or so) AISC 490 bolts at the top and bottom of this connection, and the 3/8" (at least) 4"x4" angle clip that is welded to the column flange? How in Hades does this connection just "rotate off its seat AW? And collapse? There is no dearth of redundancy here, which makes this WTC 7 root cause suspect to a closer look. Btw, do you realize that the FEA individual connection results (von Mises stress strain gradients) are not shown, the input geometry not released, the assumptions are vague, and the global response on pg 76 of the same report bears no resemblance to the video? And Dr. Kirkpatrick claims (to me) there was more going on in there than just this magic 79 to 44 thermal expansion woo, but he wouldn't tell me what. There was something more, what is it, and where is the independent corroborated or challenged FEA to this ARA woo? Furthermore, the NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 p 245 to 246 states

"...A couple of minutes prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m., a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. NIST found no evidence regarding the cause of this unusual behavior, the behavior is similar to smoke and flame expulsions in the WTC towers prior to their collapses that were attributed to pressure pulses associated with structural changes (e.g. a partial floor collapse) occurring within the tower."

Would partially collapsed floors pushing flames out be unusual or would something manipulating the columns jetting flames out the window be unusual? So what does NIST offer to back up its "walking girder" woo? Did NIST conduct any lab analysis with a full scale beam-column welded shear stud metal deck supporting a steel reinforced partial slab in a furnace in an effort to replicate the simulation results? You'd think they might think to do this since this is the first time in steel framed building history that a building globally collapsed due to "thermal expansion". As for the sagging effect (graph NCSTAR 1-9 V2 p 55), sag effects need to be subtracted from the lengthening effects of thermal expansion. Flange/web/stiffener warping will also consume distance and should be subtracted from any elongation from and assumed forces of thermal expansion, but even with this stated, and assuming that this beam was not cross connected to other beams (it was) and not attached to the reinforced concrete deck above via shear studs (it was) it theoretically did not have enough expansive linear distance to clear the seat. The adjacent and intersecting beams and columns are actually well within the elastic limits (20% for A36 and A36 derivatives) of the steel and steel connections. Steel structure beam to beam, beam to column connections have been bolted, welded, riveted or a combination thereof for a 100 years, with no significant "thermal expansion" sheering problems during much hotter fires for much greater durations, which is one reason this nonsense does not even register as a design consideration, if it has even once, please correct my error.

Originally Posted by A W Smith

There is even an animation showing the mode of failure of this key connecting beam. Are you being deliberately obtuse to promote an agenda? or are you truly that ignorant?

Are you truly that ignorant? So the animation is proof? Their BS animation, this mockery of science animation they call "collapse initiation"? Brilliant AW Smith, if I had but only known.... the animation you are alluding to is the NIST "collapse initiation", right? If so, I'd like to talk specifically about it, it's worth a conversation. But where is the FEA survey showing more that a crude mesh node layout and the von Mises stress array of this "walking girder" connection at each cross connecting beam intersection, shear stud, stud to concrete, concrete to reinforcement, concrete to bent plate, bent plate to column? I don't see much more that a half baked effort Would it be too much to ask if someone besides ARA used their assumptions and IGES to cross check and see if they can overcome the A490 bolts, such as what NIST is feeding us with their "collapse initiation" animation. And you are ok with this animation, right?

Originally Posted by A W Smith

In part seven of your "presentation" you assert that the columns themselves have to fail first , "the bolts. the connections". When that's not true at all.

No no, I'm trying to figure out how we even get to Pcr in the first place, whatever the failure mode and/or sequence. I see floors just tumbling down like a dandelion in the “collapse initiation” animation (that you are courageous enough to point to as “proof”, but…what-ever-you-say). But, with 81 A36 w14x740 w/robust A36 built up, I don't see it and don't buy it, and I'd like independent FEA to zero in on this alone, never mind the lateral support for the time being, I just want to see how they even get to Pcr with the known building data and normal means and method anomalies. If Pcr is reached, somehow, then I want to see how the plastic deformation was so severe that no opposition was made for 100', even removing lateral and deck attachment, this is nothing short of a case for skepticism. Is there a reason the Metals Handbook Vol 10, p. 58 "Failure Analysis and Prevention" - 8th ed ASM 1978 states "ductile fractures are characterized by tearing of metal accompanied by appreciable gross plastic deformation and expenditure of considerable energy."? Would this considerable energy slow the observed "unopposed" collapse down if Pcr was overcome, as they claim? If not, why not? Why is compressive failure mode not listed in this same book for structural steels such as A36?


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/m...oorfailure.jpg[/quote]

I'd like to see your photo, but the link is broken, please repost. And thanks AW for your replies, although I disagree big time with your faith in the NIST woo, I appreciate your time to help me get this sorted out...same to the rest.

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

Why do I have the feeling I've read all this before? Judy Wood has a PhD in material engineering and she believes ray guns in space turned the WTC buildings into dust. There are people on this cite claiming to be medical students who advocate this claim. That's not my point. There are nut cases who believe in all kinds of things: UFOs, ESP, that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life.

Scott, thanks a lot again for your reply and choosing a discussion path other than ad hominem.

Agreed Scott, I have a friend who moved to the other side of our planet because she was so spooked out by hooga boogas. Every internet-borne or otherwise conspiracy was presented to me via e-mail. Some conspiracy theories provide evidence that merits a further look, most don't. 100 mpg carburetors, for example, just do not exist and never have. Science and technology are more than enough to prove this conclusively with no additional need to mention that 100 mpg carbs (at least) are being withheld via goverment owned oil cartels.

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

Timothy Leary had a PhD from UC Berkeley and taught at Harvard. But there is no professional problem with the idea that the WTC buildings collapsed because of planes and fire. As I said Derek, there are hundreds of technical papers that address aspects of the WTC collapses. There are no textbooks and no professors anywhere teaching what you are talking about.

Actually, there are more than a few well qualified individuals who are skeptical of the WTC 7 events, as am I. This is far far from Judy Wood's uh, stuff, and metaphysical and religious beliefs. Since you brought it up, I was taking a structures class fall 2001 with an emphasis on structural FEA, and from what I remember the prof's comment was something like the bumble bee theory, he didn't know how but somehow it did. I wasn't strongly skeptical until the 2008 NIST final. Some of my problems with the thermally expanded walking girder are contained in my response to AW Smith's post...but in the end Scott, I hope you are right and I am wrong.

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

It is not a professional issue. 911 Truth is the not most devisive issue in America. There is no murmmer of doubt about 911 among construction professionals.

Actually, that's not true, not in my experience anyway. It's not constant, but its there, and I'm not the one who brings it up when it does come up...usually.

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

So Derek what exactly is that you're saying engineering departments aren't teaching their students about 911?

When it comes to "protecting the public health, safety, and welfare", the "lessons learned" from the "design flaws" in WTC 7 should absolutely be mulled over and worked out. NIST recommended such, are they? It hasn't hit central Texas yet.

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

What exactly is it that engineering journals aren't publishing? That rivers of molter steel were flowing underneath the WTC for weeks? Tell me how you know this? Tell me why this is important? Otherwise you just get chucked into that garbage heap of stuff that people have said before and got ignored because it was meaningless. But then, maybe you don't care.

I do care, and I'm listening to all that can provide to me what NIST has failed to provide...real answers.

There are no two stranger things to me about the 9-11 conspiracy theory than

1. Molten steel/iron/metal witnessed and
2. the 100' unopposed WTC 7 drop.

The NIST animations are not far behind. But Tom (TFK) asked me to come here in January to discuss the things I brought up in Plano last summer. And I exchanged some witness statements regarding the WTC cleanup...it seems pretty strange, I know pretty well how hard it is to melt steel outside of a control volume. Here they are:

A New York City firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...cidfeed&hl=en#

A public health advisor, Ron Burger, who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html

Sarah Atlas an employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing] and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.“

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/new...2002/k911.html

Alison Geyh, PhD, the head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.“

http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.“

http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...11_commission/

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures“.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/ny...rld-trade.html

Lee Turner, a rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow-molten metal dripping from a beam"

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/ar...11memories.htm

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...lance&n=283155

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."

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/e...debris_06.html

Dr. Keith Eaton, an engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event.“

http://web.archive.org/web/200311171...02-NewYork.pdf

Vance Deisingmore, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel.“

http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm

Greg Fuchek, LinksPoint. Inc said "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"

http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/h...ery-tasks.aspx

Guy Lounsbury, a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.“

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_n9015802/

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December.“

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

A (NYC) fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11. And guessed that it was 1500 degrees. He pointed out “bright bright reddish orange” steel six weeks later.

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/v...ow_quality.wmv

Kathy Dawkins, A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains....“

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.“

http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

http://www.fallenbrothers.com/commun...=2948#post2948

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by DGM

I found this little piece of information concerning Derek's video(s) telling as to the impact of his presentation.


Views Part #

1=2886
2 =1185
3 =798
4 =647
5 =671
6 =480
7 =496
8 =442

It's obvious he lost his viewers attention as the presentation progressed but, what is significant is the number of viewers that didn't skip ahead to the end to see what he had to say in conclusion. This is the equivalent to people walking out.

Derek, I hope you can see the significance in this and maybe translate this into the relevance of what you feel happened on 9/11.

Actually, I'm surprised it got that much interest DGM. After all, there are so many hollywood stars to read about, tv to watch, drugs tobacco and alcohol to consume, sports teams to root for...who would even have time or care about a 1/2 baked NIST report that gives credence to our foreign policy decisions?

So DGM, you can explain the 100' WTC 7 drop or molten steel/iron/metal seen in the cleanup?

And you agree with the NIST WTC 7 animations as well?

[R.Mackey]

Not one person in there who did any actual testing.

And molten steel months afterward is a strike against your conspiracy theory, if you ever get around to stating one, that is. Any "thermite" or demolition of any kind would have extinguished long, long before then. Under any scenario whatsoever, the only thing burning months later is the normal office furnishings, and if that's sufficient to melt steel, well then...

As usual, you refute yourself, if you were only clever enough to understand your own posting.

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

You're a serial spam artist with nothing to say. You do not merit a response. All of the "issues" you're complaining about have been beat to death here dozens of times, if you bothered to look.

Over a year ago I clearly set out the threshold of interest that a Truther has to meet to gain my attention. I am not optimistic about your chances of passing this test. Good luck to you.

*bows to Ryan*
*bows to Ryan again*
*bows to Ryan again, and again and again*

not worthy, not worthy, not worthy...

1. Molten metal/steel/iron testimonies, man up Ryan.
2. 100' unopposed drop of building 7, bottom line.
3. NIST models bear any resemblance to the video

Good luck on these 3 questions, oh mighty and exalted debunking prime mover.

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

if that's sufficient to melt steel, well then...

But please oh mighty and exalted prime mover, do finish your thought....the 9-11 debunking world is about to hit a new climax.

[R.Mackey]

If you really need it spelled out word for word:

if that's sufficient to melt steel, well then melted steel is not proof of an extraordinary fire.

Leaving you with nothing, not even your own incredulity.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

So what physical evidence is available to those who study black holes?

hey, the guys at the LHC are working on that

[Scott Sommers]

Derek, you've been reduced to name calling now. The question is, do you expect anyone to take you seriously? As I said, this may look cool to your friends and position you as a leader in your Christian faith, but is that what you want? Do you think what you've written here would leave anyone convinced you're right? It's your business, of course.

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

if that's sufficient to melt steel

Is it then, oh mighty mighty 9-11 debunking tutelary?

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

Derek, you've been reduced to name calling now. The question is, do you expect anyone to take you seriously? As I said, this may look cool to your friends and position you as a leader in your Christian faith, but is that what you want? Do you think what you've written here would leave anyone convinced you're right? It's your business, of course.

"Threshold of interest"...Scott? Is it possible to take yourself so seriously?

No worries Scott, we'll be buddies some day...for now, I've got to come down from "threshold of interest".

Good one Ryan...

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

Is it then, oh mighty mighty 9-11 debunking tutelary?

You respond like this, and wonder why no one takes you seriously?

I thought you were an engineering student? You can learn quite a lot from folks here, myself included, if you drop the blinders and the attitude.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

2. 100' unopposed drop of building 7, bottom line.

What exactly do you mean by unopposed? How fast should it have dropped and why? Please show your math.

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

You respond like this, and wonder why no one takes you seriously?

I thought you were an engineering student? You can learn quite a lot from folks here, myself included, if you drop the blinders and the attitude.

Ryan, no problem, dropped. And one of those persons I will surely learn from is you. My apologies, seriously.

Please read my respond to AW above, if you'd like, and if I'm out of bounds...please show me my error. Same for my presentation if you have the time.

Thanks bud...and to the rest.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

*bows to Ryan*
*bows to Ryan again*
*bows to Ryan again, and again and again*

not worthy, not worthy, not worthy...

1. Molten metal/steel/iron testimonies, man up Ryan.
2. 100' unopposed drop of building 7, bottom line.
3. NIST models bear any resemblance to the video

Good luck on these 3 questions, oh mighty and exalted debunking prime mover.

steel is a metal and so is Iron.
is there any indication that the spottet metall is steel or iron?
does anyone know what kind of metal those people saw?

molten metal is not unusual. molten steeel would. but was it steel? if yes, how do you know it is steel?

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

What exactly do you mean by unopposed? How fast should it have dropped and why? Please show your math.

The WTC 7 100' drop fell (accelerated) at very close to the acceleration of gravity (for roughly 2.25 seconds). This means roughly 8 floors offered no opposition to this change in downward velocity...it increased speed for 100 feet, not decreased speed. How is that even possible?

This frames an important consideration, what are the range of possible events that could cause such a thing? This is why the WTC 7 FEA should be far from finished.

It would be really nice to have an agreed upon IGES set (which ARA and NIST won't divulge because of "national security"), and explore the NIST claims as well as the range of possibilities that could cause about 63 million pounds of structure to offer nelgigible resistance to the 100' downward collapse (t=0 at the roofline drop, not the E & W penthouse descent). It would be nice if the community outside of NIST and ARA could substantiate or challenge the NIST/ARA claims...their root cause is something that is a bit skeptic inducing...as a welder, as a sand crab and as an engineer.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

You respond like this, and wonder why no one takes you seriously?

I thought you were an engineering student? You can learn quite a lot from folks here, myself included, if you drop the blinders and the attitude.

It seems Derek realizes he hasn't said anything that anyone can take seriously. This reminds me of Kevin Barrett out looking for the living suicide pilots. When he started, it was appeals to religious authority and statements about honesty. When he couldn't find anyone, it all became a joke.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

The WTC 7 100' drop fell (accelerated) at very close to the acceleration of gravity (for roughly 2.25 seconds). This means roughly 8 floors offered no opposition to this change in downward velocity...it increased speed for 100 feet, not decreased speed. How is that even possible?

What is "very close to the acceleration of gravity"? If it is "very close to the acceleration of gravity" doesn't it imply that it wasn't actually the acceleration of gravity? Doesn't this imply that there actually was some sort of opposition? This is the number I want you to quantify and explain how this number is in any way surprising based on the properties of the structure, the structural steel, and the conditions of each.

And why the heck would the speed decrease^*? Was gravity supposed to turn itself off for a few seconds?



* - Meh, this is starting to remind me of Mr. Szamboti and his confusion between velocity and acceleration.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

The WTC 7 100' drop fell (accelerated) at very close to the acceleration of gravity (for roughly 2.25 seconds). This means roughly 8 floors offered no opposition to this change in downward velocity...it increased speed for 100 feet, not decreased speed. How is that even possible?

This frames an important consideration, what are the range of possible events that could cause such a thing? This is why the WTC 7 FEA should be far from finished.

It would be really nice to have an agreed upon IGES set (which ARA and NIST won't divulge because of "national security"), and explore the NIST claims as well as the range of possibilities that could cause about 63 million pounds of structure to offer nelgigible resistance to the 100' downward collapse (t=0 at the roofline drop, not the E & W penthouse descent). It would be nice if the community outside of NIST and ARA could substantiate or challenge the NIST/ARA claims...their root cause is something that is a bit skeptic inducing...as a welder, as a sand crab and as an engineer.

this behavior of a collapsing building, is this usual for CD's of such buildings?
what CD's have you studied in contrast of the WTC 7 collapse?

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

It seems Derek realizes he hasn't said anything that anyone can take seriously. This reminds me of Kevin Barrett out looking for the living suicide pilots. When he started, it was appeals to religious authority and statements about honesty. When he couldn't find anyone, it all became a joke.

Scott, nobody has to take me seriously here, but unfortunately these 3 questions do have merit.

Is anyone here or elsewhere is strong enough to answer them?

1. Does the molten metal/steel/iron testimonies have a lucid explanation?

2. Does the 100' unopposed drop of building 7 have a reasonable explanation?

3. Do the NIST WTC 7 models and animations bear any resemblance to the videoed collapse of WTC 7?

Please turn you attention away from me, and onto these 3 questions Scott, thanks bud.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

Scott, nobody has to take me seriously here, but unfortunately these 3 questions do have merit.

Is anyone here or elsewhere is strong enough to answer them?

1. Does the molten metal/steel/iron testimonies have a lucid explanation?

2. Does the 100' unopposed drop of building 7 have a reasonable explanation?

3. Do the NIST WTC 7 models and animations bear any resemblance to the videoed collapse of WTC 7?

Please turn you attention away from me, and onto these 3 questions Scott, thanks bud.

Do you still argue/hit/rape your girlfriend?

what evidence is there to support the /steel /Iron after the molten metal? found

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

^...
1. Molten metal/steel/iron testimonies, man up Ryan.
2. 100' unopposed drop of building 7, bottom line.
3. NIST models bear any resemblance to the video
...

It is not clear at all how answer to this question would bear at all on the question how the WTC7 initiated.
1. How does molten steel prove it didn't fall due to uncontrolled fires?
2. How would any other initiation mode but uncontrolled fire explain the 100' unopposed drop?

It would be extremely helpful if you could provide us with a hypothesis, so we have something to test and discuss.

You do realize that progress in science is achieved by advancing new theories to improve on old ones?

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

Scott, nobody has to take me seriously here, but unfortunately these 3 questions do have merit.

Is anyone here or elsewhere is strong enough to answer them?

1. Does the molten metal/steel/iron testimonies have a lucid explanation?

2. Does the 100' unopposed drop of building 7 have a reasonable explanation?

3. Do the NIST WTC 7 models and animations bear any resemblance to the videoed collapse of WTC 7?

Please turn you attention away from me, and onto these 3 questions Scott, thanks bud.

1. Molten metals are easily explained by your own earlier post where you showed eyewitness comments about the hot fires inside the pile.

2. I'll leave that to the competent enginners that we have here.

3. The NIST animations show what was going on inside the buildings. Adding the exterior cladding would obscure the very thing that they were trying to show. Even I as a non engineer can understand that simple concept.

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

What is "very close to the acceleration of gravity"?

You have frames of video and there is a finite amount of them. Comparing frames is how NIST and others arrived at what is close to a 9.8 m/s^2 (32 ft/s^2) acceleration, which matches gravity, or significantly so.

Originally Posted by Hokulele

If it is "very close to the acceleration of gravity" doesn't it imply that is wasn't actually the acceleration of gravity?

The fact that it is close to gravity releases a sudden awareness that the columns didn't just buckled as NIST claims, worse still, these columns either got out of the way (somehow) or went into a complete brittle failure mode (somehow). A36 steel does not behave like that.

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Doesn't this imply that there actually was some sort of opposition?

Like what, marshmallow columns?

Originally Posted by Hokulele

This is the number I want you to quantify and explain how this number is in any way surprising based on the properties of the structure, the structural steel, and the conditions of each.

A36 W14x740 w/the built up shown here (link to it below please) on 96 of 275 (report page 36) is suggesting 500-700 lbs of built up on figure 2-24 "typical built-up column details". This column in AISC's Steel Construction or Engineer's Toolbox will give you a Pcr (critical buckling load) of 20,000,000 lb for this particular built-up column arrangement...easy, and Euler's classical eq based on the modulus (stress/strain ratio) and 2nd moment will go higher still, the pinning was under 12 feet, rendering the slenderness ratio favorable to resisting such drastic things like a total collapse at the acceleration of gravity. Bottom line, this means that only 3, certainly 4 such columns will theoretically statically hold the roughly 63,000,000 lbm 8-story section(s) that allowed the structure to collapse unopposed for 100 feet. Since there are 81 columns…not 4... "factor of safety" comes quickly to mind.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf

Originally Posted by Hokulele

And why the heck would the speed decrease^*? Was gravity supposed to turn itself off for a few seconds?

Are structural steel, reinforcing steel, electrode filler and concrete highly compressible? Then how could the downward movement pick up speed as videoed?

Anyone?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

...
It would be really nice to have an agreed upon IGES set (which ARA and NIST won't divulge because of "national security"),

Would you care to substantiate this accusation by citing a reference?

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

...and explore the NIST claims as well as the range of possibilities that could cause about 63 million pounds of structure to offer nelgigible resistance to the 100' downward collapse (t=0 at the roofline drop, not the E & W penthouse descent). It would be nice if the community outside of NIST and ARA could substantiate or challenge the NIST/ARA claims...their root cause is something that is a bit skeptic inducing...as a welder, as a sand crab and as an engineer.

It would be nice if the truther community could at least formulate a hypothesis that would explain the 100' drop, and make testable predictions.

[DC]

i can understand his trouble with the FEA of WTC7, it really doesnt fit the video observation of the collapse to well.

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

1. Molten metals are easily explained by your own earlier post where you showed eyewitness comments about the hot fires inside the pile..

How did these molten metals melt?

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

2. I'll leave that to the competent engineers that we have here.

So will I...

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

3. The NIST animations show what was going on inside the buildings. Adding the exterior cladding would obscure the very thing that they were trying to show. Even I as a non engineer can understand that simple concept.

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

Scroll over to about 6:30. I show the NIST animation (w/structural damage modeled I think) of WTC 7. As a engineer or non engineer, can you see the resemblance to the video collapse just to the right...I showed this as well immediately afterwards? Same thing, right?

[DC]

Quote:

How did these molten metals melt?

how do you usualy melt metals?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

...
The fact that it is close to gravity releases a sudden awareness that the columns didn't just buckled as NIST claims, worse still, these columns either got out of the way (somehow) or went into a complete brittle failure mode (somehow). A36 steel does not behave like that.

How about: The columns bend and break? Like at the 8th floor?
What would then keep the upper 38 floors suspended in air and stop them drom falling at free fall speed?

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

...
...Bottom line, this means that only 3, certainly 4 such columns will theoretically statically hold the roughly 63,000,000 lbm 8-story section(s) that allowed the structure to collapse unopposed for 100 feet. Since there are 81 columns…not 4... "factor of safety" comes quickly to mind.
...

Huh? Are you saying 4 columns would have sufficed to hold the building up?? Nonsense much?
Are you saying we need not consider dynamic loads? Ignorance much?

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

Are structural steel, reinforcing steel, electrode filler and concrete highly compressible? Then how could the downward movement pick up speed as videoed?

Anyone?

Again, once perimeter columns bend and break several floor up, all that's above them will fall with g.
This is really easy to understand.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Derek Johnson

How did these molten metals melt?
...

What could possibly cause a collapse AND result in molten metals very long after the end of collapse?
Is there any hypothesis at all?

I am sick of truthers "just asking questions" but being too lazy to come up with answers!

[Derek Johnson]

Originally Posted by DC

how do you usualy melt metals?

With petro coke and min. 200 cfm air through four 2.5" tuyeres into 9.5" ID after several hours of preheat.

Anything close to this happen inside WTC?