Mechanical Engineer Derek Johnson "Engineering Destruction"

Hello Guys,

I just found these videos. I am still watching them now.

I didn't find these videos posted on ATS, and the YT videos were posted on the 14th.

Part 1
www.youtube.com...

Part 2
www.youtube.com...

Part 3
www.youtube.com...

Part 4
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 12/18/2009 by ugie1028]

Part 5
www.youtube.com...

Part 6
www.youtube.com...

Part 7
www.youtube.com...

Part 8
www.youtube.com...

Part 9
www.youtube.com...

Part 10
www.youtube.com...

Part 11
www.youtube.com...

Cliff notes? That's a lot of video.

Sorry, I'm feeling especially lazy today.

reply to post by Nate8727


I am sort of working on it, still watching it ATM.

So far...

He is mainly talking about WTC7. he went over its design briefly, goes over the collapse and he challenges a few points in the NIST report.

Ill come back with more info in a few.

[edit on 12/18/2009 by ugie1028]

I am not that great at making cliff notes, or summaries, but ill try.

First he goes over the witnesses that heard explosions, and the video of the firefighters telling the crowd that a bomb was in the building, and then told everyone to move back away from the building.

Derek, is claiming, and supporting his findings regarding the collapse of WTC7, and the anomalies that occurred after it collapsed. Such as the molten steel, and bent I beams. he explains that I beams could not bend in the conditions that were present . they should of fractured instead of bent, this can only be caused by high temperatures. the fireproofing present should of prevented that from happening.
(also mentions that 2 1/2 months after collapse that Molten steel was still present, and goes over the difference in color of molten aluminum compared to molten steel.)

Molten steel looks like a bright orange, and aluminum's color while molten aluminum is silver.

He then talks about thermite, and thermate as possible causes to the structural failure of WTC7.

Those were my notes of interest.

He goes over some other evidences as well. i think its best that people see the video, and then comment on the thread.

[edit on 12/18/2009 by ugie1028]

OK, i am officially done with the video.

he covers the same things that has been mentioned before, but in a little more detail. he explains that he wants the actual buildings plans, so he can build an accurate #d model, and simulate the collapse of WTC7. this is a very informative video, and i suggest people watch it.

Its been about 2 hours since ive posted this, anyone have a chance to watch it yet?

Originally posted by ugie1028
Derek, is claiming, and supporting his findings regarding the collapse of WTC7, and the anomalies that occurred after it collapsed. Such as the molten steel, and bent I beams. he explains that I beams could not bend in the conditions that were present . they should of fractured instead of bent, this can only be caused by high temperatures.

Joel Meyerowitz was a photographer who was allowed onto the ground zero site during the cleanup, and he took many photos to document what was found. His photos show the WTC steel was fractured AND bent, depending on where the particular piece of steel was in the building. Some were even twisted in ghastly shapes before tearing like a sheet of paper, while others still were broken at the rivets. There wasn't any one single condition that all the steel was found in.

Derek Johnson is a young man from Texas who has his head screwed on straight. He's a true American patriot and a Jeffersonian. God Bless him.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Thats because they used super nano thermite. Thats why they hauled off all the steel to China. Most crimes scenes have an investigation. In this case all the materials were hauled away.

reply to post by ugie1028


I watched a while back. its conclusive and cant be debunked. The key to unravelling the truth around 911 quite possibly rests on the shoulders of Derek. Assuming he's given the opportunity. When it's all said and done Derek could go down in history as Albert Einstein times 100.

reply to post by sprite97


Actually, there is no evidence that anyone used any type of thermite. Steven Jones discovery of red paint, estimated to be tons of material, and subsequent analyses did not show much of anything.
Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

reply to post by pteridine


how much are they paying you to spread disinfo?

Originally posted by sprite97
reply to post by pteridine

 

how much are they paying you to spread disinfo?

Your gushing quote from a previous post "When it's all said and done Derek could go down in history as Albert Einstein times 100" indicates a complete lack of technical discrimination on your part. All Derek has is a theory and, given his video, he will go down in history as sprite97 times 100.
Jones has no evidence of thermite. His entire theory has been debunked. His analyses has been shown to be faulty using his own data. Goodbye, Stevie-boy.

I just realized something from these videos and seeing some posts from Derek on www.dailypaul.com...

There is a way to determine what happened by asking certain questions.

My father was an architect and I designed buildings in his firm for 15 years. The moment I saw the buildings come down on 911, my first response was "controlled demolition". The fact that 1/3 of the buildings demolished the other 2/3's doesn't make sense to me. Basically, we are being told to believe that if you took a giant chain saw and cut the top 1/3 clean through, it's force and velocity would demolish the other 2/3's. I just don't agree with that from my design experience.

Here is what struck me though. We have so many people arguing about the wrong points of the collapse/demolition of the buildings and we are being diverted away from the real issues.

We consider that we (USA) have the best intelligence in the world. You would think that our intelligence agencies would have already possibly had a contingency plan for something like this because "surely" they would have known that this scenario was possible.

So, my question is this. How in the world did these supposed hijackers, or their entire organization for that matter, know they would get the results they got? Did they have some sort of conclusive proof that they would achieve the total destruction of 3 buildings by flying planes into them?
Did they somehow come across an unpublished study that gave them the confidence to put this plan into motion? Certainly, they wouldn't leave to chance the biggest terrorist operation in the history of the world. Was the total destruction of the buildings their original plan or did they just want to put a scar on the American public by hitting targets with planes only to "get lucky" and have the buildings fall in their favor? Were they "structural engineers" as well as pilots?

They certainly didn't just wake up one morning and plan this. It took someone many years of planning and lots of study to find out the best points to hit so as to do as much damage as possible.

If it have been me planning this from an original set of blueprints, I would have said, "Let's pick something else, that building is "designed" to withstand our impact and it won't do much damage". But somehow, these backwoods terrorists who could barely fly a Piper Cub, were able to hit a building in such a strategically important place, that it makes 3 buildings fall from 2 airplanes!!!!

I want to know where they got their information to plan this...That would certainly answer alot of questions in my mind...

Comments? Interjection?


peas

reply to post by theonlyrusty


all Derek wants is to make this information available for everyone to have, have their own look at, and make their own decision.

He also wants the designs of the buildings to create an accurate 3d model of the collapse. he was stating that the damage to the lower part of WTC7 wasn't enough to cause the collapse, nor was the fire hot enough to cause so much structural failure.

this whole thing about the truth movement is to have an open independent investigation, that isn't infected by govt insiders who were running the show. (the main causes of the infighting during the commission report.) they were taking out witness testimonies such as Rodriguez's, and him hearing explosions below him, plus many other witnesses who were not factored into the report. (WHY!?)

I say let them have their independent investigation, if they find something new, great, they can work with it, but if they find the same thing that they found in NIST, and the commission report, then the 9/11 OS skeptics such as myself, can finally let it rest.

BTW, thanks for sharing your professional thoughts on the matter. i have worked with concrete for a few years, breaking and making it. i find it hard to believe that concrete and steel from all the buildings simultaneously failed in each collapse, turning the concrete into dust, and molten steel being found in the debris, when fuel only reaches half the temperature needed to melt steel.

[edit on 12/19/2009 by ugie1028]

thanks for the reply ugie....

I have to admit, my mind is now going haywire trying to figure out how the supposed hijackers "could have known" they would get the results they did.

They certainly didn't just say, "Let's try flying some planes into the buildings and see what happens" They had to have a plan that took lots of time to put together and would have had to study the blueprints, Structural steel drawings, electrical prints, etc., just to have made a "guestimate" as to what damage they might cause. Did they get what they were after, which was the total destruction of the buildings? And , if they did, what made them determine to hit the buildings the way they did? I would think this would certainly be something the Official Investigators would want to know so they could use this as a study for safety procedures for other high rise buildings. I mean, if it is a well know architectural fact out there that all you have to do is strike a concrete building with a plane at a certain floor, this should be seen all over the world at this very moment.

Just wondering where these guys could have obtained this information and what made them determine that it would work is something that is making me start to smell the stench of a coverup.

How did they "KNOW" that the buildings would come crashing down from hitting them with planes?


peas

reply to post by theonlyrusty


we may never know, but lets just say they did know about these flaws, from the blueprints or the design, then HOW COME architects, cant get their hands on them to build accurate 3D models like derek is trying to do?

I've seen some copies of the blueprints on the internet and I can assure you that the taking out of particular columns would not have caused the damage like it did.

The architectural firm that designed the buildings even put in designs for earthquakes, hurricane winds of over 230 mph and planes hitting the buildings.

Something still seems fishy to me. I think the scenario needs to be worked backwards to see how they (whomever) determined they could take the buildings out by hitting them the way they did.

Why not higher up on the building or lower down on the 30th floor?

I will be looking into this a little more in depth now....

peas

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ugie1028
Derek, is claiming, and supporting his findings regarding the collapse of WTC7, and the anomalies that occurred after it collapsed. Such as the molten steel, and bent I beams. he explains that I beams could not bend in the conditions that were present . they should of fractured instead of bent, this can only be caused by high temperatures.

Joel Meyerowitz was a photographer who was allowed onto the ground zero site during the cleanup, and he took many photos to document what was found. His photos show the WTC steel was fractured AND bent, depending on where the particular piece of steel was in the building. Some were even twisted in ghastly shapes before tearing like a sheet of paper, while others still were broken at the rivets. There wasn't any one single condition that all the steel was found in.

He found molten steel however, which indicates foul play.