Jeff King says explosives are the only thing to reduce concrete to powder- hey I'm no demo expert- but can regular demo charges or explosives pulverize everything into a fine powder- its seems that something even more powerful than conventional explosives- top secret military grade stuff- was used if it was the gov't.
He makes it sound pretty easy to plant tonnes of high explosives around the structure of a massive office building containing thousands of people wondering what your up to drilling all those holes in the walls and floor. Much was made of the "unusual powerdown" and evacuation drills, yet no comment about how much of the place was cleared and for how long. Controlled demolition companies spend weeks tearing apart a building before they blow it up. And clearly the man lied about his qualifications
Its so sad what happen`d in Sept 11.2001 but whats more sad is what the Bush Government did to its own country by attacking its own country and people. Very sick people in this world Bush should have been thrown into the building and watch his own dirty work fall on him
The fact that you are yelling shows you don't really believe what you are saying yourself.
I know this is scary stuff, but you really should study the history of the US. We have done and suggested stuff like this before, long before you played your first video game.
i think almost no one wants to fight a war for their own mind. that's the most scary to them.
haha! most people don't realize their part of the problem because they let their emotions dictate who gets their allegiance. Like a bunch of robots programmed by public opinion since early childhood in fucked up schools that flunk out most their students but always want more money and more monopoly of your kid's minds. it's funny to me when families don't even want to teach their own kids
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Man it's really sad - that MIT has aclown that asserts this less than scientific nonsense!
It's really sad that there are people that hate their own country so much that they want you to believe that our government had something to do with this!
Nobody hates Bush more than me but this is rediculous!
What a giant crock of shit. It's plainly obvious, even to a lay-person, that the steel was heated to the point of *softening* and then it gave way. No, it wasn't melted down to molten steel. It WAS heated to the point of *flexibility* .. Look at the impact area, and then add all the tons of concrete and steel above it onto what would be softened metal. Idiot truthers..*sighs*
The way steel is affected by heat and stress has been tested and long before this happened. The pancake theory is based on science that is not new!
The buildings that were made with huge timbers are actually more fire resistant because the huge timbers only burn on the surface . once they have burned in about an inch from the surface oxygen can't suupport the flame anymore.
Steel softens under extreme heat and thus fatigue that results in failure!
So you are saying that the extreme heat was not caused by the plane, but some other factor? You seem to know a lot about this, I'd like to get your opinion, but from what you have written... can't tell what you are saying exactly. So the timbers supported the steel? Never heard about the timbers, seems to be a proof on the deep support of the structure.
CanadaForce, nothing personal but, it's obvious you haven't spent any time checking out these claims you keep posting and I don't have the time nor inclination to explain to you EVERY SINGLE conspiracy claim. I suggest you do some research on your own.
It is a very stupid thing to only read ONE side of the story( the conspiracies) and not do a fact or reality check on their claims. Remember the titanium plane claim that became a titanium engine claim which is also not correct!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Flight 77 could not have flown at those speeds without going to into a high speed stall. The plane cannot go that fast while performing a high G maneuver the plane would have fallen out of the sky"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why do you keep ignoring the facts of flight 93? why wont you address any thing I have said about that? Has your Superior only trained on the WTC(s) and the Pentagon?
"Why do you keep ignoring the facts of flight 93?" - CanadaForce
OK some facts for you. 95% of the plane was recovered, the biggest piece of the aircraft which was found was a piece of the outer portion of the fuselage, which measures about 6 feet by 7 feet and included four windows. The heaviest piece found was a part of an engine fan weighing about 1,000 pounds, Crowley[FBI spokesperson] said.
Don't forget eyewitnesses, oh wait they work for the guberment too I guess!
Yeah all of that was cleaned up just in time for reports to get there and see NOTHING?? The managed to clean up the WHOLE plane, bodies, fire and smoke just in time for reporters to get there and see absolutely nothing. Not only that but the black scar in the ground was there since 1994. You can check it for yourself on Google earth. Do you ever think?? Or are you trying to manipulate?
As a point of fact, the towers did not "melt", the steel was heated enough so that it lost its strength causing failure and collapse. A key part of the equation is the explosive strength of a jet full of fuel--(that is measureable) yet the conspiracy crowd does not seem to address it. No conspiracy here.
Steel melts at 2777 degrees fahrenheit while jet fuel only burns at 1517. So steel will just fail and collapse at that certain temperature? Oh but the explosive power of jet fuel would do it? No you jackass. And I honestly don't think what you have to say means shit compared to an MIT engineer..
Inside job 100%!!! If you done beleive, who are you working for? And how do we know you aren't part of the problem? I hope vlancleavterry dies a horrible death. Fuck the New world order!!! and Fuck your life...you mean nothing...
Jeff King is a former ELECTRICAL engineer and more recently a Family Practice MD. He graduated from MIT in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major. He is not a structural engineer or a physics major. He is not even remotely qualified to discuss this issue.
Had he studied the RELEVENT discipline at MIT he would have studied under Dr. Thomas Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems.... who supports the 9-11 commission findings.
"Steel keeps a lot of its structural integrity even when when heated until you begin to begin to approach the melting point" is a load of crap.
The facts are the yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less!
He claims the core columns simply collapsed into themselves which is not true because there are tons of photos of sections of bent and broken & cut(by cleanup crew)box beams. Anyone seen a single melted box beam pic?
I have seen a melted box beam picture. You're talking about yield strength which, as I understand it (after a quick wiki search) is the amount of stress required to cause 0.02% plastic strain (permanent deformation). However, if you are correct and the core didn't collapse into it's self, where did it go when the buildings came down? It came down with the buildings (it wasn't left standing), and that's what I haven't heard explained other than controlled demolition.
The confusion may be in the difference in the way JK used the phrase "collapsed into themselves" He's implying they simply melted down like candles they were so hot. This would have left giant pools of melted steel( which wasn't the case) as opposed to mechanically collasping.
BTW where did you see a "melted box beam picture"?
I don't understand how "collapsed into themselves" implies that they melted like candles. Wouldn't he have said something about melting, rather than collapsing? These are two very different processes.
I don't remember where I saw a melted box beam picture. The only one I can think of immediately is in zeitgeist but I understand that that box beam could have been cut by the cleanup crew.
theguruofreason, listen carefully to Jeff starting @ 3:49 thru 4:15
He says the columns collapsed into themselves, 'telescoped straight down" then proceeded to claim for that type of failure to happen the columns steel would have had to have reached the melting point.
There are plenty of pictures of broken and bent box columns.
theguruofreason, yes I'm saying the steel did not "melt". I do believe that the fires along with the damage caused by the plane weakened the core columns at the point of impact enough to cause a failure point which resulted in a progressive collapse( breaking and bending the core columns as it developed).
A point commonly ignored is that the core columns were not encased in concrete(like the Madrid tower) but only drywall.
The perimeter wall 10'x36' sections were held together(veritcally) by ONLY (4) 1" bolts through 1/4 flange plates for the majority of the construction. There were 6 bolts at some of the lower sections & welds at the Mechanical floors.
There is also the issue of rubber viscoelastic dampers on the floor trusses & dangers of the lightweight floor truss system in general.
NIOSH even issued a warning to firefighters about the dangers of unexpected truss collapses
"Those towers were built to with stand a plane crashing into it" - CanadaForce
Yeah and the Titanic was built to be unsinkable!
CanadaForce, the level of ignorance of facts in your posts indicate you need to step back and do at least some basic fact checking because you're making a complete fool of yourself!
"Yeah and the Titanic was built to be unsinkable!"
Are you comaring the engineering of 1911 to the engineerring of 1970? If the heat was so hot that it melted the steel in the WTC then how come there were people standing in the impact area?
Did you ever think they jumped because they couldn't breath from the smoke? Did';t you watch the video, the smoke was burning dark which means any fire was burning at a lower temperatures.
@NWOisBS What, if not heat, could melt steel? The second law of thermo tells us that heat=energy. Where did the energy come from to melt that much steel? Or are you in denial that there was molten steel up to 2700F at the bottom of all THREE buildings? Neither jet fuel nor office fires in a building that was built to code, and fireproofed with aesbestos, could provide that heat, or energy. Finally, steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so one would essentially have a 60,000 ton heat sink
Thanks for your fine example of "Argument By Gibberish" and demonstrating your total ignorance of the subject matter including the laws of thermodynamics.
What about the fact the black scar in the field was there in 1994 were flight 93 crashed? Or the fact there wasn't no trace of any plane, bodies, not even fire or smoke?Why did you totally ignore the crash of Helios in 2005, were the plane crashed into a hill side at full speed, leaving the tail section, wing section, engine and cockpit, that would have been consistent with the crash of flight 93?
"Those towers were built to with stand a plane crashing into it."
And withstand it they did. Neither of them fell when the planes hit, did they? They just couldn't withstand the subsequent fires and fireproofing damage for more then a couple hours.
How do you explain the fact that flight 93 was totaly incinerated? Or the fact the black scar in the field was there in 1994?Or the fact that the reports say the plane had crash landed and slammed into the pentagon, yet there was NO skid marks. of the fact there was also no trace of any plane, the explanation given by the investigators was the intense heat melted the plane...
"the reports say the plane had crash landed and slammed into the pentagon, yet there was NO skid marks."
Where do reports say this? Give me a source.
Hehe, I just asked a twoofer for a source. I wonder which reply I'll get? Could it be "Look it up yourself"? Maybe "you're just a shill". My all-time favorite is "I don't post links".
but the plane that crashed was made out of titanium steal with a melting point of 1699 Degrees C, the jet fuel is a hydro carbon which can retain a constant temp. of 1120 DC after 40 minutes only if the fuel is maintained. The fuel would have burned instantly upon impact. It would have been scientifically impossbile for the plane to have been completely incinerated
"the plane that crashed was made out of titanium steal " - CanadaForce
WRONG! From Boeing
Lightweight materials contribute to the overall efficiency of the 757 models. Improved aluminum alloys, primarily in the wing skins, save 610 lbs. Advanced composites such as graphite/epoxy are used in control surfaces (including rudder, elevators and ailerons), aerodynamic fairings, engine cowlings and landing gear doors for a weight savings of 1,100 lbs. BTW Fusalage is also Al.
There the only part of the engine that were found was the engine disk, I ment to say the engines were made out of titanium, and it would have been impossbile for the jet fuel to have burned the whole engine leaving just a disk The pictures you showed me show the 2 engines. Also why doesnt the video show a 757 jet slamming into the pentagon? but shows just shows a ball of fire?
CanadaForce, I can tell you have NEVER been anywhere near a commercial airliner. Only parts of the engine are made of titanium NOT the entire engine!
The pictures I showed you (from Japan) did you happen to notice the NINE FIRE ENGINES surrounding the plane? Stil most of the fuselage and port wing(including a lot of the engine) were melted away!
The video was low framerate surveillance camera.
How about all the people how actually saw the plane?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The pictures showed the 2 engines burnt not melted, this picture would be inconsistent with a plane crashing into a building. Do you really expect me to believe these "witnesses" are not from the government? come on. The people who were tracking the plane said, "The speed, the maneuverability,the way that he turned, we all thought...all of our experiences as air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane"
There was no tall section and no wing section, and no damage to the pentagon were the wing section would have hit The repots say the inteset heat vapourized the plane, yet they were able to identify bodies? How does a human body with stand such intense head and alluminan doesnt? Also the reports say that the plane skid and crashed, there were no skid marks, how come?
Also The "plane" that hit the pentagon would be the first in aviation history to have crashed and completely incinerated a plane. In Aug 2005 Helios Airways flight 522 (Boeing 737) crashed into a hill side at full speed, leaving the tail section, wing section, engine and cockpit. But the "plane" that crash landed then hit the pentagon and completed incinerated? The damage to the pentagon is completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757. The damage was a hole no large than 16 ft in diameter...
A Boeing 757 is a 155 ft long, 44 ft high and has a 124 ft wing span, and you actually believe it made a 16 ft hole? with no damages from the where wings, vertical stabilizer or the engines would have slammed into the building with the window beside the hole completely intact. No that is what someone with no logical thinking would have believed.
Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do they're blast-resistant.
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows.
If you look at photos you will also see windows(non-blast resist) broken out.
9-11 commission findings huh? and how much was he paid to support this bullshit? why do most demolition expert, engineers, architects etrc all have their doubts then. so obvious it's unreal but you go on believing your government loves you. they are fucking you in the ass and you can't even see it.
"MOST" experts are conspiracy nuts? Not even close.
But perhaps most lower middle class uneducated boobs are. It's funny that the nut cases get all excited about finding someone who once darkened a door at MIT and who believes what they believe... but when you point out that the RELEVANT people at MIT disagree with the nuts... well, then they must be part of the conspiracy!
Our government DOES screw us with all kinds of social programs... but I suspect you support those.
Jeff King is a former ELECTRICAL engineer and more recently a Family Practice MD. He graduated from MIT in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major. He is not a structural engineer or a physics major. He is not even remotely qualified to discuss this issue.
Had he studied the RELEVENT discipline at MIT he would have studied under Dr. Thomas Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems.... who supports the 9-11 commission findings.
I disagree! People who R in the field of study in even its most general forms has to understand these concepts. U r full of shit frankly. I nderstand this stuff & am not in this field of study. If anything I'd ? the credibility of those who make money @ these kinds of things militarily speaking as w/ all of the demolition CO's that get most of their business from military contracts!
There R plenty of pus-eating snibbling jackoffs who have closed minds, just look into the mirror. I have been following this stuff for some years now and based on evidence, not conspiracy theories I find it more believable than some criminal government workers. They don't make much $ either. The military contractors do, however!
the unexplainable physically impossible by natural laws of physics part of it is the lower 80 and 65 stories of undamaged structural grade steel cores falling down in a neat stack..i mean give me a break the leaning over a little at the point of impact might be plausible or a few floors collapsing on each other but those steel cores should not have come down no way no how
it might lose half its structural integrity at 650C (1202F) but that would only be on the floors of the burning office equipment, meaning that its was possible for parts of the upper floors to maybe collapse onto each other at most,but the middle core would not have ever given way from such a low temperature fire, many experts believe the fire burned at lower temperatures than even said because it was oxygen deprived being encased in that huge structure...
What about the natural gas explosions: nobody ever mentions those, no the gas in NYC was shut off that day by Dick Cheney in his secret bunker to make sure the bombs that Starvin' Marvin Bush planted didn't go off prematurely.
This man isn't even at all qualified to talk about this- Jeff King is a medical doctor who has a degree in Biology from MIT Class of 74. He is misrepresented as an Engineer by the dishonest Truth Movement to fool you suckers- if you don't believe me go check it out for yourself, he's an imposter.
You are right about the misrepresentation and I have changed the title. Instead of attacking him personally and calling him an impostor, attack the information.
Well how can you believe any of it- fact is its suspect and questionable why is a medical doctor the only person who is speaking about a topic he isn't even qualified nor has any professional credentials- no different than an electrical engineer performing surgery, his testimony as an expert in a court of law would be as valid as Donald Duck- pure fiction.
No it doesn't work that way; on Part One it clearly states on a title bar right on the video "MIT Engineer"- that is an outright lie- people who tell the truth don't lie- liars lie- this whole thing stinks. Part of the information is the fraudulent claim this man is an MIT Engineer, that means the presentation has no credibility, none. It is a manipulative and deliberately deceptive misrepresentation, besides Jeff King isn't even an engineer and neither is Charlie Sheen or Rosie O'Donnell.
Where do I say that I believe the government; of course the gov't is lying but that doesn't automatically mean the other side is telling the truth. Unfortunately there are all kinds of gullible people who believe everything they're told if it affirms their ideology regardless of what it is.
the government lies all the time. yet you still believe them.
Read the PNAC agenda, it basically outlines the whole gov't plot, the motive, the cast of characters and they ain't lying, its almost a confessional, but nobody is really doing anything about it except pounding their fists in the air in a powerless rebellion.
That is very kind of you to change the title manipulate the facts because on Jeff King part one the title nar embedded onto the video in post prod. says
"MIT Engineer/ Research Scientist. Don't you care that you are being lied to, why must they resort to such deceptive tactics- maybe they also work for the gov't.
Sure I agree it most certainly looks that way as a matter of fact there is enough stuff here on youtube which nearly proves they knew with certainty- like Norman Minetta testifying that Cheney ordered air defenses to stand down what do high level gov't op's know- both Dem's and GOP is hiding what is really going on.
"Instead of attacking him personally and calling him an impostor, attack the information."
Ok I will. The guy says "Steel keeps much of it's structural integrity until you begin to approach melting point." This couldn't be further from the truth, and proves to me he has no idea what he is talking about. Steel loses half of it's structural integrity at around 650C, nowhere near the 1500C melting point. So why did he lie about that?
@roodeey I did check him out he does have a degree from mit as an engineer , has worked as family dr. too a man of many talants - also any one with common sense is qualified to speak on this and the measure of judgement on his speach is the contents there of not if he scratches his ass when nobody is looking mr. itchyass
No his degree is in biology and he studied electrical engineering- he is not a structural engineer- it is a disgrace to the alumni of MIT- Its interesting there aren't any videos of structural engineers saying this- yeah the official theory doesn't make sense but when a movement calls itself the Truth and lies- then what ? If you overlook the misrepresentation then you deserve to be deceived or can't your pea brain figure that out.
Go to PART ONE, Jeff King says he STUDIED Physics and "did SOME electrical engineering for eight years" then he says his PATIENT told him about it- what engineer has patients- none that I have heard of- No this IS Jeff King MD Class of '74- Now why would the nice people at theTRUTH movement lie to us- why would the nice government lie to us- because they're the same people that's why. The Truther's are "Sheeple" same as regular people else being fed a line of BS.
The more I looked into the whole 911 thing the weirder it got- people in the gov't are lying for sure- there are gov't agencies that know other gov't agencies are covering up, hiding things- the 911 Comm. even said they weren't told the whole story-ie NORAD withheld info- Then there are the outright lies/misinformation from Truthers that gets repeated as fact because a "Truther" said it. One can almost prove they knew in advance from Minetta's testimony.
Usually when some authority or group claim to be the representatives of "The Truth" that is often the first sign of deception- The gov't says they stand for the Truth, as well as the authority of the church- oh and we all know they never lie, yeah right- the "truth" is the best thing to hide behind when trying to fool or mislead people. 911 isn't straight forward- its very very complicated. People who aren't experts speaking as if they were only make thing worse.
The church and The 911 commission say they stand for the Truth too and ignorant, gullible, naive people believe them as well. If one really starts to do their own independent research and puts the TM to the same level of rigorous scrutiny that the TM claim to put to the Official Story they'll find some people the TM are being deceptive as well. Passing off Jeff KIng an "MIT Engineer" is being deceptive- he studied electrical engineering at MIT- he doesn't have a degree in it.
@roodeey Actually he Studied Physics at MIT and was an Electriical Engineer for 8 years. Where does it say Jeff King has a degree in something where he doesn't? I would like to examine your claim of "deception" and investigate it.
The title was changed- there still are clips that say Jeff King MIT Engineer- he studied electrical engineering I don't believe he is a professional engineer- Its a good presentation but where are all the structural engineers- the only people really qualified to explain the collapse- its like going to a dermatologist for brain surgery because he is a medical doctor. From everything I've researched- Jeff King graduated from MIT 1974 with a degree in Biology not engineering.
@roodeey I would like to see a full Biography on this MIT Jeff King. He says he studied Physics at MIT and was an Electrical Engineer for 8 years. Mentions speaking with one of his -Patients- Sounds like this guy has some mega schooling background. Its not all clear exactly.
Is there a theory as to why the Truth Movement would be deceptive and misleading people?
@roodeey Well as I pointed out already, the "truth movement" doesn't mean they are "Representatives of the truth" It means they don't believe the official story about 9/11 and are LOOKING for the Truth.
Most of the people are sincerely looking for the truth, yes, but, there is a huge amount of misinformation thrown around that gets accepted just because its supposedly from the Truth Movement. Don't just buy everything because its from the Truth Movement.
the beauty of science is that emotionally charged arguments and silencing tactics they use in "interviews" on mainstream news. just state it, and follow the logical rules of null hypothesis, reproducible phenomenon. u have nothing, Bush, illuminati. keep using lying tactics. cause in the end youll all be in hell.
the buildings were highly redundant, meaning you'd have to knock the entire support from the bottom up to make something that well designed fall...all three of them.
No, that's no what it means, and from that description it seems you don't know what "highly redundant" is. The redundancy meant that if a certain number of the core/perimeter columns failed, the rest would hold up the building. However, once you passed a certain threshold of failures, it would all come down.
I just have one question and a comment. If the building was lined with explosives (as some believe), then wouldnt the initial impact of the planes have set them off right away?
And my comment is: Where is the live debate between the experts (pro and con), and let the people be the jury? The wreckage should have been made openly available to counter the conspiracies...which makes me wonder.
My contribution was a blatant lie told at 4'00" about the strength of steel. You like all other of these nutcases ignore these lies. Would you respond to what I said?
Dude, you can't even sell your no planes theory to your other conspiracy nutjobs. That video shows nothing but a clear cone of debris being blown out the other side of the building. Watch any one of the other hundred videos from the day and tell me the plane files past the building. Unless you've got anything besides this one video to discuss, we're done here.
At 4'00" he says "Steel keeps a lot of it's structural integrity ... to melting point". NO. Steel melts at 2750°F. "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction.
Fair's fair I guess. You're flair for parroting cliches and swirling us around in a vortex of pretzel logic is about as soothing as finger nails on a chalkboard. Attacking the opponent doesn't make your data any more valid, pal.
I find it intriguing, the people who support George W. Bush are the ones who are illiterate and make the least plausible statements on this site. Spelling and grammar reflect Bush's own dislexia. Face it, WE'RE ALL BEING SCREWED OVER BY THIS GUY.
I saw and still see 'Bush' and 'reality' mentioned in your quip. And we see Bush is mentioned in the comment to which your disinformation is applied. On exactly how many levels are/were you planning to spew divisiveness, talk in circles and embarass and discredit yourself?
"It isn't the intention of demolitions to turn all concrete to dust".Oh whoopy.The FACT is it DOES.Demolition experts construct dust aprons and spray the site with hoses just for that very purpose.Where does this person get his facts from?
They construct dust aprons because they know when the building FALLS there will be lots of dust! It WON'T be created by the explosions! Once again, you're a moron.
Wrong, bombs don't make the kind of dust clouds you see at the WTC, falling does! Here's an actual Controlled Demolition:
/watch?v=vzdyungRE08
Note that you can clearly see and hear the bombs going off, they occur at regular intervals around the whole building, and the dust clouds don't form until the structure hits the ground!
That's the point the bombs going off are shooting debree in the air everywhere disintegrating the concret and basically everything inside. that sort of 'flow' is only the result of LARGE explosions going off. and there is video and reports on tv etc of MORE explosions.
No, the bombs in the link I gave you don't cause the dust clouds, those don't happen until the structure hits the ground. That's the point - bombs don't create near as much dust as the whole thing falling does.
No controlled demolition reduces the entire amount of concrete in a building to dust. How much explosives would be required to do that, and why? Obviously, the concrete was pulverized by the collapse, not by being exploded.
I think what he means is your no-explosive theory isn't too bogus at all if the building in question is made of pumice. Concrete on the other hand doesn't go to dust from a non-assisted collapse, in other words. Anyway you still haven't explained the steel far as I can see.
thes people have no idea what there talking about. this is what happens when the discovery channel series is considered to be equal to a college degree in enginering.i went there to help.and left a different person...
It turns out that explosive blasts, while good at making rubble, are not very effective at making dust. The enormous kinetic energy released by the collapsing towers was more than enough to pulverize all the concrete (even though not all of it was pulverized). Jeff King seems not to have even considered that.
It isn't the intention of demolitions to turn all concrete to dust. The purpose is to weaken a structure and of course some amount of dust is created. But there's no reason to use extra explosives just to create even MORE dust. Here's a paper on it: www*911myths*com/WTCONC1*pdf
Well, like the guy in the video says, there was a very suspicious blackout in NYC shortly before 9/11. They could have also installed the explosives little by little. The WTC were huge buildings with lots of activity, a bunch of guys hauling boxes would not raise any suspicion.
Jeff King says explosives are the only thing to reduce concrete to powder- hey I'm no demo expert- but can regular demo charges or explosives pulverize everything into a fine powder- its seems that something even more powerful than conventional explosives- top secret military grade stuff- was used if it was the gov't.
Inside Job=re-election Hand Job= Impeachment
roodeey 10 months ago
He makes it sound pretty easy to plant tonnes of high explosives around the structure of a massive office building containing thousands of people wondering what your up to drilling all those holes in the walls and floor. Much was made of the "unusual powerdown" and evacuation drills, yet no comment about how much of the place was cleared and for how long. Controlled demolition companies spend weeks tearing apart a building before they blow it up. And clearly the man lied about his qualifications
yorrickhunt06 1 year ago
Its so sad what happen`d in Sept 11.2001 but whats more sad is what the Bush Government did to its own country by attacking its own country and people. Very sick people in this world Bush should have been thrown into the building and watch his own dirty work fall on him
kalel38 1 year ago
This was explaned very clearly on FRONTLINE!
oNLY A FEW QUACKS BELIEVE THIS NONSENSE!
EFISHANT 2 years ago
The fact that you are yelling shows you don't really believe what you are saying yourself.
I know this is scary stuff, but you really should study the history of the US. We have done and suggested stuff like this before, long before you played your first video game.
tyvolous1 2 years ago
Comment removed
FoolMagazine 2 years ago
i think almost no one wants to fight a war for their own mind. that's the most scary to them.
haha! most people don't realize their part of the problem because they let their emotions dictate who gets their allegiance. Like a bunch of robots programmed by public opinion since early childhood in fucked up schools that flunk out most their students but always want more money and more monopoly of your kid's minds. it's funny to me when families don't even want to teach their own kids
qweqqweqbt 2 years ago
Comment removed
LEFTY677 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Man it's really sad - that MIT has aclown that asserts this less than scientific nonsense!
It's really sad that there are people that hate their own country so much that they want you to believe that our government had something to do with this!
Nobody hates Bush more than me but this is rediculous!
EFISHANT 2 years ago
wake up dude! isn't it more sad that neo cons would do this than that we want the truth?
qweqqweqbt 2 years ago
Comment removed
FoolMagazine 2 years ago
What a giant crock of shit. It's plainly obvious, even to a lay-person, that the steel was heated to the point of *softening* and then it gave way. No, it wasn't melted down to molten steel. It WAS heated to the point of *flexibility* .. Look at the impact area, and then add all the tons of concrete and steel above it onto what would be softened metal. Idiot truthers..*sighs*
olqutseg 2 years ago
Comment removed
FoolMagazine 2 years ago
The way steel is affected by heat and stress has been tested and long before this happened. The pancake theory is based on science that is not new!
The buildings that were made with huge timbers are actually more fire resistant because the huge timbers only burn on the surface . once they have burned in about an inch from the surface oxygen can't suupport the flame anymore.
Steel softens under extreme heat and thus fatigue that results in failure!
EFISHANT 2 years ago
So you are saying that the extreme heat was not caused by the plane, but some other factor? You seem to know a lot about this, I'd like to get your opinion, but from what you have written... can't tell what you are saying exactly. So the timbers supported the steel? Never heard about the timbers, seems to be a proof on the deep support of the structure.
FoolMagazine 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch : ZERO : An Investigation Into 9/11
on youtube
CanadaForce 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CanadaForce, nothing personal but, it's obvious you haven't spent any time checking out these claims you keep posting and I don't have the time nor inclination to explain to you EVERY SINGLE conspiracy claim. I suggest you do some research on your own.
It is a very stupid thing to only read ONE side of the story( the conspiracies) and not do a fact or reality check on their claims. Remember the titanium plane claim that became a titanium engine claim which is also not correct!
NWOisBS 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Flight 77 could not have flown at those speeds without going to into a high speed stall. The plane cannot go that fast while performing a high G maneuver the plane would have fallen out of the sky"
CanadaForce 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why do you keep ignoring the facts of flight 93? why wont you address any thing I have said about that? Has your Superior only trained on the WTC(s) and the Pentagon?
CanadaForce 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why do you keep ignoring the facts of flight 93?" - CanadaForce
OK some facts for you. 95% of the plane was recovered, the biggest piece of the aircraft which was found was a piece of the outer portion of the fuselage, which measures about 6 feet by 7 feet and included four windows. The heaviest piece found was a part of an engine fan weighing about 1,000 pounds, Crowley[FBI spokesperson] said.
Don't forget eyewitnesses, oh wait they work for the guberment too I guess!
Bye Canada
NWOisBS 2 years ago
Yeah all of that was cleaned up just in time for reports to get there and see NOTHING?? The managed to clean up the WHOLE plane, bodies, fire and smoke just in time for reporters to get there and see absolutely nothing. Not only that but the black scar in the ground was there since 1994. You can check it for yourself on Google earth. Do you ever think?? Or are you trying to manipulate?
CanadaForce 2 years ago
As a point of fact, the towers did not "melt", the steel was heated enough so that it lost its strength causing failure and collapse. A key part of the equation is the explosive strength of a jet full of fuel--(that is measureable) yet the conspiracy crowd does not seem to address it. No conspiracy here.
pbj9270 3 years ago
Steel melts at 2777 degrees fahrenheit while jet fuel only burns at 1517. So steel will just fail and collapse at that certain temperature? Oh but the explosive power of jet fuel would do it? No you jackass. And I honestly don't think what you have to say means shit compared to an MIT engineer..
sk8rolos 2 years ago
If we had spoken up after Oklahoma City...this never would've happened!!
UtubeAW 3 years ago
get back on your mother's titty you fucktard, you totally misunderstood what i was saying anyway. go eat some more mcdonalds you stupid yank fuck!
artysm7 3 years ago
Inside job 100%!!! If you done beleive, who are you working for? And how do we know you aren't part of the problem? I hope vlancleavterry dies a horrible death. Fuck the New world order!!! and Fuck your life...you mean nothing...
Jesus0Saves0Lacy 3 years ago
I work for a charitable organization designed to help retards. You are my latest assignment. Tomorrow we work on your spelling.
vancleaveterry 3 years ago 2
Jeff King is a former ELECTRICAL engineer and more recently a Family Practice MD. He graduated from MIT in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major. He is not a structural engineer or a physics major. He is not even remotely qualified to discuss this issue.
Had he studied the RELEVENT discipline at MIT he would have studied under Dr. Thomas Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems.... who supports the 9-11 commission findings.
vancleaveterry 3 years ago
"Steel keeps a lot of its structural integrity even when when heated until you begin to begin to approach the melting point" is a load of crap.
The facts are the yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less!
He claims the core columns simply collapsed into themselves which is not true because there are tons of photos of sections of bent and broken & cut(by cleanup crew)box beams. Anyone seen a single melted box beam pic?
NWOisBS 3 years ago 3
I have seen a melted box beam picture. You're talking about yield strength which, as I understand it (after a quick wiki search) is the amount of stress required to cause 0.02% plastic strain (permanent deformation). However, if you are correct and the core didn't collapse into it's self, where did it go when the buildings came down? It came down with the buildings (it wasn't left standing), and that's what I haven't heard explained other than controlled demolition.
theguruofreason 3 years ago
theguruofreason,
The confusion may be in the difference in the way JK used the phrase "collapsed into themselves" He's implying they simply melted down like candles they were so hot. This would have left giant pools of melted steel( which wasn't the case) as opposed to mechanically collasping.
BTW where did you see a "melted box beam picture"?
NWOisBS 3 years ago 3
I don't understand how "collapsed into themselves" implies that they melted like candles. Wouldn't he have said something about melting, rather than collapsing? These are two very different processes.
I don't remember where I saw a melted box beam picture. The only one I can think of immediately is in zeitgeist but I understand that that box beam could have been cut by the cleanup crew.
theguruofreason 3 years ago
theguruofreason, listen carefully to Jeff starting @ 3:49 thru 4:15
He says the columns collapsed into themselves, 'telescoped straight down" then proceeded to claim for that type of failure to happen the columns steel would have had to have reached the melting point.
There are plenty of pictures of broken and bent box columns.
NWOisBS 3 years ago
so you're saying that the steel didn't melt. Therefor, the collapse of the central columns is still unexplained?
theguruofreason 3 years ago
theguruofreason, yes I'm saying the steel did not "melt". I do believe that the fires along with the damage caused by the plane weakened the core columns at the point of impact enough to cause a failure point which resulted in a progressive collapse( breaking and bending the core columns as it developed).
A point commonly ignored is that the core columns were not encased in concrete(like the Madrid tower) but only drywall.
NWOisBS 3 years ago
Other weaknesses in the towers
The perimeter wall 10'x36' sections were held together(veritcally) by ONLY (4) 1" bolts through 1/4 flange plates for the majority of the construction. There were 6 bolts at some of the lower sections & welds at the Mechanical floors.
There is also the issue of rubber viscoelastic dampers on the floor trusses & dangers of the lightweight floor truss system in general.
NIOSH even issued a warning to firefighters about the dangers of unexpected truss collapses
NWOisBS 3 years ago
Those towers were built to with stand a plane crashing into it. DONT LISTEN TO THIS GUY HIS A DISINFO AGENT. Get the fuck out of here!!!
CanadaForce 2 years ago
"Those towers were built to with stand a plane crashing into it" - CanadaForce
Yeah and the Titanic was built to be unsinkable!
CanadaForce, the level of ignorance of facts in your posts indicate you need to step back and do at least some basic fact checking because you're making a complete fool of yourself!
NWOisBS 2 years ago
"Yeah and the Titanic was built to be unsinkable!"
Are you comaring the engineering of 1911 to the engineerring of 1970? If the heat was so hot that it melted the steel in the WTC then how come there were people standing in the impact area?
CanadaForce 2 years ago
'If the heat was so hot that it melted the steel in the WTC then how come there were people standing in the impact area? " - CanadaForce
No offical claim that the heat melted the steel.
Was there any fire were the people were standing?
Final question why do you think people did jump from the building? (hint fire)
NWOisBS 2 years ago 2
Did you ever think they jumped because they couldn't breath from the smoke? Did';t you watch the video, the smoke was burning dark which means any fire was burning at a lower temperatures.
CanadaForce 2 years ago
@NWOisBS What, if not heat, could melt steel? The second law of thermo tells us that heat=energy. Where did the energy come from to melt that much steel? Or are you in denial that there was molten steel up to 2700F at the bottom of all THREE buildings? Neither jet fuel nor office fires in a building that was built to code, and fireproofed with aesbestos, could provide that heat, or energy. Finally, steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so one would essentially have a 60,000 ton heat sink
wyoraider86 1 year ago
@wyoraider86
Thanks for your fine example of "Argument By Gibberish" and demonstrating your total ignorance of the subject matter including the laws of thermodynamics.
NWOisBS 1 year ago
@wyoraider86 you mean a 200,000 ton heatsink
inhuman0id 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Are you comaring the engineering of 1911 to the engineerring of 1970?" - CanadaForce
NO, I'm making a point that things can be "engneered" on paper to do and be all sorts of things BUT, things don;t always perform as engineered.
How about a 2009 engineering failure ?
Did you see the reports of the rocket carrying the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) crashed into the Pacific?
$278 million worth of modern engineering and it failed.
NWOisBS 2 years ago 3
"If the heat was so hot that it melted the steel in the WTC"
Oh good lord. Are we back to this? Will you twoofers ever advance out of your 2002 talking points?
thedman113 2 years ago
What about the fact the black scar in the field was there in 1994 were flight 93 crashed? Or the fact there wasn't no trace of any plane, bodies, not even fire or smoke?Why did you totally ignore the crash of Helios in 2005, were the plane crashed into a hill side at full speed, leaving the tail section, wing section, engine and cockpit, that would have been consistent with the crash of flight 93?
CanadaForce 2 years ago
where*
CanadaForce 2 years ago
there was no trace*
CanadaForce 2 years ago
"Or the fact there wasn't no trace of any plane, bodies, "
Even Loose Change admits they recovered 95% of the plane. It was just in small pieces, something twoofers can't understand.
thedman113 2 years ago
Comment removed
FoolMagazine 2 years ago
???
thedman113 2 years ago
"Those towers were built to with stand a plane crashing into it."
And withstand it they did. Neither of them fell when the planes hit, did they? They just couldn't withstand the subsequent fires and fireproofing damage for more then a couple hours.
thedman113 2 years ago
How do you explain the fact that flight 93 was totaly incinerated? Or the fact the black scar in the field was there in 1994?Or the fact that the reports say the plane had crash landed and slammed into the pentagon, yet there was NO skid marks. of the fact there was also no trace of any plane, the explanation given by the investigators was the intense heat melted the plane...
CanadaForce 2 years ago
"the reports say the plane had crash landed and slammed into the pentagon, yet there was NO skid marks."
Where do reports say this? Give me a source.
Hehe, I just asked a twoofer for a source. I wonder which reply I'll get? Could it be "Look it up yourself"? Maybe "you're just a shill". My all-time favorite is "I don't post links".
thedman113 2 years ago
thedman113, check group discussions page please.
govtshiII 2 years ago
Do planes usually have the landing gear down when they crash land?
glennwa11 2 years ago
but the plane that crashed was made out of titanium steal with a melting point of 1699 Degrees C, the jet fuel is a hydro carbon which can retain a constant temp. of 1120 DC after 40 minutes only if the fuel is maintained. The fuel would have burned instantly upon impact. It would have been scientifically impossbile for the plane to have been completely incinerated
CanadaForce 2 years ago
steel*
CanadaForce 2 years ago
"the plane that crashed was made out of titanium steal " - CanadaForce
WRONG! From Boeing
Lightweight materials contribute to the overall efficiency of the 757 models. Improved aluminum alloys, primarily in the wing skins, save 610 lbs. Advanced composites such as graphite/epoxy are used in control surfaces (including rudder, elevators and ailerons), aerodynamic fairings, engine cowlings and landing gear doors for a weight savings of 1,100 lbs. BTW Fusalage is also Al.
NWOisBS 2 years ago 3
There the only part of the engine that were found was the engine disk, I ment to say the engines were made out of titanium, and it would have been impossbile for the jet fuel to have burned the whole engine leaving just a disk The pictures you showed me show the 2 engines. Also why doesnt the video show a 757 jet slamming into the pentagon? but shows just shows a ball of fire?
CanadaForce 2 years ago
CanadaForce, I can tell you have NEVER been anywhere near a commercial airliner. Only parts of the engine are made of titanium NOT the entire engine!
The pictures I showed you (from Japan) did you happen to notice the NINE FIRE ENGINES surrounding the plane? Stil most of the fuselage and port wing(including a lot of the engine) were melted away!
The video was low framerate surveillance camera.
How about all the people how actually saw the plane?
flight77. info/witnesses.html
NWOisBS 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The pictures showed the 2 engines burnt not melted, this picture would be inconsistent with a plane crashing into a building. Do you really expect me to believe these "witnesses" are not from the government? come on. The people who were tracking the plane said, "The speed, the maneuverability,the way that he turned, we all thought...all of our experiences as air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane"
CanadaForce 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Do you really expect me to believe these "witnesses" are not from the government? come on" - CanadaForce
No CanadaForce I expect you to keep on being a paranoid truther lemming and not thinking for yourself!
NWOisBS 2 years ago 4
There was no tall section and no wing section, and no damage to the pentagon were the wing section would have hit The repots say the inteset heat vapourized the plane, yet they were able to identify bodies? How does a human body with stand such intense head and alluminan doesnt? Also the reports say that the plane skid and crashed, there were no skid marks, how come?
CanadaForce 2 years ago
aluminum, intense,reports*
CanadaForce 2 years ago
heat*
CanadaForce 2 years ago
Also The "plane" that hit the pentagon would be the first in aviation history to have crashed and completely incinerated a plane. In Aug 2005 Helios Airways flight 522 (Boeing 737) crashed into a hill side at full speed, leaving the tail section, wing section, engine and cockpit. But the "plane" that crash landed then hit the pentagon and completed incinerated? The damage to the pentagon is completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757. The damage was a hole no large than 16 ft in diameter...
CanadaForce 2 years ago
"first in aviation history to have crashed and completely incinerated a plane" -CanadaForce
WRONG again. First the plane was not completeley incenerated, there was identifiable 757 parts found including landing gear, engine, and fusalage.
aerospaceweb. org/question/conspiracy/q0265. shtml
look here to see what fire can do to a plane even with best efforts to save it.
yeinjee. com/asianpop/airplane-in-fire-at-naha-airport-okinawa
Notice that the fuselage and port wing burned away?
NWOisBS 2 years ago 3
A Boeing 757 is a 155 ft long, 44 ft high and has a 124 ft wing span, and you actually believe it made a 16 ft hole? with no damages from the where wings, vertical stabilizer or the engines would have slammed into the building with the window beside the hole completely intact. No that is what someone with no logical thinking would have believed.
CanadaForce 2 years ago
Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do they're blast-resistant.
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows.
If you look at photos you will also see windows(non-blast resist) broken out.
NWOisBS 2 years ago 7
@NWOisBS Shot in the dark here, but are you a fifty something year old white republican?
youngpokerprodigy 6 months ago
@youngpokerprodigy
"Shot in the dark"? You can get my age from my channel but, not my politics or race.
While you list your age as 67? Really?
The laws of physics are universal regards of ones age, race, or politics.
NWOisBS 5 months ago
9-11 commission findings huh? and how much was he paid to support this bullshit? why do most demolition expert, engineers, architects etrc all have their doubts then. so obvious it's unreal but you go on believing your government loves you. they are fucking you in the ass and you can't even see it.
artysm7 3 years ago
"MOST" experts are conspiracy nuts? Not even close.
But perhaps most lower middle class uneducated boobs are. It's funny that the nut cases get all excited about finding someone who once darkened a door at MIT and who believes what they believe... but when you point out that the RELEVANT people at MIT disagree with the nuts... well, then they must be part of the conspiracy!
Our government DOES screw us with all kinds of social programs... but I suspect you support those.
vancleaveterry 3 years ago 3
Its hard to belive after years being brainwashed.
It was for me, but i have to say it now, 9/11 was an insede job 100% sure of it.
vegnagunL 3 years ago
Jeff King is a former ELECTRICAL engineer and more recently a Family Practice MD. He graduated from MIT in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major. He is not a structural engineer or a physics major. He is not even remotely qualified to discuss this issue.
Had he studied the RELEVENT discipline at MIT he would have studied under Dr. Thomas Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems.... who supports the 9-11 commission findings.
vancleaveterry 3 years ago
I disagree! People who R in the field of study in even its most general forms has to understand these concepts. U r full of shit frankly. I nderstand this stuff & am not in this field of study. If anything I'd ? the credibility of those who make money @ these kinds of things militarily speaking as w/ all of the demolition CO's that get most of their business from military contracts!
tomestubbs 3 years ago
Ummmm... There's plenty of money to be made off of low IQ conspiracy nuts. They're all around us. Just look in the mirror.
vancleaveterry 3 years ago
There R plenty of pus-eating snibbling jackoffs who have closed minds, just look into the mirror. I have been following this stuff for some years now and based on evidence, not conspiracy theories I find it more believable than some criminal government workers. They don't make much $ either. The military contractors do, however!
tomestubbs 3 years ago
the unexplainable physically impossible by natural laws of physics part of it is the lower 80 and 65 stories of undamaged structural grade steel cores falling down in a neat stack..i mean give me a break the leaning over a little at the point of impact might be plausible or a few floors collapsing on each other but those steel cores should not have come down no way no how
rmoore09 4 years ago
it might lose half its structural integrity at 650C (1202F) but that would only be on the floors of the burning office equipment, meaning that its was possible for parts of the upper floors to maybe collapse onto each other at most,but the middle core would not have ever given way from such a low temperature fire, many experts believe the fire burned at lower temperatures than even said because it was oxygen deprived being encased in that huge structure...
rmoore09 4 years ago
BUSH LIED> so what else is new?
lividmany 4 years ago
timeforchange2007.blogspot I WILL DO SOMETHING!!!!!! HELP!!!!
begotka2007 4 years ago
What about the natural gas explosions: nobody ever mentions those, no the gas in NYC was shut off that day by Dick Cheney in his secret bunker to make sure the bombs that Starvin' Marvin Bush planted didn't go off prematurely.
roodeey 4 years ago
This man isn't even at all qualified to talk about this- Jeff King is a medical doctor who has a degree in Biology from MIT Class of 74. He is misrepresented as an Engineer by the dishonest Truth Movement to fool you suckers- if you don't believe me go check it out for yourself, he's an imposter.
roodeey 4 years ago
You are right about the misrepresentation and I have changed the title. Instead of attacking him personally and calling him an impostor, attack the information.
itchyandscratchy 4 years ago
Well how can you believe any of it- fact is its suspect and questionable why is a medical doctor the only person who is speaking about a topic he isn't even qualified nor has any professional credentials- no different than an electrical engineer performing surgery, his testimony as an expert in a court of law would be as valid as Donald Duck- pure fiction.
llerdy 4 years ago 2
No it doesn't work that way; on Part One it clearly states on a title bar right on the video "MIT Engineer"- that is an outright lie- people who tell the truth don't lie- liars lie- this whole thing stinks. Part of the information is the fraudulent claim this man is an MIT Engineer, that means the presentation has no credibility, none. It is a manipulative and deliberately deceptive misrepresentation, besides Jeff King isn't even an engineer and neither is Charlie Sheen or Rosie O'Donnell.
roodeey 4 years ago 2
the government lies all the time. yet you still believe them.
PureEvilJester 4 years ago
Where do I say that I believe the government; of course the gov't is lying but that doesn't automatically mean the other side is telling the truth. Unfortunately there are all kinds of gullible people who believe everything they're told if it affirms their ideology regardless of what it is.
roodeey 4 years ago
the government lies all the time. yet you still believe them.
Read the PNAC agenda, it basically outlines the whole gov't plot, the motive, the cast of characters and they ain't lying, its almost a confessional, but nobody is really doing anything about it except pounding their fists in the air in a powerless rebellion.
roodeey 4 years ago
here here
MGSsancho 4 years ago
That is very kind of you to change the title manipulate the facts because on Jeff King part one the title nar embedded onto the video in post prod. says
"MIT Engineer/ Research Scientist. Don't you care that you are being lied to, why must they resort to such deceptive tactics- maybe they also work for the gov't.
roodeey 4 years ago
i'm not saying that the govt did it. i think they did nothing to stop it, which in essence is the same thing
PureEvilJester 4 years ago
Sure I agree it most certainly looks that way as a matter of fact there is enough stuff here on youtube which nearly proves they knew with certainty- like Norman Minetta testifying that Cheney ordered air defenses to stand down what do high level gov't op's know- both Dem's and GOP is hiding what is really going on.
llerdy 4 years ago
"Instead of attacking him personally and calling him an impostor, attack the information."
Ok I will. The guy says "Steel keeps much of it's structural integrity until you begin to approach melting point." This couldn't be further from the truth, and proves to me he has no idea what he is talking about. Steel loses half of it's structural integrity at around 650C, nowhere near the 1500C melting point. So why did he lie about that?
thedman113 4 years ago
Um so how does a Bio teacher know more then engineers and physics professors that say opposite of what he says?
We are not discrediting King, we simply take the credit that YOU give to him through Lies, BS and insecurity.
jabberwolf 4 years ago
Because engineers in this fielsd work for assholes who do these criminal activities!
tomestubbs 3 years ago
@roodeey I did check him out he does have a degree from mit as an engineer , has worked as family dr. too a man of many talants - also any one with common sense is qualified to speak on this and the measure of judgement on his speach is the contents there of not if he scratches his ass when nobody is looking mr. itchyass
randallmccoy2 1 year ago
@randallmccoy2
No his degree is in biology and he studied electrical engineering- he is not a structural engineer- it is a disgrace to the alumni of MIT- Its interesting there aren't any videos of structural engineers saying this- yeah the official theory doesn't make sense but when a movement calls itself the Truth and lies- then what ? If you overlook the misrepresentation then you deserve to be deceived or can't your pea brain figure that out.
roodeey 1 year ago
Comment removed
timrocket2008 10 months ago
@timrocket2008
Go to PART ONE, Jeff King says he STUDIED Physics and "did SOME electrical engineering for eight years" then he says his PATIENT told him about it- what engineer has patients- none that I have heard of- No this IS Jeff King MD Class of '74- Now why would the nice people at theTRUTH movement lie to us- why would the nice government lie to us- because they're the same people that's why. The Truther's are "Sheeple" same as regular people else being fed a line of BS.
roodeey 10 months ago
@timrocket2008
The more I looked into the whole 911 thing the weirder it got- people in the gov't are lying for sure- there are gov't agencies that know other gov't agencies are covering up, hiding things- the 911 Comm. even said they weren't told the whole story-ie NORAD withheld info- Then there are the outright lies/misinformation from Truthers that gets repeated as fact because a "Truther" said it. One can almost prove they knew in advance from Minetta's testimony.
roodeey 10 months ago
@timrocket2008
Usually when some authority or group claim to be the representatives of "The Truth" that is often the first sign of deception- The gov't says they stand for the Truth, as well as the authority of the church- oh and we all know they never lie, yeah right- the "truth" is the best thing to hide behind when trying to fool or mislead people. 911 isn't straight forward- its very very complicated. People who aren't experts speaking as if they were only make thing worse.
roodeey 10 months ago
@roodeey You misunderstand why they are called "The Truth Movement" They are looking for the truth because they don't believe the official story.
timrocket2008 10 months ago
@timrocket2008
The church and The 911 commission say they stand for the Truth too and ignorant, gullible, naive people believe them as well. If one really starts to do their own independent research and puts the TM to the same level of rigorous scrutiny that the TM claim to put to the Official Story they'll find some people the TM are being deceptive as well. Passing off Jeff KIng an "MIT Engineer" is being deceptive- he studied electrical engineering at MIT- he doesn't have a degree in it.
roodeey 10 months ago
@roodeey Actually he Studied Physics at MIT and was an Electriical Engineer for 8 years. Where does it say Jeff King has a degree in something where he doesn't? I would like to examine your claim of "deception" and investigate it.
timrocket2008 10 months ago
@timrocket2008
The title was changed- there still are clips that say Jeff King MIT Engineer- he studied electrical engineering I don't believe he is a professional engineer- Its a good presentation but where are all the structural engineers- the only people really qualified to explain the collapse- its like going to a dermatologist for brain surgery because he is a medical doctor. From everything I've researched- Jeff King graduated from MIT 1974 with a degree in Biology not engineering.
roodeey 10 months ago
@roodeey I would like to see a full Biography on this MIT Jeff King. He says he studied Physics at MIT and was an Electrical Engineer for 8 years. Mentions speaking with one of his -Patients- Sounds like this guy has some mega schooling background. Its not all clear exactly.
Is there a theory as to why the Truth Movement would be deceptive and misleading people?
timrocket2008 10 months ago
@roodeey Well as I pointed out already, the "truth movement" doesn't mean they are "Representatives of the truth" It means they don't believe the official story about 9/11 and are LOOKING for the Truth.
timrocket2008 10 months ago
@timrocket2008
Most of the people are sincerely looking for the truth, yes, but, there is a huge amount of misinformation thrown around that gets accepted just because its supposedly from the Truth Movement. Don't just buy everything because its from the Truth Movement.
roodeey 10 months ago
@roodeey Do you keep track of the misinformation that you come across?
timrocket2008 10 months ago
the beauty of science is that emotionally charged arguments and silencing tactics they use in "interviews" on mainstream news. just state it, and follow the logical rules of null hypothesis, reproducible phenomenon. u have nothing, Bush, illuminati. keep using lying tactics. cause in the end youll all be in hell.
gwho 4 years ago
The culprits are the people that sit by and do
nothing! Just like no airplanes were shot down
by the airforce that day, DICK was at Norad, MY ONLY
QUESTION IS, "WHO?? IS NEO"
thomasgking 4 years ago
the buildings were highly redundant, meaning you'd have to knock the entire support from the bottom up to make something that well designed fall...all three of them.
khilled 4 years ago
No, that's no what it means, and from that description it seems you don't know what "highly redundant" is. The redundancy meant that if a certain number of the core/perimeter columns failed, the rest would hold up the building. However, once you passed a certain threshold of failures, it would all come down.
thedman113 4 years ago
see what more proof do you need that no-one likes Americans,even your government wants you dead
YoJimBobaJoeThe2nd 5 years ago
lol....
OurGovtAttackedUs 4 years ago
I just have one question and a comment. If the building was lined with explosives (as some believe), then wouldnt the initial impact of the planes have set them off right away?
And my comment is: Where is the live debate between the experts (pro and con), and let the people be the jury? The wreckage should have been made openly available to counter the conspiracies...which makes me wonder.
crystalcave6 5 years ago 2
No the Plane would not have set it off, 9/11 mysterys will answer your questions
thomasgking 4 years ago
all the $ he spent to get educated and this is all he recieved for it(ask for your $ back)dumb ass;~)
plazadog 5 years ago
Again...cannot get this video to flow. In fact anything controversial on this subject is not flowing. Anyone else with this problem?
maggiebott 5 years ago
Funny how most other MIT profs don't agree with this whackjob nutter:
cee dot mit dot edu/index dot pl?iid=3721&isa=Category
PkofPk 5 years ago 2
He seems sane, rational and controlled. All I heard was physics. Is math crazy? Idiot.
Shandooga 5 years ago
My contribution was a blatant lie told at 4'00" about the strength of steel. You like all other of these nutcases ignore these lies. Would you respond to what I said?
spoddie 5 years ago
That's my point exactly. You demolish one lie and they have a million other waiting.
spoddie 5 years ago
Dude, you can't even sell your no planes theory to your other conspiracy nutjobs. That video shows nothing but a clear cone of debris being blown out the other side of the building. Watch any one of the other hundred videos from the day and tell me the plane files past the building. Unless you've got anything besides this one video to discuss, we're done here.
thedman113 5 years ago
I already answered once Joe, debris from the blast. Quit trying to sell the no planes theory.
thedman113 5 years ago
At 4'00" he says "Steel keeps a lot of it's structural integrity ... to melting point". NO. Steel melts at 2750°F. "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction.
spoddie 5 years ago
Correct. Can there be any clearer example to show that this guy has no idea what he's talking about?
thedman113 5 years ago
It doesn't matter. These idiots just move on to their next nutty idea.
spoddie 5 years ago
The video shows a plane hitting the building and ejecting debris from the other side, just like every other video made that day.
thedman113 5 years ago
Man, whether or not the planes hit the buildings is not an "issue". You'd have a hard time selling this theory even to your conspiracy cohorts.
thedman113 5 years ago
It must've flown to the internment camps with the black helicopters!
thedman113 5 years ago
LOL! Ok, you got me. The plane flew on by but the thousands of people watching that day all were hallucinating.
thedman113 5 years ago
Nah. Let's keep it simple just for you. The planes done it. Merry airbrakes, chump. Enjoy your new police state.
codevictim 5 years ago
I knew in the end, you had nothing.
thedman113 5 years ago
Fair's fair I guess. You're flair for parroting cliches and swirling us around in a vortex of pretzel logic is about as soothing as finger nails on a chalkboard. Attacking the opponent doesn't make your data any more valid, pal.
codevictim 5 years ago
More cryptic posts. Are you ever going to talk about the topic at hand? I'll answer any question you have.
thedman113 5 years ago
Another snide and divisive remark, yet again. Hmmm. Do you even live in the US?
statechic 5 years ago
Check the posts and see who started the snide remarks. Not me.
thedman113 5 years ago
I find it intriguing, the people who support George W. Bush are the ones who are illiterate and make the least plausible statements on this site. Spelling and grammar reflect Bush's own dislexia. Face it, WE'RE ALL BEING SCREWED OVER BY THIS GUY.
lxqGO 5 years ago
Believing that the towers were brought down by planes and not by controlled demolition isn't supporting Bush, it's supporting reality.
thedman113 5 years ago
Reality would be a president who could exert himself to get the word nuclear pronounced correctly before he felt qualified to invade other nations.
codevictim 5 years ago
Try to stay on topic.
thedman113 5 years ago
I saw and still see 'Bush' and 'reality' mentioned in your quip. And we see Bush is mentioned in the comment to which your disinformation is applied. On exactly how many levels are/were you planning to spew divisiveness, talk in circles and embarass and discredit yourself?
codevictim 5 years ago
Did you also see the words "isn't supporting"? Your reading comprehension skills are mind-numbing.
thedman113 5 years ago
Again with the personal attacks instead of using persuasive argumentation. How old are you anyway?
statechic 5 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can answer any questions you have about the collapse of the towers. Bring em on.
thedman113 5 years ago
Why should any contractor waste money on time,men and machinery to break rubble when explosives can take care of most of the work?
stratocaster539 5 years ago
"It isn't the intention of demolitions to turn all concrete to dust".Oh whoopy.The FACT is it DOES.Demolition experts construct dust aprons and spray the site with hoses just for that very purpose.Where does this person get his facts from?
stratocaster539 5 years ago
They construct dust aprons because they know when the building FALLS there will be lots of dust! It WON'T be created by the explosions! Once again, you're a moron.
thedman113 5 years ago
his point if you actually paid attention is that nothing can produce the type of dust created except explosions from bombs
khilled 4 years ago
his point if you actually paid attention is that nothing can produce the type of dust created except explosions from bombs
khilled 4 years ago
Wrong, bombs don't make the kind of dust clouds you see at the WTC, falling does! Here's an actual Controlled Demolition:
/watch?v=vzdyungRE08
Note that you can clearly see and hear the bombs going off, they occur at regular intervals around the whole building, and the dust clouds don't form until the structure hits the ground!
thedman113 4 years ago
That's the point the bombs going off are shooting debree in the air everywhere disintegrating the concret and basically everything inside. that sort of 'flow' is only the result of LARGE explosions going off. and there is video and reports on tv etc of MORE explosions.
khilled 4 years ago
No, the bombs in the link I gave you don't cause the dust clouds, those don't happen until the structure hits the ground. That's the point - bombs don't create near as much dust as the whole thing falling does.
thedman113 4 years ago
how can someone get up in front of a group of smart people and bab such bullshit..i spent 51 days on the pile tower2 ..any questions...
gndzroirnwkr 5 years ago
Yes. Were those pools of molten steel really in the sub-levels as long as they say?
statechic 5 years ago
there were no pools of molten metal.there was many fires below.none hot enough to melt steel..
gndzroirnwkr 5 years ago 2
Is there any way you could possibly prove for us that you did in fact work there?
statechic 5 years ago
No controlled demolition reduces the entire amount of concrete in a building to dust. How much explosives would be required to do that, and why? Obviously, the concrete was pulverized by the collapse, not by being exploded.
thedman113 5 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Excuse me but I was under the impression that high grade concrete was substantially more resilient than pumice?
codevictim 5 years ago
???
thedman113 5 years ago
That's the spirit? Dare to question. You'll get there eventually.
codevictim 5 years ago
What are you talking about pumice for? Make some sense.
thedman113 5 years ago
I think what he means is your no-explosive theory isn't too bogus at all if the building in question is made of pumice. Concrete on the other hand doesn't go to dust from a non-assisted collapse, in other words. Anyway you still haven't explained the steel far as I can see.
statechic 5 years ago
thes people have no idea what there talking about. this is what happens when the discovery channel series is considered to be equal to a college degree in enginering.i went there to help.and left a different person...
gndzroirnwkr 5 years ago
It turns out that explosive blasts, while good at making rubble, are not very effective at making dust. The enormous kinetic energy released by the collapsing towers was more than enough to pulverize all the concrete (even though not all of it was pulverized). Jeff King seems not to have even considered that.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
It turns out, according to who? I say "it turns out that explosives are very good at making dust".
Demolitions do reduce a large amount of concrete to dust, that is why there are dust clouds.
elars21 5 years ago
It isn't the intention of demolitions to turn all concrete to dust. The purpose is to weaken a structure and of course some amount of dust is created. But there's no reason to use extra explosives just to create even MORE dust. Here's a paper on it: www*911myths*com/WTCONC1*pdf
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Well, like the guy in the video says, there was a very suspicious blackout in NYC shortly before 9/11. They could have also installed the explosives little by little. The WTC were huge buildings with lots of activity, a bunch of guys hauling boxes would not raise any suspicion.
DominicanLou 5 years ago