9 11 Truth MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

[Berkeley626]

To say one's an “MIT engineer” is to imply that one either teaches engineering at MIT or else otherwise worked for MIT as an engineer. Jeff King is not now nor has he ever been an MIT engineer (or research scientist), nor has he ever taught engineering or worked as an engineer for any university ever. He’s been a family doctor for at least 27 years and only received a joint biology/electrical engineering degree from MIT in 1974 to briefly work in medical devices before turning to medicine.

[ostinlt12]

I agree there is alot of disinformation but this video is most definitely not. The vertical core of the building was designed to be impervious to fire which according to the lying media is what got hot and melted causing the pancake collapse. The US Govt has EVERYTHING to gain by this tragedy:Patriot act, endless wars, the hideous and criminal TSA, the loss of individual freedoms, etc. When you think who benefited from this tragedy, its clear the US Govt was totally behind it.

[elbuggo]

@ostinlt12 - The US Govt is a puppet. Who is the man behind the curtain? Media control the election process, and thereby indirectly make the laws. Who controls the media? That is an interesting question.

[MrBeautifulba1]

@elbuggo For us to dissolve the power structure of the media is to convince a very large group of people to stop watching tv.

[Berkeley626]

@ostinlt12 The official story does not say any steel melted (it weakened, not melted), the steel was treated with fire proofing which was dislodged by the impact, no steel anywhere is "impervious" to fire, and it's hard to see how the government "benefited" from what you listed to provide motive for murdering 3000 of its own citizens. And what liberties exactly have you lost?

[elbuggo]

I was told that this should be a really good 911 video, but I am unable to see that this video is important or relevant. The perpetual war on terror is based on some foreign hijackers crashing some commercial planes into some buildings and killing 3000 patriots. As long as this is the perception, the perpetual war on terror has a foundation. That is the important questions. Everything else is just some trivial details.

There are no forensic evidence for any commercial plane crashes on 9/11.

[ostinlt12]

@elbuggo ...there is no possible way with the security at these buildings that demolition could have occurred without exact placement of explosives.. It would require the security compromise of 3 separate buildings months in advance of 9/11. No way that 'terrorists' could do that. US Govt agents could.

The most important piece of this video-the core was hermetically sealed with fire shutters to cancel chimney effect to stoke fires. Without fire, how do columns weaken? EXPLOSIVES!

[elbuggo]

@ostinlt12 - I think you have misunderstood my points (might be my fault). My view on this operation has evolved somewhat in 7 months. Now I am leaning towards that 911 was just a horror movie on TV, real as a James Bond production. Every subject I have looked into turns out to be faked. TV told us everything, and they lied about everything. The media involvement in this operation is very underreported. Fake pictures everywhere and fake videos, actors reading scripts, etc, etc. Demolitions=Yes.

[Berkeley626]

@ostinlt12 Except you ignore the effects of large planes hitting the Towers at 500 miles per hour, and even the government doesn't have the power to prep 257 floors of buildings for months without a single one of the over 50,000 daily workers noticing. As we've seen from Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, the government is far from omnipotent.

[USStateSponTerrorism]

As it clearly states in our"Declaration of Independence".... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,... the last alternative may be violent revolution, but sometimes that is the only answer. Our government routinely uses extreme violence, terrorism, genocide, government overthrows, financing terrorists such as the Israelis, etc in order to accomplish their objectives.

[Berkeley626]

@USStateSponTerrorism Our government routinely uses genocide? Really? Since when?

[USStateSponTerrorism]

@Berkeley626 Since the beginning of our country, when the settlers wiped out most of the Indians, that constituted "genocide" according to the definition. Now, with the deliberate influx of illegal Hispanics, those who want a Socialist government, are doing the same thing to the traditional, white European culture.

[terence1324]

americans need to open their eyes and see instead of being told what to see by the government controlled media.

[ipsofacto297]

This guy is obviously very credible with his expert scientific evaluation.

[fengineer08]

Actually he isn't. This is an embarrasment to the engineering field and to MIT.

I'm currently 5 blocks away from MIT right this second. If I were to drive by campus I would probably dodge about 10 students who drive like morons/walk right infront of oncoming traffic without looking. MIT produces people who aren't practically smart too, Jeff King seem to fit that bill.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08....what does being "practically smart" have to do with devising a scientific theory?

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Because understanding why a building collapses is more than just working it out on paper with math equations and physics formulas. Theory and reality are two different things my friend.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... yes... it depends how good the theory is though ...my friend. A theory is usually good when it coincides with reality. I think someone doesn't understand what the point of physics is ... it is supposed to reflect reality ... that's why it is extremely PRACTICAL with reality; i.e., technology.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Well, this guy's "theories" are not correct either.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 .. neither are yours.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Neither is what now? Never even stated my opinion on 9/11.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... I think you opinion is implicit from the statement:

"Actually he isn't. This is an embarrasment to the engineering field and to MIT. "

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Actually I can attest to that because I work as an engineer and it's appauling to listen to people like Jeff King preach a bunch of nonsense to people. People who will believe him all because he's from MIT. Sorry but Jeff King isn't fooling the engineering community.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... rather than saying it is "nonsense". Why don't you explain why it is nonsense?

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Ok. For instance at 1:07 where he says it's "clear signs of explosives." I find it embarrassing that an MIT engineer can't tell the difference between beams toppling over and an explosion.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... ok ... what is exactly makes a clear sign of an explosion?

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... ok ... what is exactly makes a clear sign of an explosion?

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Well, lots of noise for one thing which there was none of. And have a look at the clip yourself. You're telling me that those aren't beams/parts of the building toppling over? I think anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would know this. Apparently Mr. MIT engineer thinks that they are explosions though. Well, it's not "clearly" explosives to me, otherwise I'd be supporting what he is saying, but he's just plain wrong.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Well, lots of noise for one thing which there was none of. And have a look at the clip yourself. You're telling me that those aren't beams/parts of the building toppling over? I think anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would know this. Apparently Mr. MIT engineer thinks that they are explosions though. Well, it's not "clearly" explosives to me, otherwise I'd be supporting what he is saying.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... Ok, now explain how Building 7 fell down into its own footprint from a fire that had no jet fuel. Additionally, explain how buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were still standing when they were much more damaged than building 7. Their facades were completely destroyed, but their steel core was still standing perfectly fine. Also, they were right underneath buildings 1 and 2 when they fell, that a lot of weight falling on them, but they still managed to stay up. It's extremely odd.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Building 7 fell because it was allowed to burn uncontrolled, and also because it had a unique structural design using cantilevers. Buildings 3-6 did not completely collapse because they had far less weight to carry than 7 did. You are comparing apples to oranges here... The debris fell directly on top of 3-6, which were all fall smaller than 7. Building 7 was damaged the most in its first 10-15 floors. It's like cracking someone in the knees with a baseball bat.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... the report -- NIST GCR 02-843, prepared by Hughes Associates, Inc under contract number NA1341-02-W-0686 -- shows that a total of SIX steel STRUCTURED, no framed, have collapsed due to fire. 4 of the 6 are WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7. The other 2 are PARTIAL COLLAPSES: One New York Plaza, 50 stories. And Alexis Nihon Plaza, 15 stories. So, the only steel structured building in history that fell because of fire, are WTC 1, 2, and 7.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... WTC 1 & 2 got hit by planes, but are claimed to have fallen mainly because of the fires. WTC 7 is the only building in history to have fallen because of a fire. Many buildings surrounding WTC 1 and 2 were extremely damaged from the debris but did not fall. The Verizon building, for instance, was 32 stories and still stood, and it was constructed in 1926.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 " WTC 7 is the only building in history to have fallen because of a fire." So what you're saying is that this is not possible? This was also the first time in history that buildings were the target of terrorist attacks using commercial airliners, how convienient for you to forget that little detail. I guess we should tell all the fire protection engineers in the field that their job is pointless, but I'd be willing to bet they strongly disagree.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... I don't think you addressed anything I previously said in your retort. The fact that is was the first time that commercial airliners were used in a terrorist attack for the first is completely irrelevant to the fact that building (WTC7) fell because of a fire....when it was NOT hit by a commercial airliner. And all the other building surrounding WTC 1 & 2, which were much more older than WTC 7 did not fall.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 My point was that no such disaster has ever happened before. Building 7 was not hit by a plane but it was damaged from approximately it's firs 15 floors down and it was a raging inferno for 8 hours, which was heavily concentrated where the big 3 transfter trusses that supported nearly the entire load of the building were located.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ..the cited cases of building collapsing due to fires, were indeed only PARTIAL collapses. They didn't fall into their footprint like WTC 7 did.

Who's saying that the fire protection engineers have a pointless job? A majority opinion on a matter does not equate to truth. Anybody with any knowledge of the history of science understand this. When dealing with matters like WTC, it is almost impossible to prove what really happened. However, circumstantial evidence is a crucial aspect.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 You want to talk about this "first time in history stuff," ok. Tell me another time in history when buildings that large were hit by planes that started massive fires that were unable to be extinguished? Many buildings have burned before, but there has NEVER been a fire at nearly the top of a 100+ story sky scraper, where they are far greater to fight than a 20 story building where firemen can actually access it, and the NYFD let building 7 burn because they had no water to fight it.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 And if you believe people like Jeff King who say fire had nothing to do with the collapses, and it was all due to explosives, answer this... How is it possible that 2 of the largest buildings in the world & another 47 story building were all demolished with explosives, yet they were all rigged without a single person noticing, and as they each collapsed, you hear no explosions? There is zero evidence of this yet people like believing cool conspiracy stories.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... if nanothermite was used you wouldn't hear explosions.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Oh now we're going to try using the nanothermite AKA pixy dust argument? That's not what Jeff King says. He's pointing out things in this video and calling them "clear signs of explosives." And how'd all this magical pixy dust that supposedly took down all 3 of these buildings get planted without people noticing? First it was explosives, then it was thermite, and now it's nanothermite. What will they come up with next? This is ridiculious.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... i think you underestimate the capability of people. Getting a job like this done is completely plausible for people with the proper assets and money.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 I don't underestimate people at all.

"Getting a job like this done is completely plausible for people with the proper assets and money." - Conspiracy talk right there. You do realize it takes many weeks, sometimes months, just to do the prep-work for a controlled demolition right? There is no hiding that from the thousands of people that went in and out of those buildings day in and day out.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 .... conspiracy talk? Ok, your talk is a conspiracy also. Just because you use the word "conspiracy", it doesn't differentiate anything. It's just a truism. If Bin Laden was responsible it is still a conspiracy theory. People just don't understand what high level government officials are capable of when they have the power. When there's money and power, something with this degree of prep and secrecy can be accomplished.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 " People just don't understand what high level government officials are capable of when they have the power." Like planting bombs in 2 skyscrapers & another 47 story building + all the prep work without people noticing? If the government was responsible for 9/11 then they were responsible for letting it happen without stopping it, not for some ridiculious scenario where these buildings were demolished with bombs.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ...just read PNAC. Oh what coincidence, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51). The luck the people of the Bush Administration received. A fortunate event to capitalize on ... an even that was needed in their agenda.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 "The luck the people of the Bush Administration received. A fortunate event to capitalize on ... an even that was needed in their agenda." And what exactly was their agenda? To take over the world?? Give me a break... I'm not a Bush fan but people blame everything in the world on him. The whole 9/11 conspiracy started after John Kerry lost to Bush in the 04 election. What a coincidence that is!

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 I notice you are now changing the subject from the physical arguments you have on 9/11 to the political ones, which are even more easy to distort from the truth. Is that a typical "truther" tactic? "Hey, he's got me on the physical part of this, I'll just change to politics and give him a mess he'll never untangle!"

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... physical arguments vs. political arguments? Political ones are easier to distort? They both rely on physical evidence. The last time I checked humans beings were physical creatures. Truther Tactic?..Whatever that means. You are the type of person that probably thinks that everything can be explained by physics -- a very weak point of view. The political issues are not ad hoc from the physical issues.

[NoLies86]

@NoLies86 ...Historical physical theories, such as big bang theory and evolutionary theory don't ever get proven....It's more of decision to believe them based on circumstantial evidence. Theories like Gen. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be proven because they predict future physical phenomena. Looking at the 9/11 situation strictly through physical evidence is folly. Because you are investigating human activity--which of course is buttressed on politics.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 Again you are misunderstanding my point. What was it that I originally commented on? How Jeff King is wrong, and how he's like any other typical "truther." You asked me to give you a reason why I thought this. So I said ok, check out 1:00 where he says that this is "clear evidence of explosives." Yet anyone with a sliver of common sense can see that what this "MIT Engineer" calls explosions, are simply vertical columns toppling over. Then, you switched over to the politics.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ... i don't understand how you can be so sure there was no explosions. The are witnesses who said they heard explosions. There really is no way to verify for sure if there was.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 As far as witnesses hearing explosions, that I don't doubt at all considering that there is a lot of things inside a commercial building that can explode when they are damaged or on fire. Are you aware each tower had 4 different electrical switch gear stations? There was 13.8kv power running up those buildings, which is a tremendous amount of electricity. That alone can cause a tremendous explosion if you damage the feeders.

[fengineer08]

@NoLies86 And not only that, but besides all the switchgear you had all kinds of HVAC equipment, boilers, water heaters, compressed gas tanks including propane, acetylene and oxygen, compressed air tanks for pneumatic controls, fuel cells, miles of duct work, and many other things that could easily have been a source of an explosion. These were huge buildings, and they didn't simply run themselves with the temperatures staying at a comfort level 24/7 by magic. There was A LOT of equipment there

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 .... ok, valid point, but still. There were plenty of building surrounding 1 an 2 that were huge buildings that didn't simply run themselves, and they coincidentally didn't fall down. Additionally, WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 never fell down into their own footprint as WTC 7 did. Evidence suggests that they were a lot of important government documents, including the Enron energy scandal documents. A good investigator of something like this wouldn't solely try to explain it with physics.

[NoLies86]

@NoLies86 ... it is highly improbable that Al Queda could accomplish the task they so called fulfilled, especially the ones that were claimed to have done it given their history. So I dismiss it on that basis entirely. I also think that it is too much of coincidence that Dick Cheney was in charge of Norad that day. No vice president has ever taken charge of Norad in history.

[NoLies86]

@fengineer08 ...here's the peculiar response by Gen Eberhart when asked by the 9/11 commission:

"When asked who was responsible for coordinating the multiple war games running on the morning of September 11, 2001, General Ralph E Eberhart, the man in charge of NORAD on the morning in question replied,

'No Comment.' "

Gee ... wonder why he responded like that. Come on. When it comes to understanding human activity it is better to use your common sense. Too many god damn coincidences that day.

[Bi0hazardx]

Can any of the debunkers please explain the mechanism in which the lower floors of WTC 7 were removed in fractions of a second prior to the upper floors hitting resistance? Especially when all of the potential energy of the building was already turned into kinetic energy to achieve the free fall acceleration admitted by NIST. Thus, leaving no energy from the falling building to cause any damage to the building below, which again did not provide any resistance as the building fell at free-fall.

[Bi0hazardx]

In order to back up the official story of the WTC7 collapse:

Debunkers would have to explain how a collapse that required compression between floors and thus resistance could take place in free-fall acceleration.

If debunkers want to have any grounds to stand on, in critiquing those who challenge the official story.

They need to show that the official story itself is SOUND, in order to debunk those who question it.

Debunkers skip this step on the questions they cannot answer.

[Bi0hazardx]

There is only one way to destroy the lower resistance while at the same time achieving free-fall without the energy from the falling building. This is to remove the floors just holding up the building in fractions of seconds with controlled demolition. There is no other way.

WTC7 Freefall - No Longer Controversial. Scientifically proven and self verifiable.

watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall

(Part 1)

watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

(2)

watch?v=XtKLtUiww80

(3)

watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

[dglang]

the diagram at 6:30 shows a 'left' exterior wall and a 'left' core. It does not show TWO exterior walls as the MIT engineer and a viewer may assume it to show.. The picture is clearly labeled with one exterior wall and ONE interior core support..

[Praestantia111]

So? Anyway, this guy will get fired by MIT, labeled crazy, then banished from academia like all the others with the balls to stand up.

[oxomaticman]

Well of course, since ALL OF ACEDEMIA is in on it. Don't you idiots realize that even during an ACTUAL controlled demolition the huge dust clouds are formed from the buildings' collapse and NOT by explosives? This DOCTOR with an ELECTRICIAN'S gives some pretty misleading comparisons.

[MrRiceowlex]

Everything was essentially turned to dust in a vertical pancake collapse wherein every hermetically sealed (yes they were hermetically sealed) floor exploded and the entire structure fell at 2/3rds free fall speed. If they were to collapse it would be toward the path of least resistance, or whereever an injury had created weakness. But what about all those firefighters claiming to have heard explosions, bam, bam, bam, like they were trying to bring a building down..Troubling indeed !

[oxomaticman]

"Everything was essentially turned to dust..." - No it wasn't.

If the towers were solid objects, you would have a point.

In order for the tops of the towers to topple over and bounce off to the side, they would have needed sufficient support from the opposite sides of the collapse points, and the ONE floor below would have to be able to support the weight AND the velocity of all the other floors above it WITHOUT collapsing itself.

But they didn't. You are shocked, I am not.

[oxomaticman]

And how about the fact that it's the very SAME firefighters you quote who don't support your conspiracy theory?

"....LIKE they were trying to bring a building down." is a description, a comparison, a simile. Here are some others you may be having trouble with for future reference:

"LIKE a missile with wings" - simile.

"Like a bat outta hell." - excessive speed. NOT an actual mammal flying from the underworld.

"Worked like a dog" - labored intensely. Dogs don't actually work.

[rothschad]

"PLEASE SPREAD! Share the truth, even if you personally don't have the time to view these series!"

I think youtube has more than its share of people claiming it to be a conspiracy without looking into it without you creating more numb brains!!

[ParapaDrifter]

so when the government says it carte blanche, its okay... but when people do it... their numb brains?

I don't have to refute the official conspiracy theory.... just let Sibel Edmonds speak!

[annie46664]

This is GREAT - but - much MORE since then!

An Investigation Into 9-11 -

/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0

The Elephant In The Room: Part 2/10

/watch?v=Q3zHSKC7P2M&feature=r­elated

PLEASE SPREAD! Share the truth, even if you personally don't have the time to view these series! It's each of our responsibility to at least SHARE & give OTHERS the opportunity to DECIDE for themselves. A FEW extremely dedicated people have spent DAYS/MONTHS/YEARS putting these together!

Let's HONOUR their efforts. :)

PEACE

[rothschad]

"A FEW extremely dedicated people have spent DAYS/MONTHS/YEARS putting these together!

"

so it took years and the best they could come up with is an electrician and theologist to talk about steel??? Hmmm does that mean its gunna take decades before the twoof movement actually gets someone who knows what there talking about then??

[ParapaDrifter]

it will probably take a collapse of America

nano sized particles can be caused by jetfuel and a falling building?

[oxomaticman]

Apparently they can be used to conjure up ludicrous conspiracy theories involving the government and thousands of people keeping it under wraps.

[ParapaDrifter]

There has been a few who've squealed. Sibel Edmonds is one who refused to keep it under wraps.

But I guess you will keep on denying that we are being fucked with by an international crime syndicate.

Plus, with the "keeping it under wraps" comment, you are assuming that those involved don't want to be part of it. It is their AGENDA to bring about world government.

Think of it as poetic justice that the spy infrastructure flexed against the soviets are now being used against us.

wakey

[oxomaticman]

Pfft...yeah, right pal, it's their AGENDA. Some guy that designs buildings for a living refutes your BS theories with his expertise, and you say it's because it's part of his AGENDA.

And what the hell is with this "one world government" bullshit? Think about it. Think hard. Americans don't want part of any government that is not based on democracy. If there WAS ONE worldwide democratic government, wouldn't that bring about PEACE?

Just say no to drugs..