MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King: insight into what most likely happened that day

MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King details how the official government story violates the laws of physics and chemistry. He goes on to explain how the subsequent government investigations were designed NOT to uncover what happened. He also provides insight into what most likely happened that day.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• 9/11
• ConfrontingTheEvidence
• reopen911.org

[rayneboard]

Choose to pick on his spelling.

Nice one.

What about all the other things he mentions ?

Any comment on that ?

[8triagrammer]

NIST's official stance is that the towers collapsed at "speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from a similar height in a vaccum".

NIST's supposed "scientific" explanation of the collapse violates the law of conservation of momentum.

This doesn't necessarily mean it was an "inside job" but we certainly need a better explanation..

[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.

[ToolFan68]

@millman26 ... or almost every other war for that matter.

[Coolworldleaderguy]

People, as I as well as many others have realised, there are Alot of (probably paid) disinformation shills on all these 911 truth videos.

Please be mindful of this. They will fight you tooth & nail, & refuse to even entertain the thought of doubting the official account.Even when presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary by the most credible & qualified of sources.

Their eyes and ears are FIRMLY SHUT

Of course some are just brainwashed(many hopelessly so) sheeple also.

[tubeexcellence]

@millman26

Do you have any good links?

[tomestubbs]

@BigMikeMcBastard Why are they not answering the questions? Pretending the questions are not there doesn't mean that they don't exist. The 9-11 commission members and numerous other Architects and Engineers are qringing up obvious questions based on evidence. The 9-11 commission was a white wash.

[BigMikeMcBastard]

@tomestubbs "Feelings" as in you're choosing to believe fringe opinions on this rather than the vast majority of experts (such as the people at MIT, where Jeff King doesn't work in any capacity) who think planes flying into the buildings was enough, and have the data to prove it. It's as if you think there aren't answers out there to all of your questions. Do you think all of the "mainstream" experts are just guessing? That it isn't science backing their conclusions? I don't get it.

[tomestubbs]

@BigMikeMcBastard Feelings Oh Oh oh oh Feelings! Where Nanno Thermite, free fall collapse of buildings one at 5:20 pm, Massive explosions distributing pulverized concrete in what appears to be a huge pyroclastic turbulence flow, molten steel five weeks after the "demolition" is concerned I do not have feelings but see scientifically arrived at evidence. AE 9-11 Truth questions the dogma of the incomplete data, shoddy investigation of the official 9-11 report. I see unanswered questions!

[BigMikeMcBastard]

@tomestubbs There's no evidence that the Popular Mechanics article has any sort of corruption to it. I have a feeling you will see corruption and "vested interests" in anything that doesn't concur with your opinion on this, however.

[tomestubbs]

@BigMikeMcBastard It does matter to me if the info is corrupted by vested interests. The problem is that the science on the part of Pop Mechanics and other debunkers is full of holes. Many things are not mentioned conveniently to strengthen their case.  Peer revieew science is the only credible info. Not some hack dummy from the Bush Regime.