Loading...

MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1

732,820 views

Loading...

Loading...

Transcript

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading...

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jan 4, 2007

MIT Engineer Jeff King's logical look at the official story of the WTC collapse\

Jeff King's Linkedin Profile: www.linkedin.com/pub/jeffrey-king/47/694/b92

Comments • 13,200

Edward Anderson
Again,, despite good work for fourteen years by the Truth Movement to counter the claims of gravitational collapse, fire-weakened steel, and magical aircraft,  Deniers continue to hammer free speech and honest inquiry. They know that ridicule, misrepresentation, straw-man tactics, arguments from false authority, and the use of factoids can reinforce misplaced belief and discourage those who may be uninformed or don't employ due diligence. By trusting biased sources that spout propaganda due to their allegiance to the status quo, Truth Deniers and their duped victims deprive themselves and others of information that, when taken in aggregate, calls into serious question the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. All the Truth Movement ultimately wants is an in-depth, pull-no-punches investigation that does not protect or provide cover for the leadership involved in the 9/11 fiasco, and examines and investigates ALL possible circumstances.  By accepting the official version of the events of 9/11, we give tacit approval to the crimes that are committed in our country's name and allow irresponsible actors to continue to corrupt our political system.This is a continuation of the post below, which has reached its limit of 500 comments. Thanks for the interest, and let's work toward rooting out corruption rather than allowing it to flourish. The mainstream media has been co-opted. Grassroots action is our recourse.
View all 189 replies
MK KENDALL
Albury Smith When should I expect the FBI Pinochio?
MK KENDALL
Albury Smith Thats why I own 3 businesses fuck boy. hahahahahahaha You should supersize zelikows cock in your ass.
Hide replies
Edward Anderson
Despite good work by the Truth Movement to counter the claims of gravitational collapse, fire-weakened steel, and magical aircraft, Acceptards continue to hammer free speech and honest inquiry. Acceptards know that ridicule, misrepresentation, and the use of factoids can reinforce misplaced belief and discourage those who don't employ due diligence. By trusting biased sources that owe allegiance to the status quo, Acceptards and their duped victims deprive themselves of information that, when taken in aggregate, calls into serious question the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. All the Truth Movement ultimately wants is an in-depth, pull-no-punches investigation that does not protect the leadership involved in the 9/11 fiasco, and looks at and investigates ALL possible circumstances. By accepting the official version of the events of 9/11, we give tacit approval for the crimes that are committed in our country's name.  This is a continuation of the post directly below, which has reached its limit of comments and may no longer be responded to unless I delete previous comments. To those who were deleted in order to understand this situation, I apologize. You will not be "blocked" on this continuation thread.
View all 452 replies
Edward Anderson
If you can't think of anything new to say, +FactChecking101 , then don't clutter the conversation with mindless repetition.
Edward Anderson
+Fire Marshall Phillip Or maybe Check Fraud101, because +FactChecking101 is a flim-flam artist who seems to think repetition makes him seem smarter than he is. (it doesn't). 
Hide replies
DestinLe
Well... We tried to tell them, we tried to reveal the truth to them, and not enough wanted to listen. The truth is that most people here in America don't give a fat fuck. As long as we have food in our stores, beer in the fridge, and a place in the house were our shit is sent away with a push of a button people will never care enough.
View all 2 replies
eyesuntzu
+MisterFuturtastic 911 truth is a movement of lies, you BS is nonsense. US is not dumbed down technologically, you must be projecting your countries failed status; and failing.  If you believe 911 truth claims, you are dumbed down technologcally, and even dumber in science.  LOL< Freemasons, my dad as a mason, you are paranoid   What is your point?  
Hide replies
Bob Lake
Facts no-one can deny:  Weeks after the event, there was still tons of MOLTEN iron underground.  NASA flew over the site and showed a number of hot spots underground.  Second, the analysis of the dust by two different groups indicating that a sophisticated, military grade of thermate was present in the dust.  Spectral analysis does not lie.  Explosions heard before the collapse, caught on tape.  The firefighters and teh police warning that building 7 was coming down, minutes before the event. This too is caught on tape, including the final countdown to the explosion. Plus the free-fall of the buildings.  There is NO WAY all those steel collumns just evaporated to allow the building to fall like that.  The only explanation is that the steel collums were cut with demolition charges.  I dont need anymore. Those facts plus my understanding of physics leave no more room for doubts.  This was an inside job.
View all 207 replies
Bob Lake
+teefkay2  Hey asshole.  You can wait forever for answers to your little quiz.  I have stated numerous times I am not a mechanical or structural engineer.  Months ago, I watched the video above, and stated my opinion. It was a comment to a video, asshole.  If you want to argue forever, go seek the guy who made the video, or any number of people who are seriously investigating this. Now go get a life, or collect your pay from homeland security.
teefkay2
+Edward Anderson  Well, at least Edward tried. And, for that, he's got more balls than 99.9% of all Twoofers. Let's see how how did... (I'll give 0 to 5 points for each answer. Which is far, far easier grading than I ever got in school or (most especially) when working.) EA: "OK. Let’s play." 1) Question: What is the one and only condition which determines whether or not some structural component fails? Edward’s Answer: There is not a "one and only condition" which detemines structural failure. Structural failure may be caused by material failure due to excessive live loads within the envelope, external forces such as wind loading or earthquake, and induced or imposed events such as explosive demolition or mechanical deconstruction. Component failure is defined as loss of load-carrying capacity due to any of the above cited criteria. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 2) Question: Does this condition (the failure criterion) depend on the number of stores in the building? Edward’s Answer: No answer. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 3) Question: What determines whether or not a collapse will be arrested? Edward’s Answer: A collapse will be arrested if the applied force cannot overcome the resistance to same. The number of floors involved determines the aggregate resistance and the aggregate mass of impact, so the number of floors involved matters. Of course, this presupposes that a gravitational collapse initiation scenario is met. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 4) Question: Does (collapse arrest) depend on the number of stories in the building?? Edward’s Answer: ”The number of stories has no intrinsic bearing on structural component failure, but the forces in play go up exponentially with height for a given structural modulus.” Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 (By virtue of being gibberish.) __ 5) Question: Name the 3 principle effects that raising temperature has on the strength of a structure. Put them in order (most important to least important) in the collapse of the Towers. Edward’s Answer: 1- Not applicable 2- Not applicable 3- Not applicable Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 6) Question: Why, EXACTLY, did the towers collapse when most tall steel buildings that suffer unfought fires do not? Edward’s Answer: Raised temperatures were not responsible for the collapse of the WTC towers. The Towers colapsed when most (actually ALL) tall steel buildings that suffer unfought fires do not  because the WTC towers did not suffer from failure due to fires,. They were brought down using controlled demolition, as evidenced by the observed effects at collapse initiation and beyond. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 7) Question: What is the inexorable, unavoidable, and wrong conclusion about acceleration that results from assuming the "best fit linear interpolation of the velocity versus time data"? Edward’s Answer: Best fit linear interpolation of the velocity vs. time data suffers from a loss of accuracy, but the gain in simplicity is of greater value, given the forthright nature of the sampling methodology. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 8) Question: When digitally sampling data, explain the Nyquist criteria. Edward’s Answer: No answer. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 9) Question: What does this criteria say about Chandler's results? Edward’s Answer: No answer Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 10) Question: How would one improve the frequency domain resolution of his results? Edward’s Answer: Who says the frequency domain resolution of Chandler's results needs improving? Screw your Fourier transform, and your sample size as well. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 11) Question: What is the mathematical difficulty with doing this? Edward’s Answer: No Answer. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 12) Question: How does one COMPETENTLY get around this problem? Edward’s Answer: No Answer. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ 13) Question: Explain d'Alembert's principal principle, and why Bazant used it in his analyses. Edward’s Answer: Bazant used d'Ambert's principle (not principal, numbnuts) because Bazant assumed an accelerating rigid body, which was an incorrect assumption. Gordon Ross cleaned Bazant's clock on that one. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  +1 point for catching my spelling error. -1 point for mis-spelling "d'Alembert's" as "d'Ambert's". Result: 0/5 __ 14) Question: Explain a Lagrangian transformation of coordinate axes, and why Bazant used it in his analysis. Edward’s Answer: Bazant used a Lagrangian transformation to support his argument for Euler buckling. Unfortunately, Bazant was barking up the wrong metaphorical tree, since Euler buckling empirically did not occur. Edwards answer is … WRONG.  0/5 __ About as expected. Out of a possible 70 points, Edward got zero for technical knowledge. He got one point for catching my spelling error ... and then promptly gave it back. So, Edward, ZERO out of 70. A complete FAIL. What a non-surprise. How long have you been at this? And you've picked up ... nothing?!! __ PS. I will post the correct answers just as soon as it becomes blatantly obvious to everyone that +Bob Lake, who attempted to wow me with the fact that he's a "57 year old engineer", is too cowardly to attempt to try to answer. LMAO. You turn, Bob. "... tick tock ...", Bob, "... tick tock ..." LMFAO.
Hide replies
Edward Anderson
Despite good work by the Truth Movement to counter the claims of gravitational collapse, fire-weakened steel, and magical aircraft, Acceptards continue to hammer free speech and honest inquiry. Acceptards know that ridicule, misrepresentation, and the use of factoids can reinforce misplaced belief and discourage those who don't emlpoy due diligence. By trusting biased sources that owe allegiance to the stastus quo, Acceptards and their duped victims deprive themselves of information that, when taken in aggregate, calls into serious queston the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. All the Truth Movement ultimately wants is an in-depth, pull-no-punches investigation that does not protect the leadership involved in the 9/11 fiasco, and looks at, and investigates, ALL possible circumstances. By accepting the official version of the events of 9/11, we give tacit approval for the crimes that are  committed in our country's name.
View all 500 replies
rayof 315
+rayof 315 Okay, this is number 500. +Edward Anderson why not repost the original comment so we can continue...
rayof 315
+Edward Anderson Interesting, did you delete more than once comment?
Hide replies
marby602
All the evidence being destroyed is one of the best pieces of evidence of it being an inside job by the Neo-Cons.
View all 31 replies
marby602
BOTH were. Although 7/11 is funny, 9/11 is not.
Hide replies
Amy
I have to know: What the hell is with this new claim that "Planes can't punch a hole in steel and concrete" nonsense? Is this like... the last desperate stand that conspiracy theorists are making?
View all 410 replies
m al
+MarieElena Istina the bitch crushed by her own car thats karma...love it..one terrorist less....
m al
+MarieElena Istina damn you dumb..devil bush shut down security dumbass...oh no little lair he would stop the terrorist whit a baseball bat yrah we saw him trying to hit the planes of the building whaaahaha arent you a little rightwing scumbag lair...
Hide replies
Hawaiiguy Kailua
I just read a report (theory) from an "esteemed" engineer about molten aluminum causing the explosions in the WTC towers when contacting the water from the sprinkler systems. It finally put my mind at ease because I was having the damnedest time figuring out why every time I turned on my gas stove all my stainless steel, aluminum, copper and cast iron cookware and grates suddenly start to molten after about 30 minutes of natural gas flame. I got so tired of buying new cookware and stoves every week I finally just dug a hole in my back yard and skewered all my meats with a stick and cooked my stews and pastas in a massive fireproof brick cauldron. But now that I know its an engineering issue I think I can safely sue the manufactures for the 300 or so stoves and 500 or so sets of cookware I was forced to buy over the last 20 years. I asked my mom why hers never moltened when I was a kid and she suggested I go see a psychiatrist!
View all 112 replies
Christ J
+oller "not that cocksuredness any more; where did it go? " - your psychoanalytical skills are every bit as non-existent as your physics knowledge. "Avalanches occur when the friction factor is diminished because of the warmer weather " avalanches are most common in winter, and it's colder weather that causes them, not milder weather. Once again, you have presumed that you know a subject you have never studied, and are now doubling down rather than admit that you got caught out. "Citation needed? Sorry for you!" - translation: "I don't have a valid source, and couldn't find one that didn't destroy my claims, so I'm trying to shift the burden of proof again". Allow me: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19800663744 "you are back to the special construction of the towers" - not at all. I'm simply preventing you from using a drastically different structure in a way that would allow you to use incomparable results as a comparative datum point. I outlined a way in which a trivial alteration to your scenario would provide a far better analogue to the WTC, and yet you're trying to fight this...? "I gave you an example to discuss. Discuss it." - I did. I asked you to be more specific because I have no intention of being accused of selection bias. You are going to choose the exact details and we'll see if your own assertions hold up when you select the input data. The sole reason for you rejecting this and continuing to insist that I choose the data points is because you want an escape route. You want to be able to bullshit yourself that it wouldn't have worked with some other starting point. I refuse to give you that escape route. Either your claims are correct or they are not - I'm not letting you flee from your own example because the terms were too vague to pin down an answer. Choose. "discuss from where you get that extra gravity force that was not already there." - already did, by carefully and concisely explaining that gravity in itself has no effect on momentum and kinetic energy, but instead gives rise to a vector value that affects them. It's not my fault if you're too clueless to understand a very simple fact of physics. "The five times extra is from Jeffrey Skilling." - citation needed "Give me the principle that you have been referring to all the time." - done. Again, if you don't understand it then that's not my fault. It's yours for failing to learn some basic mechanics in the last decade and a half. Stop pretending to know a subject that you clearly have no idea of. This isn't a courtroom and you're not trying to impress a jury so that they overlook the massive flaws in your case. Psychologists the world over know how easily-led juries are, and fooling them is hardly impressive - especially when you select them yourself. This is a case of you being face-to-face with someone who knows his subject well, and who can immediately tell when someone else doesn't. Repeatedly asking for something to be dumbed down enough for you to comprehend - contrary to what you seem to think - does not help your case, particularly when that "something" is the basic function of momentum. "The principle that says that as soon as the momentum of the falling floors is strong enough to overcome the resistance of the first floor it hits; the process will follow the pattern from the Twin Towers" - that would be the three-equation guide I have offered you on multiple occasions, only for you to turn down that educational experience. Are you now saying you do want to work through these calculations? Or are you now going to stop asking for this "principle" because you realise you've just backed yourself into a corner? The same offer applies from the last time I called you out on this: admit that you don't know the relevant physics and I'll happily walk you through it. Continue to lie that you do know the relevant physics and you'll be continually asked to prove it by working through these calculations yourself. This is perfectly reasonable. And, before you try this crap again, I am not asking for a flippant "fine, assume I don't know it" response designed to give you another escape route (you have a very narrow range of tactics, it seems) like you did before. You can either offer the relevant calculations yourself - which would take up about the same amount of space as your last comment - or you can sincerely acknowledge that you are entirely ignorant of the relevant physics. Pick one.
Christ J
+Hawaiiguy Kailua "how these three skyscrapers all collapsed into there own footprint " - because they didn't. All three showered the surrounding buildings with debris, which definitively proves that they cannot have fallen within their own footprint. The fact that you lying cunts perpetually refuse to acknowledge the video and photographic evidence just to continue making this impassioned, antiscientific plea is pathetic. "and in under One single minute combined " - I almost forgot that you were the retard who think that adding up collapse times means anything. What's really funny is that you think nobody can tell that you're doing it to hide the fact that none of the collapse times are anomalous given the known circumstances. Better yet, this is the third different number you've given for the "combined" collapse time. Despite the collapse data being available for fifteen years, you still have to constantly change your figure as a result of your total inability to do some basic research. What a clown. " the Jews who did 9/11" - calling it right now: +Hawaiiguy Kailua's first - and only - girlfriend left him for a Jew.
Hide replies
zane lile
imploded by planned explosions. No air plane caused the structure to fall.
View all 35 replies
Colosphonium
GYPSYKINGLEO77 all your point are found elsewhere and debunk stupid fuck. the top speed of airplane is a safety limit....not a structural kamikaze plane limit... German wings crash at that speed and so was Egypt air two suicide... good example of a truffer rejecting fact that doesn't support its theory...no matter how many time I will prove you wrong you will just change subject piece of shit and come back for more like a flat earther. jump a bridge imbecil e
Hide replies
Brian Bodea
Building 7 everyone..... Building 7
View all 10 replies
Hide replies
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...