9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished


Jeff King explains how the molten steel was flowing under the wreckage of the World Trade Center buildings for months, and how that is a reason of great concern to scientists, who have really searched hard to find facts about why those buildings fell down at such a rapid speed. He also mentions the demolition squibs, the quick site cleanup and disposal of the evidence after the globalists attacked on 9/11/01.

ExplosivesWTC at Digg.com

Jeff King knows what he's talking about. A must see.

So an MIT prof has seen fit to offer his opinion...how ever misinformed it may be.....

Although I guess this means that I could start a thread titled...


"WTC architect, John Skilling says WTC 1 and 2 collapses due to unprecedented damage"

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Jeff King watched the collapse for the first time and determined it was a CD? WOW Why didn't NIST call him. Would have saved us all millions.

The guy is using the "squibs" argument. Yeah I will totaly listen to him.

Same old truther rhetoric without any facts to back it up.

Typical

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So an MIT prof has seen fit to offer his opinion...

Hi Swampfox46_1999,

Please don't elevate Jeff King to the status of "an MIT prof"...

He isn't one.

Jeff King describes himself on this website as follows:

a 60 year old former electrical engineer and more recently a Family Practice physician. I graduated from MIT with an SB degree in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major (this was before a Bio-Medical Engineering Department existed), and before settling down to do clinical medicine I worked for about eight years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering. For the past 27 years I have been working full time as a family physician, doing office-based primary care here in the rural San Joaquin Valley of central California.

Since 9-11 I have also been deeply involved with collecting, analyzing and making available to the public and other researchers as much as I could find of the photo and video evidence of the World Trade Center collapses.

So, although Jeff King says he obtained an engineering degree from MIT, he doesn't claim to be a professor at MIT (or to be a professor anywhere at all or, indeed, even to have worked as an engineer in the last few decades).

If you watch the video in the OP, he refers to discussing matters with one of his patients, which reinforces the fact that he has been working as a family physician during the last few decades.

The title given to this thread, which refers to Jeff King" as an "MIT Engineer" is slighly more ambiguous (and at least doesn't expressly state that he is an engineering professor at MIT), so isn't quite as badly misleading...

Kind Regards,

Isaac

[edit on 11-5-2008 by IsaacKoi]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

Jeff King watched the collapse for the first time and determined it was a CD? WOW Why didn't NIST call him. Would have saved us all millions.

The guy is using the "squibs" argument. Yeah I will totaly listen to him.

Same old truther rhetoric without any facts to back it up.

Typical

Let me comment as constructive.
Selling yellow snow again?(nice symbolism)

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
"WTC architect, John Skilling says WTC 1 and 2 collapses due to unprecedented damage"

That would be pretty amazing for a dead engineer to say, no?

Skilling was the main structural engineer over Leslie Robinson. He died in 1998 I believe.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
"WTC architect, John Skilling says WTC 1 and 2 collapses due to unprecedented damage"

That would be pretty amazing for a dead engineer to say, no?

Skilling was the main structural engineer over Leslie Robinson. He died in 1998 I believe.

True he did die 1998. However, its just as relevant as saying Jeff King has declared it was a controlled demolition.

However, in this case Griff, you caught me. I was short on time and typed the wrong name. However, ole Leslie's opinion is that the collapse was a result of the damage and fire.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
However, ole Leslie's opinion is that the collapse was a result of the damage and fire.

Do you have a source for this? Not that I'm disputing you, but I have been hard pressed to find Mr. Robinson's comments on the WTC collapses. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

So far, this is the only thing I can find of Mr. Robinson saying anything about it. BTW, I don't see where he states that the plane damage and fire was the cause of the collapse. Actually, I don't see where he has said anything about the collapse itself other than what is mentioned here. Please let me know if/when you find the actual quotes from him. Thanks.

www.seau.org...

[edit on 5/13/2008 by Griff]

Edit: Could be because I'm spelling his name Robinson when it's Robertson.

Edit again: I still haven't found a direct quote from Mr. Robertson.

[edit on 5/13/2008 by Griff]

One quote by Mr. Robertson:

"Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer on the team that designed the towers, wrote that "The events of September 11 are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone." As NIST would also conclude"

No source of where he wrote this though.

I wonder why I haven't been able to find anything on it yet? Am I looking in the wrong places or is Mr. Swampfox pulling this out of his you-know-what? Not sure just yet, but if Mr. Robertson has publicly said anything, you'd think it would be easier to find. No?

Or is he keeping quiet to avoid any future lawsuits?

During a 1984-85 Office of Special Planning study into the vulnerability of the WTC to a terrorist attack, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, assured investigators that whether the towers suffered a bomb attack or were hit by an airplane, there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked."

In 2001, Leslie Robertson again stated, "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane."

"As investigators have pointed out, immediately after 9/11 Leslie Robertson refused to discuss the collapse of the buildings with the media but he later recanted and agreed with NIST's conclusions"

Immediately after 9/11 it was reported that “the engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. ‘We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,’ said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. ‘We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.’” arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Mr. Robertson has said some very interesting things worth inquiring about.

"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," he told a conference in Frankfurt Germany.

www.911blogger.com...

Some quotes so far.


[edit on 5/13/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Hey senor, bsbray needs your help. He made this statement:

"because the perimeter columns had enormous reserve capacity, especially on higher floors where there was less weight but the columns were physically the same size. So they could hold about as much weight as the columns on the very bottom of the building that held the whole damned thing up, but they had much less weight actually applied to them. "

Complete post here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

We've agreed that while the exterior dimensions are the same, the thickness of the steel that made up the ext columns got thinner towards the top.

By looking at his statement, you can see that he seems to think that this is irrelevant, and that the ext columns were as strong as those near the base.

Please correct him, and save him further embarassment. Or, correct me.

Actually, I was under the same impression as bsbray. That the exterior columns were the same size the whole way up. The difference in strength comes from the use of higher strength steels at the base.

But, this would then tell us that the moment of inertia would be the same at the top exterior columns as it would be at the bottom. Since moment of inertia (I) is a product of area.

Boy, it would be sooooo nice to get a glimpse at the structural documentation.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
However, ole Leslie's opinion is that the collapse was a result of the damage and fire.

Do you have a source for this? Not that I'm disputing you, but I have been hard pressed to find Mr. Robinson's comments on the WTC collapses. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

So far, this is the only thing I can find of Mr. Robinson saying anything about it. BTW, I don't see where he states that the plane damage and fire was the cause of the collapse. Actually, I don't see where he has said anything about the collapse itself other than what is mentioned here. Please let me know if/when you find the actual quotes from him. Thanks.

www.seau.org...

[edit on 5/13/2008 by Griff]

Edit: Could be because I'm spelling his name Robinson when it's Robertson.

Edit again: I still haven't found a direct quote from Mr. Robertson.

[edit on 5/13/2008 by Griff]

Will this suffice for you? Or are you going to pull an Ultima on me?

"In retrospect, I would have made them sturdier. But making them sturdier doesn't mean that they would have stood up because the failure was the result of removal of the structure by the plane and degradation by the fires."

Leslie Robertson as quoted in an interview with the Guardian

www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Will this suffice for you?

www.guardian.co.uk...

Yes it does. Thanks.

It still doesn't refute his and Skillings' calculations and comments prior.

And please don't bring up the titanic as your next argument. Thanks. I've already debunked that faleshood. The engineers never said the titanic was invincible. It was a newspaper ad. And we know how reporters are when it comes to facts, right?

[edit on 5/13/2008 by Griff]

I like this part of the link you've provided us swampfox.

"I know more about the project and more than anyone ever will about the design. There's no one alive today who's even close to what's stored away in my head and I've got a memory like a sieve. It's true that, following the event, a lot of people - architects and engineers - stepped up to the interview platform and had their say and, by and large, most of them spoke much too quickly and without a lot of knowledge. There's a need to understand what should be said before saying things."

This is why I insist on the structural documentation before I make a decision of what happened that day.

Robertson counsels that there are no absolutes in his discipline, that we are not talking about a fine Swiss watch, that imperfect materials are employed to construct imperfect buildings, that each structure has its strengths and weaknesses.

Another thing that I have been saying for a while now.

I found the comment about the planes and the relative speed interesting, suggesting that the actual planes of 9/11 were travelling at least twice as fast as the intended 'survivable' impact which amounts to more than 4 times the KE.

reply to post by ChadAndrewATS


Hi..

Sorry to say it but I had already psoted this a few days earlier.

911 Exposé - The Truth Laid Bare

Please add your comments to the exisitng thread.

I couldn't believe how little coverage my orriginal thread got..

Thank You.

Power to the People!!!

NeoN HaZe

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Will this suffice for you?

www.guardian.co.uk...

Yes it does. Thanks.

It still doesn't refute his and Skillings' calculations and comments prior.

And please don't bring up the titanic as your next argument. Thanks. I've already debunked that faleshood. The engineers never said the titanic was invincible. It was a newspaper ad. And we know how reporters are when it comes to facts, right?

[edit on 5/13/2008 by Griff]

No, he doesnt come out and refute the calculations, but he does say that a fully fueled 767 traveling at high speed WASNT considered in those calculations and that the kinetic energy would be several orders of magnitude higher.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, he doesnt come out and refute the calculations, but he does say that a fully fueled 767 traveling at high speed WASNT considered in those calculations and that the kinetic energy would be several orders of magnitude higher.

The Free fall Calculations are covered here

911 Exposé - The Truth Laid Bare

Please add to the existing thread.

Thank you..

NeoN HaZe

Originally posted by Griff
Actually, I was under the same impression as bsbray. That the exterior columns were the same size the whole way up. The difference in strength comes from the use of higher strength steels at the base.

You're quite wrong on all accounts.

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Perimeter columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gauge steel, most commonly 0.25 in (6.35 mm) …
In contrast to the upper stories, in the lower stories, the perimeter column flanges were as thick as 3 in. (76 mm) and typically made of lower strength steels.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Perimeter columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gauge steel, most commonly 0.25 in (6.35 mm) …
In contrast to the upper stories, in the lower stories, the perimeter column flanges were as thick as 3 in. (76 mm) and typically made of lower strength steels.

Interesting. One would think it would be the other way around. With the stronger steel used in the lower portions.

I will look more into this. Do you have any other source other than this wiki article? It also says that the transition of the steel thickness is not known. If that critical element is not known, then how do they even know that it does indeed transition?

No further information is given on the transition points in the columns from one thickness to another and one grade of steel to another.

So, they know that it transitioned in thickness from 3 inches to .25 inches but not where? How do they know it transitions if they don't know where?