http://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=jeff+king
Well that's interesting, interesting in the sense that there is no Jeff King at MIT. What other imaginary people do you have supporting your conspiracy?
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'd like to post a video of a speech given by Jeff King, an engineer from MIT who discusses and confirms almost everything the BYU professor has talked about in addition to other stuff.
Text
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'd like to post a video of a speech given by Jeff King, an engineer from MIT who discusses and confirms almost everything the BYU professor has talked about in addition to other stuff.
Text
http://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=jeff+king
Well that's interesting, interesting in the sense that there is no Jeff King at MIT. What other imaginary people do you have supporting your conspiracy?
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'd like to post a video of a speech given by Jeff King, an engineer from MIT who discusses and confirms almost everything the BYU professor has talked about in addition to other stuff. Text
Originally posted by: Dissipate
It is evident you didn't even watch the video. Jeff King is not on the faculty of MIT, but according to the video he studied physics there.
Oh but wait. Since he doesn't buy the government's 'official' story he is automatically a 'nutjob' and a 'tin foily.'
video of a speech given by Jeff King, an engineer from MIT
Biographical Note:
PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeffrey King, a 50-something former engineer (MIT class of '74, about 10 years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering), gainfully employed as a family physician for the past 25 years, but spending most of his limited free time for the past three years in trying to document and make available to the public and other researchers the photo and video evidence of the World Trade Center collapses.
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'd like to post a video of a speech given by Jeff King, an engineer from MIT who discusses and confirms almost everything the BYU professor has talked about in addition to other stuff. Text
First, Jeff King is not FROM MIT, he claims to have gone there. Second, this same person has links on his site claming that small hydrogen bombs where involved in both tower collapses, Katrina was a planned hurricane targetting New Orleans, all weather is manufactured, etc.
Originally posted by: rahvin
There wasn't. There was heat present in the ruins because there was a smoldering fire burning in the rubble for months. Do you know how a forge works? (that isn't a rhetorical question, please explain the mechanics of a forge)
We see from the photograph above that solid metal slag existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two. Additional photographs of the hot metal could provide further information and advance the research.
Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of molten metal.
Furthermore, we have published reports that "molten steel [or other metal] flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet" -- how could building fires have caused that effect? Has it ever been seen before?
The very high temperatures of the molten or previously-molten metal implied by the data are difficult to explain in the context of the official theory that fires finally caused the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC 7. Highly exothermic chemical reactions other than hydrocarbon fires, such as the thermite reaction which produces molten iron as an end product, are implied by the data. The official reports by NIST, FEMA and the 9-11 Commission strikingly omit mention of large quantities of molten metal observed in the basement areas of WTC 7 and the Towers. Further investigation is strongly motivated.
And a Math and computer science degree that you haven't even completed makes you qualified to assess the validity of an engineering study?
Now lets answer a question of mine, what is strain hardening and how does it affect the metals that have were part of the rubble of the WTC?
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Stop trying to change the subject. I said I wanted to focus on one question. Why was there molten steel/iron in the basement of the WTC site weeks after the attacks?
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Stop trying to change the subject. I said I wanted to focus on one question. Why was there molten steel/iron in the basement of the WTC site weeks after the attacks?
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I don't need a PhD from an ivy league school to be able to assess simple and straightforward facts. I can use the same faculties of logic that I use to write a program or prove a theorem to be able to understand the plausibility of a particular theory. From what I have read and seen, the government's official story is not adding up at this point.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
As for your prized engineering 'study,' a whopping $600,000 was spent on the FEMA report, with only a total of 23 engineers. What a lot of members of the scientific community are calling for is an independent investigation of hundreds or even thousands of scientists and engineers from a number of different countries.
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I can't say one way or another whether the claims of this professor are true. I do believe that there are unanswered questions about 9/11 and I am almost certain that the government is hiding *something* or even a number of things.
I'll say something else though. I scoff at those who reject the 'conspiracy theories' out of hand based on their belief that big brother is benevolent.
...
Just a comment about the attitude of those of us who reject this sort of conspiracy nonsense...it's not about viewing big brother as benevolent. Well, it may be for some people, but the reason I (and a lot of people like me) reject this stuff is because it's stupid. My belief about government has nothing to do with it. If you have read my posts, you know I DON'T really trust the government to be good. But my beliefs, or your beliefs, or even the biggest conservative bootlicker's beliefs don't make the slightest bit of difference here.
The reason I reject these theories is becuase they don't make logical sense. What's the alternative theory about the Pentagon...that something other than an airliner (possibly a military plane or a missle) hit the Pentagon and then the government lied and said it WAS an airliner. Great, but why would they do that? Even if I accept that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, why do it that way? Why not fly an actual airliner into the Pentagon? Or why not do whatever they supposedly did and tell us the terrorists did it?
I will be the first person to admit that I don't think the government, especially our current President, can be totally trusted. And I'll be the first to suggest that we need to watch them to make sure they ARE doing the right thing. And I'll even admit that 9/11 didn't have to have happened the way the official story tells it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to buy whatever half-ass BS is being sold as "what really happened". It's an emotional reaction on the part of whoever believes, because they HAVE to believe it.
The conspiracy theorists do not understand the concept of Occum's Razor. If the covert agencies of the US government wanted to demolish the WTC, why would they crash airliners into it, then detonate the planted charges in a manner that (according to you) is obvious to everyone... and then create a massive conspiracy?
WTC basement was already attacked with a bomb once. Wouldn't it have been much much simpler to put another bomb in the basement, blow it up, and say terrorists did it - then the whole conspiracy issue would be moot!
Furthermore, somehow these conspiracists decided that killing up to 50'000 people who worked in WTC towers was OK, but also decided that they'd collapse the building just so that it would fall in its footprint. So 50'000 deaths and 20 billion in damage was OK by them, but 60'000 and 30 billion was not?
That's why these theories are ridiculous!
You want to discuss a situation that didn't exist. There wasn't any molten metal. There is a photograph of an unidentifiable sustance that is glowing being extracted from a debris pile who's location cannot be verified. There is also a "witness" testimony from a person who can't be verified to even exist let alone confirmation that the person in question actually saw anything.
And yet again you claim that you are qualified to evaluate a structural analysis of a hi-rise structure.
How I First Began to Question: WTC7
The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).
If you've forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.
World Trade Center Buildling 7 implodes
Viewing the Collapse of WTC7
The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both clearly show WTC7's implosion.
Lower resolution Internet movies are also available.
WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?
Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.
What About Towers One and Two?
The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses, frame by frame.
What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?
WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are the buildings in gray.
Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed ?pancaking,? which is the official theory.
The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I'll briefly explain how these principles work. Let?s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction ? with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance ? that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air ? the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist ? if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse ? just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren't hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?
Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.
And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.
Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?
Ah so not only are you expert in the evaluation of structures but you are qualified to evaluate the cost of such an analysis and determine what is an appropriate amount to be spent to "properly" analyze the failure. So in your "expert" opinion what was the proper amount of tax payer monies to spend? How many engineers is appropriate to devote to the task? For how long? What product should be produced? In what detail? What's the benefit/cost of the study?
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'd like to post a video of a speech given by Jeff King, an engineer from MIT who discusses and confirms almost everything the BYU professor has talked about in addition to other stuff. Text
First, Jeff King is not FROM MIT, he claims to have gone there. Second, this same person has links on his site claming that small hydrogen bombs where involved in both tower collapses, Katrina was a planned hurricane targetting New Orleans, all weather is manufactured, etc.
I didn't find any such links on his site here.
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Sorry but the premise that AQ would Hijack airlines and crash them into buildings JUST IN CASE their demolition experts didn't plant enough stuff in the right places seems absurdly stupid to me. And to what point? So the buildings would fall straight down? Yeah.... ok....
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'd like to post a video of a speech given by Jeff King, an engineer from MIT who discusses and confirms almost everything the BYU professor has talked about in addition to other stuff. Text
First, Jeff King is not FROM MIT, he claims to have gone there. Second, this same person has links on his site claming that small hydrogen bombs where involved in both tower collapses, Katrina was a planned hurricane targetting New Orleans, all weather is manufactured, etc.
I didn't find any such links on his site here.
He also goes by the alias PlaguePuppy
Domain name: PLAGUEPUPPY.NET
Administrative Contact:
King, Jeffrey jmking@attbi.com
1407 E. Laura Court
Visalia, CA 93292
US
559-635-1122 Fax: 000-000-0000
Still putting alot of faith in this guy?
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Sorry but the premise that AQ would Hijack airlines and crash them into buildings JUST IN CASE their demolition experts didn't plant enough stuff in the right places seems absurdly stupid to me. And to what point? So the buildings would fall straight down? Yeah.... ok....
None of the conspiracy posters believe that AQ was involved. They believe the US federal government did this.
Specifically relating to the hydrogen bomb theory, that certainly sounds far fetched. However, I do know for a fact that the U.S. military now has nuclear devices that fit inside of a backpack.
I fail to see how that makes the theory an more plasubile. Don't take that as an attack on you, I haven't read far enough into this thread to know you position on it, but to think that government agents either flew jets into buildings or simply coordinated their efforts with the guys that did is kind of lame. That's putting it nicely. There's no need for expert testimony either way, the idea of using explosive charges to bring the twin towers down is just utterly and completely inane.
Perhpas we should all let this thread die and hope it doesn't get drudged up periodically by the rightwingers on this board to debase our arguments.
Originally posted by: bsobel
I fail to see how that makes the theory an more plasubile. Don't take that as an attack on you, I haven't read far enough into this thread to know you position on it, but to think that government agents either flew jets into buildings or simply coordinated their efforts with the guys that did is kind of lame. That's putting it nicely. There's no need for expert testimony either way, the idea of using explosive charges to bring the twin towers down is just utterly and completely inane.
Perhpas we should all let this thread die and hope it doesn't get drudged up periodically by the rightwingers on this board to debase our arguments.
Err, I agree with everything you said, except the rightwinger comment.....
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I've wasted enough time on this thread so this is my final post here.
I'm not 100% convinced the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, but in weighing the evidence it appears that this scenario is more likely than the official story regarding Al Qaeda. There are simply waay too many inconsistencies in the official government reports coupled with other suspicious circumstances and events.
Aside from the actual collapse of the buildings, there are other events that took place before and during 9/11 that are suspicious. I've already gone into those in this thread before. The collapse of WTC building 7 is the most suspicious of all though. I urge anyone to watch videos of controlled demolitions of buildings and then watch the collapse of building 7. There is a strong resemblence between them that even a child could notice.
I think a lot of people will not allow any amount of skepticism into their minds regarding the attacks of 9/11 simply because they refuse to believe that the U.S. government would ever mastermind such a plot. In order to dispel this myth I present something called the Northwoods Operation and the Northwoods Document. The Northwoods Operation was a plot by the chiefs of staff to stage an event to try to get the U.S. in a war with Cuba. Some of their plans involve the usage of aircraft and the murdering of innocent civilians.
This is a document that was amazingly declassified by the government and resides in the national security archives.
Wikipedia Article on Northwoods
To sum up:
In 1962 the chiefs of staff considered a plot to stage an event in order to get the American public to support going to war with Cuba.
This plot included ideas for murdering innocent civilians and hijacking aircraft.
Don't believe it? Download the entire document in .PDF format (linked to on the wikipedia article) and read it for yourself.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Right, because I guess a physicist can't know anything about melting points of steel, momentum or inertia. :roll:
Which is why physicists design and build skyscrapers all the time, right?
Uh, yes, they actualluy do. Show me a single structural engineering program that doesn't have a lot of physics.
Futhermore, one doesn't need to be a structural engineer to understand the impossibilities of a building collapsing from a fire. Your objection is stupid. You have to be able to design an entire building to be able to point out the physics of its collapse?
That's like saying you have to be a mechanical engineer to be able to understand the physics of an auto accident. :roll:
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I've wasted enough time on this thread so this is my final post here.
I'm not 100% convinced the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, but in weighing the evidence it appears that this scenario is more likely than the official story regarding Al Qaeda. There are simply waay too many inconsistencies in the official government reports coupled with other suspicious circumstances and events.
Aside from the actual collapse of the buildings, there are other events that took place before and during 9/11 that are suspicious. I've already gone into those in this thread before. The collapse of WTC building 7 is the most suspicious of all though. I urge anyone to watch videos of controlled demolitions of buildings and then watch the collapse of building 7. There is a strong resemblence between them that even a child could notice.
I think a lot of people will not allow any amount of skepticism into their minds regarding the attacks of 9/11 simply because they refuse to believe that the U.S. government would ever mastermind such a plot. In order to dispel this myth I present something called the Northwoods Operation and the Northwoods Document. The Northwoods Operation was a plot by the chiefs of staff to stage an event to try to get the U.S. in a war with Cuba. Some of their plans involve the usage of aircraft and the murdering of innocent civilians.
This is a document that was amazingly declassified by the government and resides in the national security archives.
Wikipedia Article on Northwoods
To sum up:
In 1962 the chiefs of staff considered a plot to stage an event in order to get the American public to support going to war with Cuba.
This plot included ideas for murdering innocent civilians and hijacking aircraft.
Don't believe it? Download the entire document in .PDF format (linked to on the wikipedia article) and read it for yourself.
Not that you're curious but just in case you were wondering I most certainly am NOT a big fan of our government. In fact I find much of it abhorent in practice, if not in theory. Additionally I might find merit in some "leftist" conspriracy theories because I swing more left than right in terms of political persuasion, but this one sucks.
Even the complete douchebags at the helm of our nation wouldn't kill well over three thousand people just to get public support for some haphazard war (or, "operation", in this scenerio) that the retards of our nation very well may have authorized anyways. If nothing else keep this in mind; everything this administration does turns to crap. There has never been less effective, more destructively erratic administration/congress in our nations history (imho of course) so I find it far fetched that they could even accomplish something as sophisticated as you suggest. You give them far too much credit.