It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MIT engineer Jeff King say's Controlled Demolition

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
For those of you who still are unsure if this was a controlled demolition and inside job on 9/11, this movie will finally make u realize the truth. Who can we better trust than a MIT engineer and scientist, MIT is an Ivy League school if I'd trust anyone on the 9/11 issue I'd put my money on a MIT engineer/scientist. Well here's the link.

www.youtube.com...




MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King details how the official government story violates the laws of physics and chemistry. He goes ... all » 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.




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Nice Find!

I dont follow the truth movement like I used to, but this clip is new to me.
Is this guy a member of any organized truthers or does he still have a job?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Oh, but the debunkers all point the an MIT scientist who spoke on behalf of the gov/media. And they believe him.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Civil Engineer's say it wasn't ... so whose word should you trust?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Civil Engineer's say it wasn't ... so whose word should you trust?


Civil engineers don't analyze dynamic systems.



Jeff King's been a critic of the official story for a lot longer than the Scholars group or any of that has been around.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Civil Engineer's say it wasn't ... so whose word should you trust?


Civil engineers don't analyze dynamic systems.



Jeff King's been a critic of the official story for a lot longer than the Scholars group or any of that has been around.

And so where is he?
What has he done?
This clip here with Ed Begley Jr., is that it?
Why have I never seen this man before? Are there any prior threads on him?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The video linked to above was posted August of 2006. This one on Google vid was posted Feb of 2006:

video.google.com...


Jim Hoffman's site has this about Jeff King in response to MIT's Eager:


Do tall things topple over?
by Jeff King Thursday December 05, 2002 at 01:16 AM

Professor Eagar's statement has been floating around for the past year, but doesn't really make sense at several levels. He implies that the laws of gravitation are somehow not linear, that if a small object of the same proportions (6.5/1 height to base ratio) tends to topple, a much bigger object of the same proportions will not be similarly unstable. A wooden box 1' square and 6 1/2' tall has the exact same geometric relations of center of gravity to base as a big steel box 1300' tall and 208' on a side. Nothing changes with a change in absolute size, this is the most basic Newtonian physics. Yet Eagar says "There's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big." This is complete and utter nonsense.


911research.wtc7.net...


I posted the following in misunderstanding your post, but I'll leave it because I feel like saying it in general anyway.

What bothers me is how people respond to experts coming out against the official story. It isn't an approach of, "Well, let's evaluate this man's claims and compare them to those given to us by federal investigations". Instead, the immediate response is, "Who is this guy and what's his problem?"

If it's somehow necessary information, though, this guy graduated from MIT in 1974 if I'm not mistaken, and may be a research scientist for MIT. I also think he graduated as an electrical engineer, but again, I'm not totally certain on any of this.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogitechismykeyboardMIT is an Ivy League school
A mostly off-topic observation, but MIT is not an Ivy League school. The Ivy League schools are Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
No it's not technically an Ivy leauge school, but it is one of the most reputable for science. It's fills the same spot on the who's who of acadamia in the science field.

Not sure what to make of his findings



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What bothers me is how people respond to experts coming out against the official story. It isn't an approach of, "Well, let's evaluate this man's claims and compare them to those given to us by federal investigations". Instead, the immediate response is, "Who is this guy and what's his problem?"


Exactly. I never see the same people asking who these suppossed hundreds of engineers are that the NIST used for their report. All we have are people saying "Judy Wood is a pot head" or "Steven Jones had a paper out about Jesus being in North America". Not what these people are actually talking about. That's very telling because it is a very well known tactic of the government to discredit the person and not the information.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Hey I consider myself a truther so dont get me wrong.
Im just wondering where this guy has been?
How come I dont recall any prior threads about him?
Did he just come into the movement?

I dont follow every event in the truth movement, but I consider myself fairly well versed in most aspects of 911, and Jeff King is a name I am not familier with.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
No, he's at least been around since December 2002 from what I can find. Check out the external quote in my post above.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
just watched his video it is pretty compelling some of the arguments he makes. None of them are unique but yet they are still unanswered.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join