Have you guys heard about this MIT engineer Jeff King?

[Sinti]

Video of presentation regarding WTC here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&hl=en

What do you think about him?

[greyl]

1. He doesn't work for MIT and he isn't a structural engineer.

He was an electrical engineer 25 years ago, and he only has a BS -"a combined Biology-EE major".

Why are the truthers always so desperate to appeal to authority that the authorities they appeal to are bogus?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting%20the%20Evidence/index.htm#Pupp

[AZCat]

2. Can you give a summary?

I'm at home on a dialup.

[Sinti]

4. I can try

Caveat: I am paraphrasing very loosely here.

He mainly seems to take issue with the creation of dust from the towers, concrete, computers, desks, chairs, everything except the steel just about rather than larger part. You would expect to see larger pieces of concrete, not to mention carpeting, computer parts, telephones, etc. All that was left was pretty much dust, paper, and steel. He talks about what he calls "pyroclastic flow," meaning the fine particles of dust making the voluminous clouds that nearly reached New Jersey.

Towered swayed as it would in a hurricane, and that's all, then the load was rebalanced, if you will, and the structure re-stabilized. He brings up the accounts of secondary explosions, which if you heard the news that morning there was a lot of talk of secondary explosions by everyone. He brings up the damage to the N. Tower lobby that was present in the Naudet film immediately after the first strike, where did it come from.

Really calm guy, not particularly excited during the presentation. The visuals I could do without, but I don't have ADD and don't need things to look at while I listen :shrug:

That's about it.

[AZCat]

5. Thanks.

Was there anything new? It sounds like he covered things we have discussed previously, but if there is new material maybe I'll try to get to work early tomorrow to watch it. How long is it, by the way?

[Sinti]

8. It's under 15 minutes long. I don't know if there's anything all that new

I just don't know if his credentials are in order. He talks about "fire shutters" in the core, which are new on me. He points to another study that was done by http://www.wai.com/">Weidlinger Associates, which disputed the Eagar Pancake theory. Which the NIST has also discarded. That any other study was done is a new one on me. Apparently this vid was uploaded on March 17, 2006.

Being that we find ourselves in a "show your papers" state when it comes to this subject, I was really interested if anyone knew about his bone fides.

[AZCat]

10. Does he mean "fire dampers"?

I don't know what "fire shutters" are, but fire dampers are used to prevent smoke migration in HVAC systems. Do you think this is what he means?

[Sinti]

11. He says they were put in specifically to prevent a fire from being spread

through the elevator system. IOW, the central elevator system is sealed from contact with the office floors, if that makes sense. Most of the elevators didn't traverse the entire building - IIRC only the freight elevator did. When I was there, you could only go to specific places via specific elevators... but that was a long time ago.

[JackRiddler]

6. How do we know...

What percentage of the concrete was actually turned into dust? And what was left over as fragments at the site?

Pictures don't necessarily tell us. Guesses don't tell us.

[AZCat]

7. I'm reasonably certain...

that this was never measured and documented. Can you imagine the difficulty of such an assessment? I'd hate to be responsible for that.


Unfortunately this means that all we can do is guess, and that isn't very reliable.

[Sinti]

9. The dust thing comes from the clean up crews.

And the findings of building materials and metals from computers crushed into particles from 75 to 300 microns in diameter. Most of it is somewhat subjective, the debris pile was smaller than they had seen for a 10 story building or some such.


IOW that WTC got broke up real good, you think the chunks would have fallen to the ground rather than take that abuse... and if they were staying for that abuse how'd it happen so dang fast... it actually argues against CD, because in most demolitions the floors and such break into pretty reasonably large pieces - at least in DC... they do everything bigger in NY ;)

[petgoat]

13. Pataki is on video saying all the concrete turned to dust. nt

[mp3hound]

28. Sounds like a figure of speech rather than a statement of fact.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Not counting the dust that blew away

The 1.46 million tons of Trade Center debris dumped in the Staten Island landfill have been at the center of a dispute between the city and a family group, W.T.C. Families for Proper Burial, since 2002. The family members contend that remnants of their loved ones are intermingled with the 600,000 tons of fine particle dust there. The city insists the human remains were removed.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_146/cb1lashesoutatstate.html

[FoxOnTheRun]

14. I've heard that

the concrete was just a filler for the floors
(I think it's called screed or floor pavement in English)

Real concrete has stones in it which gives stability.

You can see it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm7B1vvkXnQ&mode=related&search=

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. The concrete wasn't just a filler

They used a concrete aggregate that was poured into steel pans. Concrete used in construction is an aggregate of some sort and aggregates include stones in the mixture.

What was different about the method they used was the amount of concrete required. In older buildings the slabs are much thicker then the ones you see in the WTC.

[FoxOnTheRun]

19. You have different kinds of concrete

I suppose what I've seen was something like the top left kind



I doubt it was something like this


If the concrete had lots of stones and steel shrapnels it would withstand more and not pulverize so much. That is my point. I know it had a steel grid at the bottom.


I'm not an expert, I've never blown up a building just helped to build one.
I think the steel shrapnel technology wasn't available in the 60's.

[screembloodymurder]

20. After watching the video,

What struck me was this:
1) The key to the towers structural integrity was the central core which was 60 feet from the building envelope.
2) The outside walls would likely collapse inward with the collapse of the central core and the resulting floor collapse.
3) The core steel could have been accessed through the elevator shafts and stair towers.
4) The demolition charges could have been set during routine, random elevator/stair tower shutdowns during off hours.
5) The explosives could have been set without disrupting the daily schedule.
6) The explosions would have been confined to the core, far from the building envelope and therefore not obvious from outside.

[mp3hound]

26. Response.

1) and?
2) really? who says?
3) sounds like nonsense. facts and evidence please.
4) sounds like nonsense. facts and evidence please.
5) sounds like nonsense. facts and evidence please.
6) sounds like nonsense. facts and evidence please.

[Cookie wookie]

23. Summary:

Several studies trying to determine a plausible reason for the collapse.
Enormous destruction of the physical evidence.
NIST managed to save about 200-240 pieces out of the building.
What does a controlled demolition mean:
Someone had a lot of access to the building over long enough to set this up
Implies that they prevented forensic reconstruction
TWA 800 pieces were dredged from the sea to do a complete analysis
FEMA and American Society of Civil Engineers: retrieved pieces from the landfills before they were disposed of
Fuel was strictly office contents after the initial fuel burnoff
Black smoke means cool, oxygen-poor fire, not hot flames
Cores large central rectangle 47 columns primary structural support of the building
Were so strong would have withstood the collapse
However, only little stubs left
Cores no fuel to burn, dry wall, carpeting
Designed so it couldn't function as a chimney - hermetically sealed system
Those functioned properly = limited amount of oxygen available to the fires
Nova said the floors failed but subsequently debunked by Jim Hoffman and others
most recently NIST report rejected the idea that floor collapse was part of it
Detailed fire analysis evidence gone
Most significant to him: Presence of dust clouds. Large clouds of thick dust enveloped the area. This type of flow familiar in physics. It occurs in only 2 natural situations -- volcanic eruptions and turbidity occurance (?) Common thread: large amounts of dense materials creating another dense fluid achieving considerable velocity.
No mechanism proposed to explain this.
Even in the first minutes of the collapse the clouds being ejected at high speed, dense because they flow downward
Explosives only plausible explanation
Everything reduced to powder: contents of computers, computer chips, reduced to less 100 microns in diameter
Columns would have had to telescope straight down implying complete loss of strength
WTC1 began collapsing from the very top "odd indeed".
Weekend before were power downs: time window for planting charges but he thinks planted over a longer period of time

[AZCat]

25. Thanks.

I wasn't able to watch it today, but from your summary it seems that he covered issues that have been addressed here before (although not to everyone's satisfaction, I'm sure).

[John Q. Citizen]

3. I don't know anything about him,

but I'm downloading the video and will let you know after I see it.

[JackieO]

12. He used to post here

as plaguepuppy

[LARED]

15. Jeff King posts here on occasion as PlaguePuppy

He does not work for MIT, does not work as an engineer, claims to be a Family Physician in California.

In fact he has a Biology degree from MIT not an engineering degree, but is a smart articulate guy that sounds convincing even though he humps nonsense for the true believers. He also thinks the WTC steel evaporated as if fell.

[Cookie wookie]

22. He did not say he worked for MIT or currently worked as an engineer.

Right there in the video he said he "studied physics at MIT... did EE for about about 8 years" and had "quite a bit of practical engineering experience."

[LARED]

24. It really doesn't matter what his education is,

he still just another guy selling 9/11 snake oil.

[Lithos]

18. He never made that claim

Check here

[Sinti]

21. Thanks. n/t

[Cookie wookie]

27. my ignore list is growing

Makes the 9/11 forum much better, IMO.