SCEPCOP Forum

Would an MIT engineer endorse bullshit? I don't think so.

What is weird about this guy is that he says he graduated from MIT and then makes some comment about a patient.

He graduated from MIT in 1974 with a degree in biology. Who claimed this guy was an MIT engineer?

He's not an engineer. His presentation is baloney:

His claims of only 2 situations of such dust clouds is wrong. King claims turbidity currents and volcanic eruptions. Debris avalanches, either rock or snow, produce the same types of forms with a dense fluid formed by clastics and air.

For the 1000th time! It's not powdered concrete. It's powdered wallboard.

For the 1000th time! It's not a pyroclastic flow. That is a term used by 9-11 liars. A pyroclastic flow is hot. That's what it means. It comes from the words for hot and broken. Pyroclastic flows are 1000F and hotter. King's video shows paper swirling in the dust. It autoignites at 450. It's not a pyroclastic flow. It's a debris avalanche.

I hope this guy does his work better than he spells. It's spelled mechanism, not mechinism.

He claims that physical evidence was destroyed and the site scrubbed. OK, no problem there. Since there were government offices in those buildings, perhaps housing some highly classified documents, I can see how they might want to make sure to remove anything of a sensative nature. I've heard theories about the basement of the WTC where all sorts of things were kept.

I saw the site with my own two eyes. I took pictures of the site. He states that evidence was destroyed. Does he say anywhere who or why it was destroyed? To the human eye it was a massive pile of freakin' dust with bits and pieces of what used to be the building peeking out.

He claims that controlled demolition requires weeks of set up. Is it so hard to believe that people, other than the US government, are capable of doing this exact thing to assure that their mission would be successful? Why wouldn't a terrorist group be smart enough to orchestrate his claims? I'm sure that he's on to something here but this theory seems to be lacking a certain something. I guess it's that 'certain something' that he is looking for in his theories.

He's not an engineer. He was not an engineering student at MIT.

The little of his speech that was shown was so full of errors that it is sad.

The site was cleaned up. The material was taken away. Important materials were saved. Some of the debris was recycled. Some of the debris was thrown away. Should the pile of debris have been left there for years? Some Twoofers would like to have that debris pile there till the end of time.

It's true that controlled demolition takes weeks to setup. That's evidence it didn't happen. Gage uses the strawman argument of elevator upgrades. That doesn't answer anything. Fact is no one heard the staccato of tens of floors being exploded. Why? Because it wasn't CD. No explosions. No explosives. No CD. End of story.

hahahahahahaha
just because he backs up your claims is a credible expert ?
haha how convenient

alright

Jesse Ventura
the governor and ex-wwf wrestler
was a demolition expert in the USA MARINE: Seals (i think they are the elite)
and he is also a ¨credible expert¨ that beliefs 911 was an inside job with a trigged demolition inside the towers.

Here is part 2 of Jeff King's speech. It contains a few extra minutes that the other video didn't have.



The video says that he is an MIT engineer. If he isn't, can you prove that he isn't? Or did you just make that up Nostradamus, cause you're desperate to discredit anyone who challenges your religious beliefs that refuses to examine evidence and only accepts data that fits into its beliefs?