Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jeff King explains the energy of gravity is limited


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jeff King, PhD (Electrical Engineer, Graduate of MIT)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/DB001627693...ctural-eng.aspx

Re the collapse of the Twin Towers...

At the simplest level there is a gross violation of conservation of energy: for the towers to fall at or near free-fall speed, all the stored

gravitational energy would have had to be used to accelerate their own mass downward. The same energy can’t be used twice, which

is to say that any “work” extracted, for example, to pulverize concrete, will slow the collapse by a corresponding amount.

In the case of the twin towers even a rough calculation of the amount of energy needed to pulverize all the concrete and gypsum to the

very fine dust observed (and without including the energy needed to crumple and deform steel) indicates that it would have far

exceeded the entire gravitational potential energy of the structures.

As measurements by Cahill have shown, dust particles were mostly <30 microns, with a sizeable fraction smaller than 0.25 micron. Not

only is an immense amount of energy needed to break most of the chemical bonds holding the concrete together, but there is no

mechanism that can be postulated with only a gravitational collapse that might account for such rapid and complete pulverization. Such

a process is almost by definition an explosive event: the almost instantaneous conversion of a slab of concrete into a rapidly expanding

cloud of dust.

The obvious question is: what does it mean that there was a controlled demolition? At the simplest level, it means that someone had a

lot access to the buildings over a long enough period of time to set this up. It implies, as many other things, that the people who had

effective control of the site had an interest in having it scrubbed and making sure that no information was available; that a forensic

reconstruction couldn't be done.

Even in much smaller catastrophes we typically will reconstruct things as completely as possible. For example with TWA Flight 800

pieces were dredged off the bottom of the sea. A complete reconstruction was done to allow a detailed analysis.

In this case, just the opposite was done.

Edited by Evan Burton
Removed misleading discription of Jeff King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think calling him a "MIT physicist" is stretching the truth, don't you?

PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeff King, 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.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Con...the%20Evidence/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

Before making a conclusion, have a look at the following links:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...d%206-22-07.pdf

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...ase4/index.html

http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2007/...eling-Mar07.pdf

http://911stories.googlepages.com/accounts...instabilityande

Take the information presented in the links, and give them to people who have the appropriate qualifications for examination (assuming you don't hold such qualifications).

Let me know what your take on it is afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think calling him a "MIT physicist" is stretching the truth, don't you?
PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeff King, 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.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Con...the%20Evidence/

Burton has never given us HIS credentials for judging the

competence of PhDs. What makes him able to discern the

qualifications of a man who has degrees in Electrical Engineering

and Medicine? MIT has rigorous scientific standards, and those

with MIT science degrees are likely very competent. I doubt that

calling him deficient in physics is accurate. I suspect that his

gravitational calculations ARE accurate. Let Burton disprove his

calculations instead of making an ad hominem attack. Shouldn't

a "moderator" refrain from such attacks?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. King MD starts with false assumptions that:

"the towers to fall at or near free-fall speed" and

"all the concrete" in them was "pulverized" to mostly "<30 microns" average size particles.

If he could actually could cite references and do the math his statements might rise above crackpottery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. King MD starts with false assumptions that:

"the towers to fall at or near free-fall speed" and

"all the concrete" in them was "pulverized" to mostly "<30 microns" average size particles.

If he could actually could cite references and do the math his statements might rise above crackpottery

Dr. Judy Wood, an engineer, cites the technical references regarding

the pulverized concrete particle sizes. You might rise above crackpottery

by looking these matters up which are readily available.

By the way...what are YOUR credentials in physics and engineering

which enables you to label PhDs as crackpots. Tell us, please.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As already pointed out Wood’s areas of expertise are organic-synthetic composite structures especially dental fillings and optical engineering* she didn’t answer an e-mail in which I asked her what expertise or experience she had relating to building construction methods or materials. Her paper comparing the structures of the Twin Towers to trees suggests to me she knows less about the subject than I do. Thus her PhD doesn’t qualify her as an expert. My dad has a PhD in organic chemistry my sister has one in art history a friend of mine has one in forest engineering should I ask them to opine on the collapses as well?

* http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf

Dr. King isn’t any more a physics PhD than my wife’s gynecologist, he got a BS (or SB as they called it) in electrical engineering and biology 33 years ago. He also seems to have problems with basic math since he said that he graduated in 1974 had he worked 8 years as an EE, then 27 full time as a doctor. Even if we presume he worked as an EE while in medical school that comes out to 35 years he wrote that in 2004 30 years after he says he graduated. Is some one incapable of performing simple arithmetic regarding his won bio competent to carry out complicated calculations far out side his areas of expertise? I think not.

Please cite the Wood paper you are referring to. If she cited what I think she is she misunderstood what she read and was contradicted by Dr. Steve Jones among others, did you bother to look at the links cited by Evan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is YOUR PhD in, Colby?

Do you have ANY area of expertise?

There is an old saying...

THOSE WHO KNOW, DO.

THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW...CRITICIZE.

Refute Dr. Woods studies instead of

simply saying she does not know what

she is talking about...which you have no

way of knowing.

See the 911 CONSPIRACY, pages 83-100.

Oh...and please direct us to the books

which have published YOUR studies. Then

we can compare YOUR studies with hers.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

You are simply trying to shift attention away from my original point - he is not a MIT physicist. A graduate of MIT? Yes. An Electrical Engineer? Yes. A MIT physicist? No. Just because I have done a number of courses in meteorology, I would not expect someone to call me a meteorologist.

As far as my qualifications go for analysing a building collapse - I have none. I leave that to the people who do have qualifications and expertise in that field. I then see what other experts say about that analysis. I see what professional societies / groups / organisations in those fields say about the analysis. Lacking the necessary expertise to determine the validity of an analysis for myself, I base my opinion on the level of agreement amongst them.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

You are simply trying to shift attention away from my original point - he is not a MIT physicist. A graduate of MIT? Yes. An Electrical Engineer? Yes. A MIT physicist? No. Just because I have done a number of courses in meteorology, I would not expect someone to call me a meteorologist.

As far as my qualifications go for analysing a building collapse - I have none. I leave that to the people who do have qualifications and expertise in that field. I then see what other experts say about that analysis. I see what professional societies / groups / organisations in those fields say about the analysis. Lacking the necessary expertise to determine the validity of an analysis for myself, I base my opinion on the level of agreement amongst them.

Just what are your qualifications? What is YOUR PhD in?

Oh, we know that you are associated with Australian Military

Aviation...simply by googling. But does that qualify you to

comment on engineering or astronautics or political assassination?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, do you even understand the arguments that people like Judy make? Or are you just so impressed by a PhD that you instantly believe anything they say? Take a look at all of your posts in this thread again, every one is just an appeal to authority, you don't discuss their theories at all.

Edited by Kevin M. West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, do you even understand the arguments that people like Judy make? Or are you just so impressed by a PhD that you instantly believe anything they say? Take a look at all of your posts in this thread again, every one is just an appeal to authority, you don't discuss their theories at all.

Heck Jack and one of his favotite PhD's have stated the principal of the lever is false. And that PhD. also argued that photographic enlargement altered the relationships of the elements within said photograph. So much for THAT appeal to authority.

And hey Jack, what are YOUR qualifications to hawk the work of people like King and Woods? Your worldview?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

In fairness, by referring to him as an MIT physicist one would be led to believe that he was a member of the staff at the physics department at MIT, which he seems not to be.

John

Precisely my point. Based on my own understanding, I can't comment on the validity of Jeff King's analysis; I simply don't have the expertise.

I can comment if he is being given titles / standing to which he apparently does not qualify for.

Oh, we know that you are associated with Australian Military Aviation...simply by googling. But does that qualify you to comment on engineering or astronautics or political assassination?

Jack

I can make uninformed comment on engineering. It should be given as much or as little weight as any other layman commenting on such matters.

I can make uninformed comment on political assassination - though I try to stay away from that area.

Astronautics? That's a different matter. I have a strong background in aeronautics: graduate of the RAAF School of Air Traffic Control, graduate of the RAAF School of Air Navigation, Advanced Diploma of Applied Science (Aviation), private pilot, Electronic Mission Co-ordinator aboard Coastwatch aircraft, currently involved in RAN operational airworthiness and standards, and 3500+ hours in my logbooks. I am also an amateur historian in manned spaceflight, and have been for over 20 years. I can't always speak authoritatively on technical aspects of astronautics but with my aeronautical background, I can speak authoritatively on general aspects of manned spaceflight. I think my posts here supply evidence of my expertise in that field.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

In fairness, by referring to him as an MIT physicist one would be led to believe that he was a member of the staff at the physics department at MIT, which he seems not to be.

John

Apparently SOMEBODY ELSE hung the title "MIT physicist" on him, as

he fully explains on his excellent 911 website PLAGUE PUPPY, which I only

discovered today. He is a MEDICAL DOCTOR with MIT electrical engineering

and biology degrees:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...home.html-.html

Here is what he says about it in response to an email...

QUOTE:

I did my first 2 years at MIT as a math major, left to work in electronics (had a small manufacturing company of my own and

worked for Analog Devices when it was still a small MIT spinoff), then went back and did a dual major in Electrical

Engineering and Biology (not "physical biology," whatever that is, but molecular biology under Salvador Luria).

This was before there was such a thing as a Bio-Medical Engineering Department at MIT, but my degree program was

created by the same faculty members who formed one a year or two after I left. I did all the undergraduate requirements

for Bio and EE, as well as a Senior Biomedical Engineering Project Lab - as the only mixed-major student in a group of EE

majors, I was also the only one to have a working device at the end of the year (a widget to transmit stethoscope sounds over

phone lines using frequency modulation).

After graduating from MIT in 1974 I went to med school at UVM in Vermont, then spent a year at the Harvard School of

Public Health in the Pulmonary Physiology lab doing electrical and mechanical engineering work before deciding to do an

internship and practice clinical medicine. [i then did an internship at Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield and have been

doing rural primary care and ER medicine since 1981.] BTW, the "MIT Engineer" caption on the video was not my doing,

and the brief bio I gave at the beginning was truncated to almost nothing when the video was produced. In fact I didn't see

the video until almost a year after 9/11/04.

In any case, my engineering experience is substantive and the points I make in my talk are based on simple principles of

physics. I stand by the soundness of the evidence and conclusions presented, and I would be happy to respond to anything

you believe is incorrect..

Science is not a matter of authority, but if you want to hear it from someone with Mechanical Engineering credentials, an

increasing number of academics are coming forward via Scholars for 9-11 Truth:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

And their peer-reviewed online journal:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

Judy Wood is a Mechanical Engineer and has some good observations about the collapses:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/

Best wishes,

Jeff King

UNQUOTE

I highly recommend this and Judy Woods' NEW WEBSITE

http://drjudywood.com/

as two of the BEST 911 sites by two scientists.

He is available via a chatroom on his website, and take on all 911 questions.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...