National Geographic's Professional Hit Job on 9/11 Truth

Discussion in '9/11' started by Brother Jonathan, Dec 9, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [video=youtube;OrBNJJc-DIY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrBNJJc-DIY[/video]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrBNJJc-DIY

    National Geographic performed four experiments in an attempt to debunk the truth. None of their experiments are valid yet they played this "hit job on the truth" on TV as the narrator used the word "Truther" in a derogatory manner nearly 50 times. While the truthers did not offer up any conspiracy theory, the National Geographic made a conspiracy theory up and pretended it was the truther conspiracy. The fire melting the steel beam experiment put most Americans to sleep.
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Explain why their experiments weren't valid.
     
  3. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you a structural engineer or an architect, Jonathan?
     
  4. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At 25:00 into the video the fire is melting the steel. The beam they are using is a small beam which is not attached on either end. The beam falls over. If the beam had been attached to a column on both ends and to other beams with connections, then it would not have fallen over.
     
  5. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I spent 20 years as a building contractor and held a Class A building license for several years.

    Class A, General Contractor
    Class A License shall entitle the holder thereof to construct, remodel, repair, and demolish any structure.
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You clearly didn't understand the experiment......
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it's softening the steel. At 24:00 they explain how they scaled the weight for the beam. (Remember scaling?)
    Explain how the deformed beam would have acted differently if attached to a column on both ends and what would have happened to the column.
     
  8. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The purpose of National Geographic's four experiments is to fool the people into believing that fires can weaken steal and they would fall down like the beam did. A true experiment would have included at least three beams on columns all tied together with a floor.

    [video=youtube;iN4ig1i-AKw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN4ig1i-AKw[/video]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN4ig1i-AKw

    I doubt that this simple structure would have collapsed in their experiment. I would have like to have seen something that at least resembled a building structure. Also, remember that the fire in this experiment was much hotter than in the WTC towers because they contained 700 gallons of fuel. The WTC towers the fuel was not contained. It would have spilled all over the place and burned up rapidly.
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well you've opened a can of worms now. Either you think that jet fuel can melt steel or you have to amdit that the fire WEAKENED the steel enough to fail.

    Which is it?

    It sagged into the pit BJ. What would have happened to the columns on both ends if the heat affected them? Where would that load on the beam be redistributed to?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Which is it BJ?

    Melt or weaken. You keep bouncing back and forth.
     
  10. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny how you demand something that would be similar to the structures when the experiment is arguing against you, but you are willing to fully accept a clown that likens the the towers to cardboard boxes, and that is okay with you. Your double standards are getting tired and old.
     
  11. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even more, he says the experiments aren't valid due to a certain set of parameters (connections, quantity, needed more likeness to the towers, etc.), but fully accepts the towers being compared to cardboard boxes. Go Figure.
     
  12. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Explosives. That was the only possible way.

    Now that would have been a proper experiment. Why didn't they do that experiment?

    Heat will first weaken steel and if enough heat is applied then steel melts. That is not any revelation. We've known this for centuries.
     
  13. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That basic demonstration of freefall by Richard Gage was not comparing the towers to cardboard boxes. It is elementary physics. If there is a structure under the box, and it is strong enough to hold the box, then freefall is impossible. If nothing is under a box, then freefall can happen.
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you admit that fire weakens steel.

    You then want others to believe that "since the structure held up that portion for decades, it should have STILL held it up even AFTER the plane impact severed numerous columns and the resultant fire weakened the remaining steel."

    Is that what you are saying?
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And the boxes were designed with multiple components? With floors inside and a hat truss? They had elevators, and floor slabs?

    How dare you claim that National Geographic's experiment was not accurate, but you approve of Gage's "box" experiment to show how physics should have worked for a structural steel building.

    Shame on you BJ.
     
  16. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have known this for centuries. So yes.

    Absolutely. The beams and columns could not have possibly been weakened enough and sagged enough from those fires to cause global collapse. It is impossible.
     
  17. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong again about what the boxes represent. The buildings didn't fall at freefall speed none of them did. So your analysis is invalid.
     
  18. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ridicule is not going to work anymore to debunk the truth. NIST is caught in fraud. We have the proof. It is not shame on me. We are telling the truth. It is elementary physics.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So now we're getting into the mathematics and calculation portion of the problem. So please direct me to the link/math that shows that it is impossible for the structure to be weakened enough to fail even after several of the perimeter and core columns were severed by the impact.

    What are you basing this on? Or are you just guessing?
     
  20. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you have to resort to blatant dishonesty to try and prove a point, it really becomes pointless. I see all these marvelous claims being made and nothing, not one shred of proof to back their long debunked claims of freefall and footprints. 7th grade physics, and I should just bow down to a general contractor cause he has twenty years experience but considers a five story building a hi-rise....laughable.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope. You have no proof. If you did, you wouldn't keep running away.
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I love the "I don't like the National Geographic experiment because it doesn't represent the real world", but they can except Gage's cardboard box scenario to represent the twin towers in the real world.

    Just lovely!

    :smile:
     
  23. Channe

    Channe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    14,961
    Likes Received:
    4,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I used to think the 9/11 Truther movement had some legs, but my father who is a PhD in Mechanical Engineering put that nonsense to rest.
    Look, the towers feel because two massive, fully fueled, planes crashed - one at mid and the other at high point. The impact, heat, explosion, and beam instability caused the fall.

    There is a reason the tower that was hit second and lower collapses before tower 1 which was hit first but higher.
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you think Jonathan Cole is wrong. Okay, noted.
     
  25. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I do not think I am as smart in physics or engineering as Jonathan Cole or David Chandler. If I state something different than Cole or Chandler then people should take their word over mine. One thing I know for sure, and I agree with them, is that airplanes and office fires did not collapse any buildings on 9/11.
     

Share This Page