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

[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.

 

Explain why their experiments weren't valid.

 

Are you a structural engineer or an architect, Jonathan?

 

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.

 

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.

 

You clearly didn't understand the experiment......

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Wrong again about what the boxes represent. The buildings didn't fall at freefall speed none of them did. So your analysis is invalid.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Nope. You have no proof. If you did, you wouldn't keep running away.

 

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!

 

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.

 

So you think Jonathan Cole is wrong. Okay, noted.

 

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.