Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

reply to post by Valhall


Why doesn't me barbeque collapse when I leave it on high for a long time..?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Would a constant 1500 be a problem?

You realize certain conditions have to be met for that temperature to be constantly applied to a column, right? Not only in terms of the location of the fire and it's contact with the steel, but the materials that are burning, the air flow, etc., which are all controlled in laboratory studies. There is no actual evidence that those temperatures were maintained anywhere in the building for any extended period of time, not in the NIST report, not anywhere else.

But Bazant and Zhou have proven that just 250C, for a column under load, results in enough creep to cause column failure i just 45 minutes.

I would love to discuss how exactly he determined that. Because he also published a paper that concluded that the towers had enough PE/KE to collapse to the ground in the given amount of time, but only when he assumes at least 50% of the mass of both towers (ie ~55 floors worth) stayed within the footprints until completion. Which obviously does not reflect reality. Same with Greening and a lot of other JREF'ers and even NIST: they change variables until they get the results they are after, not until the variables themselves reflect all available data.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
it's common for troofers - not saying that you fall into that group of degenerates

So what's logical or even civil about stereotyping so many people, and then calling them "degenerates"? Want to make some racist jokes while you're at it, sweetheart?

[edit on 20-9-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Valhall

4 - The NIST report states (and it would be worth your time to read it since you clearly haven't yet) that NO STRUCTURAL ELEMENT WAS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES FOR THE FULL DURATION OF TIME BETWEEN IMPACT AND COLLAPSE. That means - doesn't matter spit what 45 minutes gets you - the elements were not at the elevated temperatures for 45 minutes!

I've read plenty, thank you.

It only needs 250C for 45 minutes, IF under a sufficent load, as you stated, and I agree.

BUT..... it's never stated that creep is the ONLY initiator of the collpase, nor the ONLY means of load transfer. Merely that it's one of many contributing factors.

Your statement also ignores the fact that the "much maligned by the troofer crowd" simulations predicted that the temps for the recovered steel matched what was observed. And that the same model predicted MUCH higher temps for steel in other areas of the fire zone, demonstrating the validity of the NIST model.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Why doesn't me barbeque collapse when I leave it on high for a long time..?

Cuz it's engineered not to.

It really IS that simple. All manner of things are engineered to survive certain conditions.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Valhall

 

I am not so sure that is the case. In my honest opinion dropping enough weight on the top *of the intact or unbroken part of the structure* is enough to start a chain reaction that will bring the building down. In a way simular to hold a fifty pound weight in your hand and dropping it on your hand.

I just cannot help but wonder how many other people are arguing these important points with what they think and feel?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

So then what was your point of bringing it up in the first place? I was merely correcting someone I consider to be both an artisan and a professional.

Excuse me? Because I wanted to make a point about the subject of elevated temperatures. Did I miss where this thread was off limits to others joining the discussion?

With authority? Is that so? Are you a recognized structural engineering expert? Or is it that you believe in yourself enough to call yourself an "authority"?

I actually answered this in my last post. I have as much authority to speak on this subject as any other well-educated, well-experienced, "skilled in the art" engineer. I'm published in technical journals and I have patents. And just because my statement is on this board versus a paper doesn't decrease my expertise in this area.

Apologizes then. But of course it's common for troofers - not saying that you fall into that group of degenerates - to be purposefully vague so that they can play "gotcha".

No, I'm not a truther. But at the same time - I don't particularly enjoy seeing them called degenerates. There are fanatics on both sides of the fence. I happen to stand ON THE FENCE. Blanket aspersions do not assist in the debate for either side.

And that's why collapse initiation will occur. Load transfer due to creep, physical damage, heat weakening, etc.

Interestingly enough, IMHO, column strength won't have any affect on the collapse progression. THAT would depend on the floor connections. Floors fail, leaving ext columns unbraced, which then peel away, as seen.

And core columns might or might not survive the passing of the collapse front passing, depending on the particulars of how the debris passed each individual column and floor/brace. But in the end, they would be some long lengths poking up, which would end up toppling.

Do you agree that the column strength would have no effect on the collapse progression, or do you have another idea?

BTW, thx for keeping it civil....

I don't agree that creep played into at all. And that conclusion is based solely on the evidence provided in the NIST report - nothing else (well, and my experience).

Okay, let's talk about column strength and progression. And let's throw in floor connections. Because this is where I have yet to get some one to give an intelligent answer to a question begging for same.

The floor truss connections were failed in a downward motion on the outer walls, but the floor truss connections on the core columns were not. Which would be indicative of the core columns and floor trusses falling together, while the floor connections fell away from the walls (or vice versa if you please).

Please explain how this happened. What was causing the core columns to fall downward and take the floor trusses with them? The problem of column strength indeed comes into play when you get to the core columns, so I would like to see your response to this.

I'm trying to stay civil, but you've come off a bit - pompous. I'll assume I've read that into your statements and attempt to remain civil.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Why doesn't me barbeque collapse when I leave it on high for a long time..?

Cuz it's engineered not to.

It really IS that simple. All manner of things are engineered to survive certain conditions.

Do you know what the 3 buildings that collapsed that day were engineered to survive?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The 'flash' has been most convincingly theorized to be the Flight Deck O2 tank exploding upon impact.

Look at this Flammable Material Locations diagram produced by Boeing for Airport F&R personnel. (I really should just bring this to the ATS image gallery, so I can display it in a post....)

Are you sure about that?

That that's the phenomenon we are looking at here

webfairy.911review.org...

It appears in the CNN/ABC video (slomo'd) that it's eminating from that tube-like structure on the side of the plane well back from the nose, and it's quite LARGE, the flame-flash.

Photo One

Photo Two


Highlighted Photo One

Highlighted Photo Two


Slomo video of flame-flash (MUST SEE)
webfairy.911review.org...


[edit on 20-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Not to belabor the point. Since we're talking about the Towers in NYC, then I'll continue to address this.

The implication, and 'theory', of something OTHER than a normal passenger jet hitting each of the Towers doesn't have any merit, regardless of what some of these 'analysts' have tried to say.

I looked at the webfairy video, and indeed the 'flash' is small, and in the EXACT location in the forward, lower right fuselage where the O2 tank is mounted.

The other still frame captures merely show the sunlight reflecting on the paint. LOOK at the Sun's angle. The convex shape of the fuselage commonly reflects like that.

Here, looky looky:
www.airliners.net...

Hey!!! You wanted a KC-767?? Here: (Note the shine on a drab gray surface)
www.airliners.net...(KC-767)/1574498/M/

Note: Pic taken in 2009!!!
(extra credit: Spot what's wrong with this picture...)

OK, admittedly on bright aluminum, but United's paint was shiny too:
www.airliners.net...

Imagine this one from a distance, blurry with a different camera lens, and because of the high speed in flight:
www.airliners.net...(ER)/1555056/M/

A beauty shot tribute to my alma mater:
www.airliners.net...

Ship #158. The CAL B757-200s start at #101. Not sure how many are there now...less than 50. SO, the 767-200s started with #150. CAL tries to get the 'N'-numbers to match the in-house ship #s.

Here, good shot of the belly of a B757-300, to show how the paint scheme stops. Since it's gray-on-silver, not as obvious as United's:
www.airliners.net...


Just so people can understand how a pilot, taken by surprise from behind, is at a disadvantage in the cockpit:
www.airliners.net...

The seats, there, are all the way aft and outboard. When moved up, the control column is between your legs.

Here's a view of the seat (empty) in a normal position for flight:
www.airliners.net...

And, here's a pretty good idea of the vantage you would have immediately after entering the 767 cockpit door. The door is located slightly left of center, opens inwards, and there is a short step down...an assailant has all the advantage: Pilot's backs are to the assailant, they have limited room to fight back, and the distance from the entry door is very short.
www.airliners.net...

Don't EVEN think about trying anything, today though!!!

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Why doesn't me barbeque collapse when I leave it on high for a long time..?

Your question is valid and should be addressed fully. First, let's talk about stress or "loading". Your BBQ grill isn't loaded, so it just suffers the effects of high temperature so it's not going to collapse because it has no load on it.

Now, deformation due to elevated temperatures. Your BBQ does have deformation due to high temperatures, but as you will attest yourself - they are almost imperceptible to human eye...and they aren't permanent (i.e. when your grill cools down it contracts, when it heats up it expands, when it cools back down it contracts, etc.)

The difference is that your grill is made of relatively thin metal so after not much time at your cooking temp, the metal from inside to outside attains the same temperature (barring some cooling effects on the outside, but relatively speaking it is the same across the cross-section of the metal). But the columns in the towers were made of thick steel and those columns were very large in cross section. What this causes is stresses due to a temperature differential both in the cross section of the thick steel making up the column, as well as the cross section of the total column. So what happens is one side gets hot and starts to expand and the other side is cool you get a bit of bending from the differential temperatures.

However, NIST would like us to believe that this was a significant bending and that all these big columns turned into bowing, bending, sagging wet noodles.

I'm not saying they didn't distort - I'm saying the reality is with the data presented in the NIST report - it would have been imperceptible....just like your grill.

But then we look at the strength issue. Rising temperature decreases yield strength, but not permanently. Once the steel starts cooling back down it regains its original yield strength. NIST states no columns remained at elevated temperatures for the full time between plane impact and tower collapse. But just pretending they did...there were no columns tested that showed signs in excess of 650 F. That's about a 15 to 17% decrease in strength.

[edit on 9-21-2009 by Valhall]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The implication, and 'theory', of something OTHER than a normal passenger jet hitting each of the Towers doesn't have any merit, regardless of what some of these 'analysts' have tried to say.

What gives it merit, is the rather blatant evidence that the twin towers were destroyed with explosives, and so winding the rape back from that conclusion the nature of the planes and how they were piloted becomes the subject of an inquiry, and there we do have a photo and videographic record of the plane, in particular the south tower plane. And in looking at it, I think some valid questions are raised as to it's identity and true nature, and purpose.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I looked at the webfairy video, and indeed the 'flash' is small, and in the EXACT location in the forward, lower right fuselage where the O2 tank is mounted.

The other still frame captures merely show the sunlight reflecting on the paint.

I don't know.. the video slomo of the flame-flash sequence through impact reveals that it wasn't a small event at all. To the contrary, it was HUGE, almost a third the width of the entire fuselage.

webfairy.911review.org...

And damned if it doesn't look like it's eminating from the end of that apparent cylindrical pipe-like structure along the side, seen from two totally different angles here (what you refer to as nothing more the glints off a completely normal fuselage or, as the painjob on the bottom of the aircraft)

Run the video in a split screen right beside this split photo and you'll see what I mean regarding the precise point from which the flame-flash eminates

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70777d8ff4cb.jpg[/atsimg]

And there's something else I noticed, from the following CNN photo

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09f84630d229.jpg[/atsimg]

On magnification, not only is the anomalous bulge or 'pod' visible (what you say is solely the result of the painjob around the wheel well area)

But there appears to be a perfect dark circle under the tail (what I refer to as the "fishes anus" to indicate what I'm referring to on the plane and where)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5195e7e55a5.jpg[/atsimg]

Now we know that UA Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222 or 200 series, not a 300, and there is no tail skid at that location on a 200, nor an avionics blade antenna at that location.

However, tankers, with their rear fueling boom removed DO possess a dark circle at that location.

And finally, winding the tape back we see the sheer magnitude of the ensuing cataclysmic fireball.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efb8c5d0b18d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0371eccab827.jpg[/atsimg]

And to be honest - within the context of the many war games simulations which were occuring in near simultaneity with the 9/11 event itself, and in light of the evidence for a top down, controlled demolition initiated at around the impact areas in the buildings - it really makes you wonder, whether or not the plane which impacted the south tower, was the originating flight 175 ala an Operation Northwoods scenario updated for the 21st century, as a pretext to invading Iraq and Afghanistan..

[edit on 21-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

What's more, a group of German Engineers, seemingly without even being aware of any tanker variant type technology aka the development of the KC-767 Tanker re-configuration of the Boeing 767 - did a an analysis of the fireball and smoke cloud magnitude, and concluded that much much more fuel, by a few orders of magnitude, would have been required to account for the magnitude of the fireball and kerosine smoke cloud.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c76ea60291b.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d5ddb01bb4f2.jpg[/atsimg]

I find that interesting - when considering 9/11 in terms of a "shock and awe" global psy-op, the completion of which involved the complete destruction, by the use of explosives, of the twin towers, and later that day, under the guise of fires burning out of control, building 7 as well.

The Boeing 767 tanker transport aircraft, designated KC-767 for the US Air Force, is a high performance version of the Boeing 767-200ER twin aisle jetliner equipped for fully integrated tanker operations. It is fitted with either boom and receptacle refuelling, hose and drogue refuelling or both. The commercial 767 first entered service in 1982 and more than 880 aircraft have been delivered. The cabin of the tanker can be configured for passenger transport, as a freighter, convertible (passenger or freighter) or Combi (passenger and freighter).

DESIGN

The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.

The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.
In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.
COCKPIT
The 767 Tanker Transport aircraft has an advanced two person all-digital flight deck.

www.airforce-technology.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5ccb260a75b.jpg[/atsimg]

Now I'm not saying it was the exact same model, only that these aircraft, in particular the Boeing 767-200 and 300 can be re-configured and re-engineered as a Tanker variant, and some do possess remote piloting and missile capability.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efb8c5d0b18d.jpg[/atsimg]

Research 9/11 War Games

Personally, I am convinced that the plane which hit the south tower was not flight 175 piloted by one of the 19. No, I'm sure it was a military drone aircraft, and I've even offered some evidence to support that contention, not the least of which is the proof of controlled demolition of the twin towers and building 7 on 9/11.

Peace,

OmegaPoint

[edit on 20-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by Valhall


i miss you.
i hope springer's not the jealous type, lol!

on the point, though, and FOR THE OTHER SIDE!!! ......

a large differential between the hot side and the cool side could cause "steel snapping" fractures in the micro-structure of the steel, no? (and in graduations, steel bending, at the "right" temperature, is also a consideration).

damn. maybe i'm a "debbie", lol!

signed,
"just wanting to know the actual truth".

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

You don't even know what you are arguing against as you haven't even read the other material and your argument shows it. Which is funny as your constant attempts at qualifying doesn't even register the fact this problem at it's basis is a problem with how the mind incorporates memories which deals with all of us, there is no training to get around it *as funnily enough you think firemen and policemen recieve this mythical training and special ops and soldiers do not*. And making essentially superhumans of the people saying things you want to believe.

And it's funny you guys accepted without question the lies of the so called "gunsmith" that didn't even know what rifling *he called it fluting* was for.

Well you can continue to wallow in your ignorance and take stabs at everyone.
You still refuse to answer my question either a simple yes or no would have been fine however, you can dodge or move the goal posts all you want. You can ridicule me all you like, only immature people who have no evidences to refute the truth. Ridiculling is the only weapon you have. I do not know what kind of game you are playing in these 911 threads but, I do know you are being very disingenuous. Consider yourself on * ignore*



[edit on 21-9-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Valhall

 

i miss you.
i hope springer's not the jealous type, lol!

on the point, though, and FOR THE OTHER SIDE!!! ......

a large differential between the hot side and the cool side could cause "steel snapping" fractures in the micro-structure of the steel, no? (and in graduations, steel bending, at the "right" temperature, is also a consideration).

damn. maybe i'm a "debbie", lol!

signed,
"just wanting to know the actual truth".

LOL! I miss you, too! You degenerate you! lmao

I'm assuming when you refer to "steel snapping" you are referring to thermal cycling fatigue failure, correct? Which can happen, even in a low number of thermal cycles. But I'm trying to conceptualize it happening in the conditions reported in the NIST report (basically one cycle at a differential no greater than 650 F across the cross section). I'm not able to get there right now, but I'll do some studying and thinkin' on that one and get back with you.

P.S. billybob, I did find this - with ASME pressure vessel code B31.3 being a very important ASME document to refer to on a lot of the issues associated with high temperature and high loading combinations (especially the issue of "creep" since it is a major concern in HTHP piping systems such as steam piping). This book appears to draw heavily off that standard.

books.google.com... mus&hl=en&ei=N1i3SuDoNIHe8QaZ0cmTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=what%20causes%20thermal%20cracking&f=false

At the bottom of page 291 it discusses thermal stress and then at the top of 292 it gets into the effect of creep on structural steel stating:

Creep causes planes of slow movement in a material's crystalline structure that are also a function of time. This slow movement or slip can cause sufficient deformation to cause a sudden fracture even when the applied stress is much lower than that which normally could produce a failure under normal loadings.

So this "steel snapping", if it were to occur, would appear to be dependent on the uber-creep that NIST wants us to believe occurred at less than 45 minutes and 650 F or less. So, yeah, if we're going to accept that uber-creep was in the towers and helped bring them down, we might as well assume we had "steel snapping" as well.

[edit on 9-21-2009 by Valhall]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

I don't know.. the video slomo of the flame-flash sequence through impact reveals that it wasn't a small event at all. To the contrary, it was HUGE, almost a third the width of the entire fuselage.

webfairy.911review.org...

And damned if it doesn't look like it's eminating from the end of that apparent cylindrical pipe-like structure along the side, seen from two totally different angles here (what you refer to as nothing more the glints off a completely normal fuselage or, as the painjob on the bottom of the aircraft)


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70777d8ff4cb.jpg[/atsimg]

I am continuing to be puzzled by your inability/unwillingness to see the obvious, as I have repeatedy pointed out.

To the contrary, it was HUGE, almost a third the width of the entire fuselage.

Are you referring to the smallish 'flash' (at the location, lower right side, forward, where the O2 tank was mounted)? That 'flash' is seen very, very briefly, at exactly the moment when it can be inferred the O2 tank was impacting.

Are you seeing other "HUGE" events? Perhaps confusing the blossoming of dust and debris from the impact of the majority of the airframe??

...(what you refer to as nothing more the glints off a completely normal fuselage or, as the painjob on the bottom of the aircraft)...

They ARE sunlight glints. LOOK carefully at the engine nacelles. Can you see the Sun's reflection??? See how it lines up???

The engine cowlings are round, but they are a complex curve...not a straight tube shape.

The majority of the fuselage IS a straight tube...until reaching the nose and tail ends, where it begins a taper. HENCE, the sunlight did not reflect back to the camera on those portions. You would have to be at a different angle to have seen THOSE reflections.

I cannot understand the difficulty here --- maybe it's my poor ability to communicate? I'm am somehow missing the mark......

reply to post by impressme


I’m wallowing in ignorance? That’s a joke. Considering the fact you don’t even know thing one about the material I provided beyond your shallow and not to mention rather lame attempts to bypass it. And what is this mythical question you continue to babble about? Was it included in that constant cut and paste swill you are repeatedly grabbing from CD supporting sites?

reply to post by OmegaPoint


**shaking head**

It is astonishing to me, this post received two stars already. Sycophants at their best, eh?

OK....that said, let's examine the rest f your post:

Now I'm not saying it was the exact same model, only that these aircraft, in particular the Boeing 767-200 and 300 can be re-configured and re-engineered as a Tanker variant, and some do possess remote piloting and missile capability.

Wrong. And, WRONG!

The tanker variants are BUILT as such; they do NOT take a passenger airframe and "convert" it. The "re-engineering" is done in the design and tooling....in simple terms, it is bloody well far easier to build a new bloody airplane from scratch than it would be to take an already built passenger version and "convert" it!!!

Anyone with even a smattering of engineering and aviation knowledge can understand that simple concept.

Now, this mate....sorry for swearing earlier ('bloody' is mild enough, I hope nowadays..) but what you write next is just frakking nuts, and has NO bearing in reality at all!!!

...and some do possess remote piloting and missile capability.

In order to make a statement like that, you had better well show solid proof of BOTH the possession of "remote piloting and missile capability."

Firstly....MISSILE?!?!? OK...sorry, but that is more laughable (only just) than...the RC part.

The fact that the autoflight system exists does NOT infer a capability to operate it remotely, not even close. NOT for an off-the-shelf airplane, not in anty way, shape or form.

Let's see...suppose one wanted to operate the autopilot via remote control? Try to build the electronics that will integrate with the electronics of the autoflight system...sure. I won't say it's impossible given time and effort. Implausible, though...and full of obstacles.

The autopilot is designed and programmed with certain algorythms (sp?) built in to make it smooth...they dampen control inputs. The autopilot has limited control authority. The stabilzer trim, when operated by the autopilot, runs at about half the speed as when activated by the pilot. This further limits the autopilot to perform abrupt and rapid maneuvers involving pitch changes. Reason? The elevators that affect pitch movement areonly so effective at a given horizontal stabilizer ncidence angle...therefore, the stabilizer is electrically and hydraullically activated to pivot --- the leading edge moves up and down, changing the angle of incidence, and relieving the need for elevator deflection to maintain a given pitch attitude.

EVERY pilot who reads this will know what I'm talking about...difference is in small airplanes, sometimes instead of moving the entire horizontal stab, a "trim tab' on the elevator itself is used....but the results are similar.

SO...the autopilot, being remotely controlled, has obvious limitations. Direct servo control of the flight control surface actuators would have to be designed, and installed, and proven to work reliably. Wiring run, units installed, etc, etc, etc....it is no simple undertaking. EVEN IF possible. The idea of a "drone" is far better if designed IN from the beginning.

OK...now, by your 'theory' there was no human onboard to fly...hence, the airplane had to take off...is that a fair assumption?

OK...the airplane has to be lined up on the runway...nosewheel steering is accomplished via a 'tiller'...it has more authority over nosewheel travel than the rudder pedals. Nosewheel can be turned up to about 68 degrees either way, on the ground.

There has to be rudder authority for the take off, in additon to aileron and elevator. The autothrottles have to be remotely activated. There has to be a way to operate the landing gear handle, and flap handle. (I see that the gear is retracted, and so are the flaps and slats...yes?)

Here's a close-up of the throttle quadrant and panel where the landing gear handle is located:

www.airliners.net...

See the Gear Handle? See the flap handle? (It's on the right of the throttles --- see the notches labeled 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, and 30? thse are the pre-set flap settings. 1, 5, or 15 are used for take offs. Normal landings use flaps 30).

Those are physically moved, BY HAND, to activate he controls.

Research 9/11 War Games

Irrelevant.

Personally, I am convinced that the plane which hit the south tower was not flight 175 piloted by one of the 19. No, I'm sure it was a military drone aircraft, and I've even offered some evidence to support that contention, not the least of which is the proof of controlled demolition of the twin towers and building 7 on 9/11.

Well, personally I can tell you you're completely incorrect.

AND, there IS NO "proof" of CD in the Towers, except in the twisted imaginations of some on the Internet conspiracy sites.....

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Rigel Kent

 

Ah, more unproven conspiracy theory to back up an unproven conspiracy theory. The irony.

Watcher,
What is unproven about Rupert Murdoch owning 67% of National Geographic or him being a Bilderberger for that matter?

just wonderin.... DYOR

PEACE,
RK