See other 9/11 Articles
Title: ROSIE SOUNDS OFF
Source:
Jones Report
URL Source: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/140507_rosie_wtc.html
Published: May 15, 2007
Author: Paul Watson
Post Date: 2007-05-15 06:25:36 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 338
Comments: 31
Rosie O'Donnell has returned 9/11 truth to prominence by laying out the facts for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and Building 7 on ABC's The View this morning. The subject of Giuliani receiving criticism on Fox News for having had the New York emergency command bunker stationed in WTC 7 cropped up and Rosie used the opportunity to educate the audience about Building 7 and the pools of molten steel found under all three buildings that collapsed on 9/11. Resident Neo-Con Stepford Wife Elizabeth Hasselbeck was on hand to attempt to debunk the facts but sat in silence when Rosie asked her to explain how the towers fell in seconds at the speed of almost no resistance. We have now come to understand that prominent 9/11 film makers and other activists within the movement are scheduled to appear on The View in upcoming weeks, as well as debunkers like Popular Mechanics, but that the two camps will appear on separate shows and not engage in a debate of any kind. Expect a week long orgy of ad hominem attack pieces from Neo-Con attack dogs like O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest of the usual suspects. The "V" is for Vendetta.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: noone222, *9-11* (#0)
... The "V" is for Vendetta. bump!
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
I don't watch network television. Is this a lesbian show?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I don't watch Network TV either ... I think Rosie is the only Lesbo, the others are straight ... (I think).
Some say freedom isn't free; I agree, but submission to fascism costs you everything including your ass-ets
Rosie's lesbianism is beside the point. She is acting heroically and with great courage in the BIG MEDIA spotlight in support of the 9-11 truth movement. And she is an American patriot, both of which is more than can be said of many "straight" (but really crooked) people in this country.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
wow. i'm really really surprised that ABC is going to allow this. avrwc, no, The View is not a lesbian show. the other three hosts are straight.
Right. :-) Arator is correct...although I'm no 'fan' of homosexuals and their 'agenda'; the TRUTH about what happened on 9/11 transcends Rosie's taste for other 'womyn'. That issue alone does not make her less credible. If she had been seen in public in the past wearing tin foil hats and babbling about flying saucers and the underground cities in the arctic; I wouldn't want her speaking out on 9/11 either; but such is not the case. She is waking a lot of people up; especially women, who are more inclined to trust the government 'line' than men. All people want is the TRUTH.
Amen.
Me too. But perhaps there is a reason... As long as the "main" topic is the collapses, ABC will be able to get guests which will try to debunk the truth movement - and claim that they "know more" because of their background in structural engineering than someone that is "merely" a physics expert or mathematician (the tactic BAC uses); hence, the "debate" can/will still be divided. What Rosie needs to do is bring up topics the others will have a harder time explaining - things like the NORAD stand-down, Condi's lies in front of the 9-11 Commission, Bush not being whisked away immediately in face of an attack of "unknown" yet apparently large scale, etc...
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
I glanced at 'The View' a couple of times earlier, and heard Rosie take a couple of verbal swipes at George and Laura. The slut (I can't remember her name...Bebar?) mentioned that Laura had done an effective job at hiding the fact that she had been a smoker, and Rosie quipped "makes you wonder what ELSE they're hiding?" Lots of snickering from the audience...
good point
That's not my only "tactic", innieway. I post sourced FACTS ... those unpleasant little details that get in the way of nonsense ... that prove folks like Rosie are either woefully misinformed, woefully gullible or just plain liars. If you look at the video of her appearance on the view, she starts out by claiming that "ALL" the steel was removed and shipped off to "Canada" ... er ... "China", "right away". She says there is no metal to test. That is absolutely false. Hundreds of structural engineers and other investigators had plenty of time to visit the WTC site and see the steel insitu, before the steel was removed. Then it went to Fresh Kill where again they got to examine it and retain those samples they considered important to understanding what happened. And tens of thousands of pieces of steel are still being retained for historical purposes and future studies. Rosie is either uninformed or a outright partisan liar. Next, in the video, she says that WTC 7 "got hit by nothing". She's either uninformed or a liar. It got hit by significant amounts of debris from the collapse of the towers. That debris ripped a huge hole out of the south side of building. According to the firemen who where on the scene, a 20 story high hole. Then she claims there were "pools of molten steel" under all three buildings. Well I challenge you to name a single eyewitness who has actually and verifiably used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. I challenge you to name a single expert in fire or steel who says finding molten steel was impossible given the circumstances. I challenge you to tell us what kept any steel that was molten, molten for over 6 weeks after the collapse. Rosie seems to think it was bombs. So me how that might work. Next, she claims it took the towers "9 seconds" to fall and that is the same as "free-fall". Well her claim is FALSE. From numerous credible sources (including actual videos of the collapse which one can time) one can learn that the towers actually took about 15 seconds to collapse. One can look at hundreds of still images of the collapses and immediately see that there was debris free-falling much faster than the collapsing level of the towers were descending. She surely has to have seen these images. So Rosie is either a liar or hasn't bothered to apply the least bit of thought to interpreting what she saw or the least bit of energy into investigating the issue. So you see, innieway, it is not just that professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics do NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either. All she is really doing is hurting the effort to find out what really happened on 9/11. There are good questions to ask but if *truthers* make no effort to stop idiots like Rosie from muddying the water with nonsense and lies, you will never find the truth. People like her are the *truth* movement's worst enemy.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
If you've noticed.. the media has absolutely bashed O'Donnell at every turn.. mentioning her weight etc.. they have to discredit her.. an attempt to shut her up.. see the following for examples: And this from Popular Mechanics: osie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds Rosie O’Donnell: ‘Radical Christianity is Just as Threatening as Radical Islam’ .. I agree with her statement here but this site says "Rosie O’Donnell, the new host of "The View," restrained herself for exactly one week before letting fly with her extreme liberalism. On the September 12 edition, in response to fellow co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck’s comment that militant Islam is a grave threat, O’Donnell stated that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." The comedienne also attacked America’s response to 9/11: O’Donnell: "We were attacked not by a nation. And as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries."
Maybe my perspective is jaded. But wasn't Eric Rudolf described as a militant, extremist, Christian by the same media that now wants to shut Rosie up. I disagree with her lifestyle and her adopting children etc., however the truth is the truth regardless of the person telling it. Evidently she's getting them all worked up to do some interviews with 9-11 experts on both sides of the equation.
Here's the bottom line BAC. At this point in the game, there is little way or hope of "proving" what truly caused those buildings to collapse. Sure, there is a report by NIST, and all sorts of evidence to look at. BUT that doesn't mean that the "official explanation" is the WHOLE TRUTH of the matter. I doubt if there's more than a handful of people and God that know the whole truth, and unfortunately NONE of them are telling us. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you will NEVER change your mind about the collapses - unless of course somewhere in the future Bush or Cheney or Zakheim or Rice or someone complicit in the matter confesses the whole thing and sets the whole record straight - and the chances of that happening are zero. I also know that I will go to my grave believing that the "official explanation" is bullshit. I worked construction too many years, and rebuilt after "catastrophes". I have seen the effects of massive structural damage (you should see the damage caused to a boilerhouse when a fucking boiler explodes!) as well as damage caused by MASSIVE fires and never once was there a TOTAL collapse of ANY building. You or anyone else WILL NOT ever convince me that those buildings collapsed solely as a result of a chain reaction of events caused by those planes hitting the buildings. I firmly believe there's a lot more to it than that. So just give up trying - I'm NOT BUYING!!! I've said there are good questions to ask, and YOU'VE said there are good questions to ask. I've BEEN asking those questions. WHY don't you START, and quit bashing everybody over those damned buildings. They're fucking history, and meanwhile shit keeps getting deeper everyday - apparently with your approval since we never see you complaining about anything except the "truthers". Get this through your thick skull: If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
I've actually grown to like Rosie on the View, which I wouldn't have even watched had it not been for her media attention. Once Rosie is gone, no View for me. I would like to see her get her own 'gig'. Bump that pathetic criminal that is still on the air, Martha Stewart.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
right on, brother
Let me hear you say "AMEN!!!" sister!
Yet, for some reason you didn't know that steel members are, if anything, weaker in compression than in tension. You claimed the tensile strength "pales" in comparison to the compressive strength ... which is false. Which is surprising coming from someone who claimed "I work with steel everyday, and I have done each of these things enough to be competent at it....." Well as I've said before, that would make you an expert in comparison to the tens of thousands of structural engineers who have studied years on topics like fire and structures, and the thousands who every day work directly on the analysis and design of structures to resist fire and impact. What do they know ... (sarcasm) This is untrue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm I'm not trying to convince you. I am hoping to keep others from being gullibly convinced by people like you (and Rosie).
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
There was no molten steel, there was iron and metal. Molten metal was observed by dozens of eyewitnesses. The twin towers took around 14 1/2-15 seconds to explode. WTC 7's vertical roofline took 6 1/2 seconds. Some steel was saved from the towers. 99.7% was removed. Physical temps of the steel were around 487F. WTC 7 had no steel saved. Some was examined early on and found to be evaporated. WTC 1's fire and damage was different than WTC 2. WTC 2's fire and damage was different than WTC 1. WTC 7 fire and damage was different than the WTC 1&2. All three fell symmetrically at 1/6th-1/8th of a second a floor. NIST Adjusts Input Data so Computer Simulations of WTC Result in Collapses. During the course of its three-year investigation of the World Trade Center collapses, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) performs computer simulations of the behavior of each WTC tower on 9/11. In its final report, released in October 2005 (see October 26, 2005), it will describe having determined which variables most affected the outcome of its various simulations. Then, “for each of the most influential variables, a central or middle value and reasonable high and low values were identified.” However, “upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.” Therefore, the “more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower.” But, to “the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 143-144 ] Entity Tags: National Institute of Standards and Technology, World Trade Center Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline What's reality? NIST's theory is just that, a political theory. All real physical forensic science was thrown out for trumped up workstation burn tests and tweeked computer software. Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
A very generous determination on your part, I'd say they were irresponsibly ignorant or complicit in promoting a FRAUD.
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center: Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003] William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32] Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001 ] Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001] Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 ] According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001] New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004] As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002] Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high- temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005] There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 ] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying, “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001). Entity Tags: Ken Holden, William Langewiesche, Leslie Robertson, Frank Gayle, Steven E. Jones, Joe O'Toole, Ron Burger, Alison Geyh, World Trade Center Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline George Washington Blog. Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed: New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava". A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano. An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn [ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per- view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam" A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32) An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event." An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December." A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11. Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view) A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days." As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest- burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero." Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake." See also witness statements at the beginning of this video. For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper. Also see this essay showing that the post-collapse temperatures under Building 7 were very similar to those under Buildings 1 and 2, even though Buildings 1 and 2 were much higher.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
The fire was declared extinguished on December 19, 2001, more than three months after the buildings were demolished. The underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site, New York for the past three months have finally been extinguished, Gov. George Pataki said Wednesday. "Just in the last week the fires have actually been put out," Pataki told a group of about 50 elected officials during a tour of the scene. Fire officials confirmed that the fires are now considered extinguished. The fire officials said, however, that they cannot rule out the possibility that a small pocket might still be burning. "It is pretty well contained," said firefighter Robert Calise, a spokesman for the department. "There might be some pockets still burning, but we consider the fire to be out." It seems there were a few reports of molten metal. 1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.) The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek: For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002) Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, ‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.) Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating. Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail. The following (disputed account) appeared in SEAU News following a keynote address by Leslie Robertson. I have seen elsewhere where Robertson does not recall commenting about molten steel and denied he would have had knowledge of it. SEAU NEWS WTC A STRUCTURAL SUCCESS By James M.Williams, On October 5, 2001 only three weeks since the tragedy of September 11, I attended the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations 9th Annual Conference. The Keynote Address was to be presented by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center (WTC). His topic was to be “The Design Concept for a 500-Meter Building.” The Keynote Address topic was changed to, “The Design, Construction and Collapse of the World Trade Center.” Needless to say, the presentation was a very emotional one. (Leslie Robertson did present the other topic later in the conference). * * * As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.
Then wouldn't your time be better spent somewhere other than this forum? It seems that with the exception of you, Destro, and AgAvaitor everyone else on this forum believes something other than the "official explanation". Why don't you apply to be a guest on the upcoming episodes of The View, and leave us "kooks" alone... Then you can explain to the world how "experts" are never wrong... Doctors are the "experts" of diseases - they NEVER get it wrong do they. BTW, are you so insane as to actually believe that this (from your link in your last reply to me) is even remotely reminiscent of ANY of the WTC buildings that collapsed in terms of size of the fire in relation to the building??? One HUGE difference I see immediately is the fire in the above pic is concentrated at ground level. It would also appear that the only vertical supports are on the perimeter of the building with no huge (or any for that matter) core support. Nor does the end result of the buttwipe factory fire look anything like the end result of the WTC collapses: If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
An asymetrical fall would have caused far more damage, something a real terrorist would have wanted.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
What I'm "splitting" aren't mere "hairs". That's arguable. Numerous people said there was molten steel. But no one says there were "pools" of molten steel. I wouldn't have used the word "explode". Didn't you just advise Rosie to be careful of her wording? ROTFLOL! I'm not really sure what you mean by this. The roof line of a building is not vertical. So what do you mean by "vertical roofline"? And videos clearly show that the collapse of WTC 7 began with the east mechanical penthouse sinking into the structure more than 6 seconds before the collapse shown in the video clips that *truthers* like to show of the event. Not to "split hairs" but more than .3% of the steel was saved. Reportedly, 181,140 tons was sold to foundries after the collapse. A little over 200,000 tons of steel was reportedly used in the WTC towers initially. That would imply that perhaps 3 times that amount of the steel (19,000 tons) was saved. In any case, surely the amount they did retain is sufficient for engineers and material specialists to have a reasonable idea of the condition of the steel, it's properties and what happened. Especially since engineers didn't randomly take samples but tried to use their minds in selecting what was saved. As Mr. Astaneh-Asl said "Thanks to cooperation of the HSNE recycling plant, I have been able to study the steel from the WTC before recycling. I have identified and saved some components of the structures that appear to have been subjected to intense fire or impact of fast moving objects. Figures 1 through 4 show examples of inspected structures. These critical pieces are saved as perishable data and can be used in future research." According to Appendix D of the The WTC Report report http://(911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm ), *********** "engineers searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC 5 and WTC 7. They also checked for pieces of steel exposed to fire. Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members: * Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft. * Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone. * Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7. * Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections, single shear plates, and column splices. * Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured, and/or that appeared undamaged. * Floor trusses, including stiffeners, seats, and other components. * Any piece that, in the engineer's professional opinion, might be useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations. ************ That report shows multiple photos of engineers climbing through the steel, inspecting and marking promising pieces ... and telling salvage yard personnel where to cut to obtain a coupon. It's not as if the EVIL BUSH administration kept engineers away from the site and steel and prevented them from saving samples. This is absolutely false. This comes from the fact that NIST performed a limited number of tests on a few samples of WTC tower steel. The test required that paint still be on the steel, thus limiting the range of temperatures the test could actually measure. NIST concluded that the several samples (whose pre-collapse locations in the structures they were able to determine) had not seen temperatures in excess of this temperature. BUT, NIST's computer fire models indicate the temperatures at those locations in the towers would have been on the order of those measured. NIST said the results of the tests actually helped validate the accuracy of the fire models which indicate MUCH HIGHER temperatures occurred elsewhere. Given that this has been pointed out to you previously, should we conclude you lied? Then what did the engineers and scientists who claimed to have found evidence in the laboratory of eutectic reactions in WTC7 steel use? The WTC Report linked above would suggest this claim is wrong. In fact, the report contains a table that lists more than 150 samples of steel that were inspected, kept in their entirety or from which samples were retained. At least some were indicated as being from WTC 7. So? What happened in each structure was different. The planes hit the WTC towers in different ways and WTC 7 was damaged by debris instead of a plane. This is misleading. WTC 7 leaned and then fell to the south. And there was a definite kink in the structure as it went down with the collapse starting on the east side. Both of the towers caps tilted as they descended on the floors below. The collapse was observed to begin on ONE SIDE of the structures. Folks, isn't it odd that not one structural engineer in the world has complained about NIST's computer analyses of the towers? Not ONE has suggested the analyses are faulty or incorrect? And isn't it odd that structural engineers outside of NIST have performed calculations (for example, as part of the lawsuits that the government had nothing to do with) and concluded the same as NIST? Isn't it surprising that Mark has claimed there is "no scientific proof of sagging floor systems" in the towers before the collapse ... when sagging floors are easily seen in dozens of photos of the event? This is especially curious when Mark claimed elsewhere that "multiple photos showed hanging floors before collapse and right after impact." And when asked back up the claim that there were hanging floors right after impact, he didn't. Mark complained that NIST used 9 floors in their models instead of the 5 floors of damage. Apparently he doesn't understand what a boundary condition is in a model. So what else doesn't he understand about modeling? Mark claims the impacts did very little to the towers. Is that what everyone else saw in the videos from that day? Because I sure saw a huge entrance hole, a huge fireball, and obvious damage to the other side of the towers. Previously, Mark claimed that "No matter what airliner impact case NIST plugged into the model A,B,C or D, no simulation produced the observable events of impact and the debris path." Yet the NIST report actually said just the opposite as was pointed out to him before he fled that discussion. So I hope readers don't put too much faith in what Mark claims the NIST reports said or what constitutes good analytical techniques.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
ROTFLOL! To show how reliable *Dr* Jones is, consider this. In his report and presentations, he claimed this: was a photo of slag from a pool of molten steel. It is not. It is a photo of a chunk of pancaked floors composed of sheet steel, reinforced concrete, rebar, wood and even paper debris with writing still legible on it. And there is photo after photo available proving this: And notice that NOT ONE of the sources he cited in that section actually used the word "pool". It's a *truther* fabrication that it was "observed in pools". This is nothing more than handwaving. Let him say clearly what materials would undergo "exothermic reactions" to keep molten steel molten for 6 weeks after the collapse. The claim that cutter charges which didn't ignite would do the job is DESPERATE handwaving.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Which is precisely why you and anyone visiting this forum need us. Call it BALANCE.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Is that what you call it when Rush and Hannity fill your head up with BS?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
It seems there were a few reports of molten metal. 1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.) The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek: For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002) Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, ‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.) Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating. Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail. The following (disputed account) appeared in SEAU News following a keynote address by Leslie Robertson. I have seen elsewhere where Robertson does not recall commenting about molten steel and denied he would have had knowledge of it. SEAU NEWS WTC A STRUCTURAL SUCCESS By James M.Williams, On October 5, 2001 only three weeks since the tragedy of September 11, I attended the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations 9th Annual Conference. The Keynote Address was to be presented by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center (WTC). His topic was to be “The Design Concept for a 500-Meter Building.” The Keynote Address topic was changed to, “The Design, Construction and Collapse of the World Trade Center.” Needless to say, the presentation was a very emotional one. (Leslie Robertson did present the other topic later in the conference). * * * As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.
BALANCE is something I learned REALLY well riding horses as a youngster then later walking steel many hundreds of feet in the air during my construction days. Something else I learned from those construction days: FUCK YOUR "EXPERTS"......
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
On the mechanical aspects of the day? Pretty much. On the political policy side? I don't. It is my view that 9/11 is blowback - America was in league with jihadis world wide and helping the Saudis and Pakis train and arm jihadi organizations and a group went rogue and the Americans were blindsided by their own trained jihadis or the powers that be were not blind sided and while maybe not helping the jihadis stood back and waited for a plot by these groups they had allowed to enter the USA to carry out their plots. I consider those that look into how the buildings fell down and not on the connections the USA's secret services had with their American backed jihadis to be imbeciles. The thesis I have embraced is that the USA was having Saudis and Pakis organize jihadi groups to destabilize regions which have strategic control of pipeline routes and oil and gas production in the aftermath of the Cold War in order to give America with NATO a pretext to invade and restore order/peace/democracy - what have you - the Saudis and Pakis in turn gained world wide influence which allowed their brand of Islam to spread. Who ever ran al-Qaeda - named for the CIA training base in Afghanistan - which is what al-Qaeda means - be it Osama or whoever - decided that the CIA plan was a good one - but why fight for the USA when they can take over the game plan for their own purposes. That is why in some cases and places it seems Americans and jihadis are on the same page like in Bosnia and Kosovo and Chechnya and in other places they are at odds like in Africa. See, this thesis is complicated and requires Americans to study world events - that is hard for the American pea brain....
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
and Rosie used the opportunity to educate the audience about Building 7
#2. To: noone222 (#0)
#3. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, noone222 (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: noone222, Arator, a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
We have now come to understand that prominent 9/11 film makers and other activists within the movement are scheduled to appear on The View in upcoming weeks, as well as debunkers like Popular Mechanics, but that the two camps will appear on separate shows and not engage in a debate of any kind.
#6. To: christine, arator (#5)
the other three hosts are straight.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#7. To: who knows what evil (#6)
She is waking a lot of people up; especially women, who are more inclined to trust the government 'line' than men. All people want is the TRUTH.
#8. To: christine (#5)
wow. i'm really really surprised that ABC is going to allow this.
#9. To: innieway (#8)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#10. To: innieway (#8)
What Rosie needs to do is bring up topics the others will have a harder time explaining - things like the NORAD stand-down, Condi's lies in front of the 9-11 Commission, Bush not being whisked away immediately in face of an attack of "unknown" yet apparently large scale, etc...
#11. To: innieway, christine, ALL (#8)
As long as the "main" topic is the collapses, ABC will be able to get guests which will try to debunk the truth movement - and claim that they "know more" because of their background in structural engineering than someone that is "merely" a physics expert or mathematician (the tactic BAC uses); hence, the "debate" can/will still be divided.
#12. To: noone222 (#0)
#13. To: Zipporah (#12)
(Edited)
#14. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Everyone that loathes BAC (#11)
The "2 party system" is a fraud
Our "money system" of FRNs is a fraud
The "income tax system" is a fraud
The Social(ist) Security system is a fraud
The institution we call the "public school system" is a fraud
The "justice system" is a fraud
CONgress and the legislative system is a fraud
The notion that "we are free" is a fraud
Our mainstream media system is a fraud
The "official story" concerning 9/11 and the resultant "war on terror" is a fraud
And, anyone that believes otherwise about ANY of the above is asleep...
#15. To: noone222 (#0)
#16. To: innieway (#14)
Get this through your thick skull: The "2 party system" is a fraud Our "money system" of FRNs is a fraud The "income tax system" is a fraud The Social(ist) Security system is a fraud The institution we call the "public school system" is a fraud The "justice system" is a fraud CONgress and the legislative system is a fraud The notion that "we are free" is a fraud Our mainstream media system is a fraud The "official story" concerning 9/11 and the resultant "war on terror" is a fraud And, anyone that believes otherwise about ANY of the above is asleep...
#17. To: christine (#16)
right on, brother
Enemies of the Republic
#18. To: innieway, ALL (#14)
I worked construction too many years
I have seen the effects of massive structural damage (you should see the damage caused to a boilerhouse when a fucking boiler explodes!) as well as damage caused by MASSIVE fires
and never once was there a TOTAL collapse of ANY building.
You or anyone else WILL NOT ever convince me that those buildings collapsed solely as a result of a chain reaction of events caused by those planes hitting the buildings.
#19. To: innieway, christine, robin, noone222, ALL (#11)
(Edited)
Rosie needs to be careful when wording. I know things get said quickly in a debate, but hairs will be split when it comes to certain details on 911.
#20. To: innieway (#14)
And, anyone that believes otherwise about ANY of the above is asleep...
#21. To: innieway, christine, robin, noone222, ALL (#19)
(Edited)
#22. To: BeAChooser, innieway, christine, ALL (#11)
Then she claims there were "pools of molten steel" under all three buildings. Well I challenge you to name a single eyewitness who has actually and verifiably used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. I challenge you to name a single expert in fire or steel who says finding molten steel was impossible given the circumstances. I challenge you to tell us what kept any steel that was molten, molten for over 6 weeks after the collapse.
http://english.people.com.cn/200112/20/eng20011220_87119.shtml
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Physicist and Archaeometrist
The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author. http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah
Volume VI- Issue II October 2001
SEAU President
#23. To: BeAChooser (#18)
I'm not trying to convince you. I am hoping to keep others from being gullibly convinced by people like you (and Rosie).
Attorneys are the "experts" of law - they NEVER get it wrong do they.
Welders are the "experts" of joining metal - they NEVER make bad welds do they.
Truck drivers are the "experts" of transportation over the highways - they NEVER cause wrecks do they. 
#24. To: innieway (#23)
#25. To: Kamala, ALL (#19)
I know things get said quickly in a debate, but hairs will be split when it comes to certain details on 911.
There was no molten steel
The twin towers took around 14 1/2-15 seconds to explode.
WTC 7's vertical roofline took 6 1/2 seconds.
Some steel was saved from the towers. 99.7% was removed.
Physical temps of the steel were around 487F.
WTC 7 had no steel saved.
WTC 1's fire and damage was different than WTC 2. WTC 2's fire and damage was different than WTC 1. WTC 7 fire and damage was different than the WTC 1&2.
All three fell symmetrically at 1/6th-1/8th of a second a floor.
NIST Adjusts Input Data so Computer Simulations of WTC Result in Collapses.
#26. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#22)
Dr. Steven E. Jones ... snip ... 1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating.
#27. To: innieway, Destro, AGAviator, ALL (#23)
It seems that with the exception of you, Destro, and AgAvaitor everyone else on this forum believes something other than the "official explanation".
#28. To: BeAChooser (#27)
Which is precisely why you and anyone visiting this forum need us. Call it BALANCE.
#29. To: BeAChooser (#26)
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Physicist and Archaeometrist
The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author. http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah
Volume VI- Issue II October 2001
SEAU President
#30. To: BeAChooser (#27)
Call it BALANCE.
No matter how well thought out the plans were, you're gonna have some changes to the blueprints on EVERY job. Those EXPERT fucking engineers sitting in their fancy offices make MISTAKES, and some of them cause us welders to have to make 300 vertical mirror welds that could have been done horizontally right in front of our faces at eye level. But that's what you get when motherfuckers get paid big bucks to design shit and ain't got 1 MINUTE'S EXPERIENCE ACTUALLY WORKING ON THE SHIT - BUT THEY GOT A COLLEGE EDUCATION.
#31. To: BeAChooser, innieway, AGAviator (#27)
It seems that with the exception of you, Destro, and AgAvaitor everyone else on this forum believes something other than the "official explanation".
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
