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: 367
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#5. To: noone222, Arator, a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
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.
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...
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.
#14. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Everyone that loathes BAC (#11)
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:
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.
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWe 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.
#8. To: christine (#5)
wow. i'm really really surprised that ABC is going to allow this.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 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...
#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.
#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
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.