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: 390
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 # 25.
#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.
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.
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 25. End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
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.
#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.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 25.