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: 384
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 # 31.
#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.
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:
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).
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:
Which is precisely why you and anyone visiting this forum need us. Call it BALANCE.
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....
There are no replies to Comment # 31. End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
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.
#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...
#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.
#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. 
#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".
#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".
Replies to Comment # 31.