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: 970
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 # 8.
#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...
#9. To: innieway (#8)
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.
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.
Replies to Comment # 8.
#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.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.