Saturday, March 31, 2007

Yet Moron Rosie

Matt Jones covers the story well:

She makes numerous other idiotic statements, this is just one. She also challenges any physicist to come on and tell her something different. I REALLY hope someone takes her up on that offer. Until then, the fine folks at Popular Mechanics have offered up Rosie O’Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds. There they shut her down.


Over at AOL, there's a poll on whether Rosie should be fired. Currently over 130,000 votes, 63% of whom voted to sack the lardbutt.

Surf Now, Apocalypse Later says:

So according to Rosie O'Donnell the British set up their own people to be kidnapped to incite another war. This nutty theory goes along with O'Donnell's contention that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that terrorists mean us no harm.


A poster over at My Pet Jawa points out that Rosie forgot about the diesel fuel tanks in WTC-7:

New York City's Emergency Control Center was located in WTC 7. The center required fuel for the emergency generators in the event of a power failure. Thus, huge fuel tanks were located on the second floor.


She also makes a point that I had not heard before:

The walkway between WTC 7 and the North Tower over Vessey street (second floor again) had huge steel trusses, about 80 feet long, that took over two weeks to put in. When the North Tower went down, these extremely heavy trusses were unsupported on one end, placing additional strain on the exterior steel columns around the second floor, which transferred the weight to the internal columns.


I'm pretty sure the pedestrian walkway just connected with the plaza level of the WTC complex; it certainly did not connect directly with the North Tower. It is however quite possible that the support on the south side of the walkway was demolished when WTC-1 collapsed and that the unsupported walkway then did put additional pressure on the building.

Labels: , ,

43 Comments:

At 31 March, 2007 15:17, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Obviously you shouldn't put blind faith in your own government, but having it in a in an enemy government is just nuts.

 
At 31 March, 2007 15:24, Blogger Mattithyahu said...

Thanks for the link Pat! Listening to the truthers can be fairly amusing... while extremely aggrivating at the same time!

 
At 31 March, 2007 17:22, Blogger hotiron said...

Ok, Hypothetical here. Lets say there’s an uncontrollable, life threatening and serious very serious event a governing force of a nation has come to realize will occur, remember “uncontrollable” would this governing force make known of this event to the public.


Ps. we’re all just an experiment of survival in Mother Natures Eyes.

 
At 31 March, 2007 17:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Now if only AOL polls controlled the hiring/firing policies of "The View"...oh please just this once let it be so.

TAM:)

 
At 31 March, 2007 21:26, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This is the first time I watched the clip and everyone on "the View" seemed to be an idiot. Somehow, Rosie doesn't strike me as an expert of physics or explosives or much of anything. She has simply gotten "the religion." That right-wing babe (Elizabeth?) is no great shakes either. Nice body, but not much upstairs.

 
At 31 March, 2007 21:37, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Why is Iran an enemy government?

 
At 31 March, 2007 22:33, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 31 March, 2007 22:59, Blogger Dog Town said...

Why is Iran an enemy government?

That's not real...is it? You can't print that!

David St.Hubbins.

 
At 31 March, 2007 23:22, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Why is Iran an enemy government?

It is considered an enemy because it is aiding anti-US forces in Iraq (although the level of such aid is in dispute), and aids groups that are hostile to U.S. allies (Israel, Lebanon) and has seized forces of another ally (Britain) for what appear to be bogus reasons.

Under the best of circumstances, any radical islamist state is unlikely to be freindly towards the U.S. However, if we did not have such a high profile in the region, it might not qualify as an enemy per se.

 
At 31 March, 2007 23:27, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Why is Iran an enemy government?

I really don't feel the urge to answer this when it's coming from someone who doesn't believe or understand why the german government of 1934-1945 was an enemy.

 
At 01 April, 2007 00:16, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 April, 2007 06:33, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 April, 2007 06:34, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Jenny, have you ever heard of e-mail? It's a wonderful new invention that allows you to have private conversations online between you and the person you're talking to - no-one else can read it! - which helpfully reduces the risk of you being found legally culpable for literally boring a third party to death with your mind-numbing playground horseshit.

 
At 01 April, 2007 07:03, Blogger spoonfed said...

So if it was the diesel fuel tanks feeding the fires for hours and weakening the steel along with damage from the collapse as Pop Mechanics suggests, why can't we get an official account already from NIST to explain the collapse?

5 1/2 years?

Maybe we should have folks like James Meigs working for NIST, since he's obviously well-qualified to explain these things. After all, he worked for serious scientific journals like "Entertainment Weekly", "Video Review" and "Premiere".

 
At 01 April, 2007 07:05, Blogger spoonfed said...

But I am glad to see that Popular Mechanics is now in the business of debunking celebrities!

 
At 01 April, 2007 07:55, Blogger MarkyX said...


So if it was the diesel fuel tanks feeding the fires for hours and weakening the steel along with damage from the collapse as Pop Mechanics suggests, why can't we get an official account already from NIST to explain the collapse?

5 1/2 years?


The PM is giving the general idea of what happened according to the experts and the firefighter testimony. The NIST deals with specifics of the situation.

 
At 01 April, 2007 07:56, Blogger texasjack said...

Spoonfed, the difference between Meigs and your celebrity experts is that PM consults and cites experts, they don't claim to be experts themselves. Let's see a list of those experts Rosie has consulted.
I know you hate what they're writing, because it it blows your little CT world apart, but your spin is just that, spin.

Here's Meigs full professional bio, I know how you guys like to leave things out:

James B. Meigs was named editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics in May 2004. Since his arrival, he has deepened the magazine’s century-long commitment to covering the important scientific and technological issues of the day. He has also bolstered the magazine’s mission of helping men achieve hands-on competence in all the technological challenges of their lives, including home, auto, outdoors and electronics.
Under his tenure, PM has devoted extensive coverage to vital issues including national security, environmental concerns and alternative energy. PM was the first major media outlet to fact-check —and decisively debunk— the burgeoning conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. That investigation ultimately grew into the acclaimed book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, which the magazine published in 2006. Meigs also instituted the annual Popular Mechanics Breakthrough Awards, which highlight achievements in science and technology that promise to change the world for the better. Winners have included space and aviation visionary Burt Rutan and MIT nanotechnology pioneer Angela Belcher.

To help accomplish PM’s diverse mission, Meigs has recruited award winning writers, photographers and illustrators. He has also overseen a total re-launch of the magazine’s content-rich website, popularmechanics.com, to include hands-on videos and a top-rated weekly podcast. The reinvigorated Popular Mechanics brand is showing enormous vitality, enjoying strong increases in web traffic as well as growing newsstand sales.

Prior to joining PM, Meigs had been executive editor of National Geographic Adventure. During his time there, the magazine won three National Magazine Awards. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief, vice president of Premiere from 1996 to 2000, and as a senior editor on the team that launched Entertainment Weekly. From 1987 to 1989 he edited the home technology magazine Video Review. He has also written articles for magazines including Rolling Stone, Outside and Details, as well as a technology column for Popular Mechanics.
http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/mag_bio_editor_popmech.html

 
At 01 April, 2007 09:49, Blogger HidariMak said...

spoonfed said...
So if it was the diesel fuel tanks feeding the fires for hours and weakening the steel along with damage from the collapse as Pop Mechanics suggests, why can't we get an official account already from NIST to explain the collapse?

Because as the loosers keep pointing out, WTC7 was not hit by any jumbo jet. The damage from the falling debris of WTC1 started the process which led to the fires and eventual collapse of WTC7. But it's considered as collateral damage, just as the dozens of other buildings which were damaged or destroyed in the area were.

You might want to at least get a summary of the materials you're debunking, such as the basic goals of the reports and what's being debated.

 
At 01 April, 2007 09:53, Blogger shawn said...

Why is Iran an enemy government?

Are you really that stupid?

 
At 01 April, 2007 10:40, Blogger spoonfed said...

texasjack said...

I know you hate what they're writing, because it it blows your little CT world apart, but your spin is just that, spin.

On bldg 7 is what they haven't written. Only vague speculation from 'experts' like Meigs.

Still waiting for that report from NIST on bldg 7...

Here's Meigs full professional bio, I know how you guys like to leave things out:

Prior to joining PM, Meigs had been executive editor of National Geographic Adventure. During his time there, the magazine won three National Magazine Awards. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief, vice president of Premiere from 1996 to 2000, and as a senior editor on the team that launched Entertainment Weekly. From 1987 to 1989 he edited the home technology magazine Video Review. He has also written articles for magazines including Rolling Stone, Outside and Details, as well as a technology column for Popular Mechanics.


Sorry, I left off his stints with Outside, Details, NG Adventure and Rolling Stone -- my bad.

 
At 01 April, 2007 10:46, Blogger spoonfed said...

HidariMak said...

Because as the loosers keep pointing out, WTC7 was not hit by any jumbo jet. The damage from the falling debris of WTC1 started the process which led to the fires and eventual collapse of WTC7. But it's considered as collateral damage, just as the dozens of other buildings which were damaged or destroyed in the area were.

Oh, somehow I missed that memo. Thanks for such a succinct and detailed explanation. Maybe you could give NIST a hand since they seem to be having some trouble explaining it so simply?

 
At 01 April, 2007 10:51, Blogger Stevew said...

It is posted at the NIST site that the WTC 7 report is not yet complete

 
At 01 April, 2007 10:59, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Do try to keep up, spoonfed...

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

* An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

* Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

* Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

(Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About the NIST Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster)

 
At 01 April, 2007 11:18, Blogger texasjack said...

On bldg 7 is what they haven't written. Only vague speculation from 'experts' like Meigs.

Still waiting for that report from NIST on bldg 7...


Again spoonfed, Meigs doesn't claim to be an expert, he uses them as sources. Understand? PM is rebutting Rosie's outlandish statements on national TV.

OK, once again, please cite the experts Rosie uses to support her position.


Granted, the NIST report on 7 is not complete, and PM acknowledges that fact. Be patient spoonfed, it'll be out soon enough. Here is the reason they give:

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 
At 01 April, 2007 11:19, Blogger Richard said...

Look's like spoonfed once again didn't read up on the material. So, did you find that part of the NCSTAR document that talks about the core yet?

Honestly, it doesn't matter when the report on 7 comes out because you have never read a single bit of information that debunks your stupid claims. After the NIST report you just going to continue asking stupid questions that have already been answered.

 
At 01 April, 2007 11:22, Blogger texasjack said...

Cl1mh4224rd, you beat me to it. :)

 
At 01 April, 2007 12:27, Blogger Stevew said...

Guys he is simply too stupid to understand. Like all toofers he will not answer questions and is ashamed to give his qualifications because he has none. I am watching Inside 911 as we speak and all I can say is I hope all these toofers have nothing but pain in their lives equal to that suffered by those who suffered during 911

 
At 01 April, 2007 13:06, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

If NIST were just going to make up a story to hide the truth about demolition surely they would have released it by now?

 
At 01 April, 2007 16:35, Blogger spoonfed said...

Yeah guys I read the NIST FAQ the day it was put up on their site. I do keep up.

Their statement on the status of the bldg 7 report is again qualified by "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation." So who knows what will be in the report.

Also I am, as everyone else, interested in their modeling of the collapse and the possibility of blast scenarios. We'll see if they make good on this promise.

Richard -- I looked at the report. Since you're so confident that it explains the failure of the cores on a global scale why can't you give us a quote that specifically details this?

And don't give me that b.s. about the victims families -- watch 9/11 Press for Truth for the real story here. They're not happy with this sham of an investigation.

 
At 01 April, 2007 17:54, Blogger HidariMak said...

Spoonfed, you're asking why the NIST report failed to mention exactly why the WTC7 building collapsed.

The initial report didn't, for reasons which I already stated, which would have been obvious to you if you had bothered looking in to the report.

The updates to the report did mention that, which you seemed to be in sheer ignorance of when you questioned why they hadn't.

And you respond to the answers to your questions with insults, showing ignorance of your own ignorance.

In short, you prove why you believe the conspirators, instead of (with the exception of a few wingnuts) the tens of thousands of reputable experts who say otherwise.

It takes time to find out exactly how individual buildings fell down in the chaotic events of 9/11. Conspiracy theorists throw out multiple, conflicting, blind theories, lacking the backing of any indepth research. Getting the full details takes a fair bit of research, and having that research available to all experts in the public ensures the accuracy and integrety of the process.

Before you "ask questions, demand answers", you should consider the "do research" approach instead. You'd look a lot less foolish when you try to debate that way.

 
At 01 April, 2007 17:59, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 April, 2007 18:56, Blogger Richard said...

Richard -- I looked at the report. Since you're so confident that it explains the failure of the cores on a global scale why can't you give us a quote that specifically details this?

Why should I? I'm the one who tried to spell it out to you, yet you still failed to grasp it. I'm also the one who gave you the report, chapter, and subsection for you to read to answer your questions even though you claimed to "know."

 
At 01 April, 2007 20:43, Blogger srice555 said...

Maybe NIST is taking forever because they have to explain exactly how the building fell in painful details. Anything else won't be accepted.

 
At 02 April, 2007 06:19, Blogger Stevew said...

NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added "Hypothetical Blast Analysis" to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. which means they have not finished the study.

Many CD theorists make the assertion that the ‘core columns should have remained standing’ during the collapse of the Towers, presenting the metaphor of records sliding down the central spindle, but they do not consider the NIST explanation which points out that the core columns were designed only to withstand compressive loads, whereas the outer columns were the ones designed to withstand all lateral loadings.
As each floor collapsed it would have created lateral forces on the core columns which were sufficient to either tear away the bolts or sever the columns themselves as they ‘peeled’ away from the centre. If the CD theorists insist that explosives were used to sever the core columns, then this commits them to a variant of the CD theory requiring explosives on every single floor, multiplying the tonnage of explosive required by a factor of around 100. It also commits them to a sequential detonation, which would travel down in the Towers and up in WTC 7, requiring technologies well beyond anything seen in industrial practice.

"First, picture the demolitions teams wiring up the World Trade Center towers with explosives prior to the attack. Obviously you couldn't do it during business hours, since it'd be kind of hard to explain to the 100,000 people who worked at or visited the WTC towers on any given day why you had a huge chunk of wall torn out and were wiring up a bomb on the steel beams there.
I mean, keep in mind, I don't know how big of a job that would be no one has ever demolished a building that size before, but a building just half the size of one WTC tower took 4,000 separate charges to bring down Four thousand. That job took seven months of prep work... and they had the run of an abandoned building, without having to hide their work from 100,000 people every day. Our demolition crew, on the other hand, can work only at night and has to spend the last bit of every shift carefully repairing the wall and hiding any evidence of charges or detonators as not to be discovered during the day.

Huge teams of demolitions experts, who had no problem wiring a building full of innocent New Yorkers to explode, hired in secret, worked every night for what had to be a year and that's only if they had a big enough crew placing maybe 10,000 separate charges in each tower and another few thousand in WTC 7.

Truckloads of bombs, dozens of mysterious workers, going in and out of the building, night after night. Security at the building doesn't catch them, Port Authority Police don't catch them, random eyewitnesses who stumble across the operation and call the cops don't catch them, maintenance workers who stumble across wet paint and repaired walls and bits of strange wire don't catch them, security cameras don't catch them.

The bomb-sniffing dogs who were brought in from time to time who are trained to find even one bomb, fail to notice the 10,000 bombs lining their building. And nobody notices."

 
At 02 April, 2007 07:07, Blogger spoonfed said...

Richard said in response to...

Richard -- I looked at the report. Since you're so confident that it explains the failure of the cores on a global scale why can't you give us a quote that specifically details this?

Why should I? I'm the one who tried to spell it out to you, yet you still failed to grasp it. I'm also the one who gave you the report, chapter, and subsection for you to read to answer your questions even though you claimed to "know."

BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!

You point repeatedly to claims you cannot substantiate hoping no one will bother to check your facts.

Sorry -- doesn't work.

If it wasn't for the amusing April fools jokes and cartoons, I'd think I was wasting my time here.

 
At 02 April, 2007 07:15, Blogger spoonfed said...

HidariMak said...

In short, you prove why you believe the conspirators, instead of (with the exception of a few wingnuts) the tens of thousands of reputable experts who say otherwise.


Tens of thousands? Don't happen to have a list of those "tens of thousands" of experts who have examined in detail the collapse of the towers? They couldn't have because a full explanation has yet to be provided.

You guys love to throw around this kind of crap as fact. It's not.

It's like talking to a dozen Meigs clones here.

 
At 02 April, 2007 09:44, Blogger HidariMak said...

Tens of thousands? Don't happen to have a list of those "tens of thousands" of experts who have examined in detail the collapse of the towers? They couldn't have because a full explanation has yet to be provided.

Perhaps you can doubt the existance of gravity while you're at it. Only the majority of the population believes in that too, and that's still just a theory too. There are likely some out there who claim that "intelligent falling" is behind things falling down instead of up or sideways.

Lets face it, this is an even bigger conspiracy than 9/11. Gravity was first realized centuries ago, and we still haven't solved all matters of gravitational theory? Perhaps you can organize a "Falling Truth Movement" if nobody around you is insisting that gravity doesn't exist.

 
At 02 April, 2007 13:11, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Maybe NIST is taking forever because they have to explain exactly how the building fell in painful details. Anything else won't be accepted.

Even that won't be accepted by twoofers.

 
At 02 April, 2007 14:36, Blogger Stevew said...

Ever notice that the only defense the toofers have is to take one small part of what is said and use it to try and debunk a whole post. LOL

Spooney you are just like all the toofer frauds, make claims, never back them up with facts.

When will we see some facts from you and not your uninformed opinion?

We have questions for you as well so why don't you answer ours?

How do you know it is wrong if you don't have the knowledge to understand what happened?

How about a point by point rebuttle to back up your claims and back it up with experts in the relivent fields?

What are your particular qualifications? If you have the knowledge you would shout it from the roof tops, how else can we gage your credibility?
The only questions are from you whaks that have no bearing on anything. I could walk thru any disaster and ask a myriad of questions that may sound good even if they had no bearing on what happened.

 
At 02 April, 2007 16:09, Blogger Richard said...

BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!
You point repeatedly to claims you cannot substantiate hoping no one will bother to check your facts.
Sorry -- doesn't work.
If it wasn't for the amusing April fools jokes and cartoons, I'd think I was wasting my time here.


WTF? Did you even look? Aside from the pages and pages of text there are pictures for Christ sake!

If you go to google and type in NIST NCSTAR the report is the first link. From there click on the report, go to NCSTAR 1-6D. I typed in a search for the word "core" and lets just say that I lost count at around 600. That whole section of the report deals with the core. Seriously, how stupid are you? It's like I gave you a copy of the bible and you said there was no mention of god in it. If you can't even read I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

I'll save you the trouble AGAIN

Click Me

 
At 04 April, 2007 10:26, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

No no no..it was listed as an enemy government during the post 9/11 you are with us or against us speech. Iran along with North Korea and Syrian. The Axis of Evil, right?
So did the Axis have something to do with 9/11?

 
At 04 April, 2007 15:41, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

How would you characterise the Iranian government Swing?

 
At 05 April, 2007 12:40, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

So what you're saying is that a government can't be considered our enemy unless they were involved in either the planning or execution of 9/11. Christ, you're really not that bright, are you Swing?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home