A Sentiment We Can All Agree With
Go, Rosie, Go! Of course, we're hoping that she'll go home to the wife and kiddies, while this writer hopes she'll continue to espouse her kooky view:
It’s interesting to me that when Rosie and Donald Trump were having their media driven nasty argument, I couldn’t turn on the television without hearing about it, the newspapers soaked up the ridiculous stories and everyone chose a side. It seems we didn’t recognize that it was all about advertisement and ratings, not a serious debate, but now that Rosie has sunk her teeth into a real issue, the silence by most of the mainstream media is nearly deafening.
That's pretty simple to understand. The mainstream media are ignoring this in the hopes of saving Rosie. The part of the media that has focused on the story are the ones who would like to get rid of her.
I also find it interesting that never before in history has fire caused steel buildings to disintegrate, but on September 11th it happened three times. That goes beyond mere coincidence and frankly does open the door for thinking people to consider conspiracy.
Sigh. Kader Toy Factory. Google it. Watch the Windsor Towers fire closely--the steel buckles and fails; it is only the concrete core that holds the buildings up. If, as so many of these metallurgists believe, fire can't weaken steel, then why do they spray fireproofing over it? Hmmmm?
Labels: Rosie O'Donnell, WTC 7
posted by Pat @ 8:44 AM
24 comments
24 Comments:
now that Rosie has sunk her teeth into a real issue, the silence by most of the mainstream media is nearly deafening.
That's just how celebrity-news outlets work. Celebrities say outrageously ignorant things about real-world issues all the time, and nobody in the media takes them to task for those either.
Celebrity news coverage is all about fawning admiration and contrived drama.
I remember reading some about using wood in construction due to of all things better fire strength! This was well before 911 and I just happen to find this site that made me remember.
Due to the fact steel has a nasty habit of sagging when exposed to heat.This company markets a construction product to help solve this problem. Their solution? Wood.
"Glulam is fabricated using individual pieces of high-strength, kiln-dried lumber, laminated together under pressure to form large timbers that retain the traditional beauty of wood along with engineered strength and extraordinary fire resistance,"
Superior Fire Resistance
Steel beams have melted and collapsed over charred timber beam, which, despite heavy damage, remains in place.
"Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."
Now true this stuff most likely does not have the strength to weight ratio necessary for something like a skyscraper, but it does show that fire and steel sometimes just don't cut it.
Your Kader comparison is so stupid I can't believe that you put it out as argumentation.
ya man...its just stupid...stupid stupid stupid....lol
TAM;)
It is a steel-framed building that collapsed from a fire. What about the toilet-paper factory that burned down last year?
I think this is what you're referring to, Pat:
A toilet paper factory in Worcestershire has been severely damaged in a major fire... A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.
He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."
Silly Billy gets it wrong again.
BG, if fire doesn't affect steel, then why don't you submit a paper to all of the regulatory commissions asking for fireproofing regulations for steel to be removed? Think of all the money they are wasting that could go to other things! They could be using that money to investigate 9/11 instead!
Remember, according to professional engineer Rosie O'Donnell, before 2001, never in the history of the world has fire ever melted steel. Which begs the question, what have we been using to melt it all these years?
I don't understand why people seem to have a problem with the Kader Toy Factory. Yes, it was a poorly designed building, but the argument 9/11 deniers say is that fire cannot weaken steel. That would mean any steel frame building.
In fact, unlike the WTC, Kader Toy Factory didn't have much weight pounding down the support of the building, yet it still fell because of fire.
Off-topic, but Fetzer's new book (The 9/11 Conspiracy - the Scamming of America) came in today. Only quote on the back is from Barrett.
The book manages to lie a dozen times before you even open it. The top of the back cover says that only 16 percent of Americans believe "George W. Bush's" version of 9/11. It also has some choice gems as "how did WTC7 collapse when it wasn't hit by a plane?" and "why is the flightpath for the plane hitting the Pentagon physically impossible?" I'm pretty sure there was something about no steel-frame buildings ever collapsing, too (and if not there was mention inside).
Suffice it to say, they went straight to the return shelves after I stopped laughing.
Shawn, that's hardly off topic, thanks for the tip!
Years ago a friend and I built up a car for some amateur sports car racing. Part of the project involved making the required safety roll cage.
To do it cheaply we bought the steel tubing and bent our own cage. Now this was chrome moly steel which is stronger then standard mild steel. It was required by SCCA rules.
Without a special mandrel pipe bender you could not bend this by hand. But it was common knowlage that you could get the proper non kinked bend by filling the pipes with sand and blocking off the ends. And then just apply HEAT, you don't melt the steel and you don't want to heat it too much or it will get weak.
Some heat from a low torch and you would be amazed how easy steel becomes to bend. I guess we were just imagining this, or we must have possessed super human strength.
I am trying to figure out how to get ahold of Fetzer's and Griffin's new books, without actually giving them any money, short of shoplifting.
If I keep a receipt, I can still get a return at Barnes and Noble, right?
"Excuse me ma'am, the logic in this book is defective."
If I keep a receipt, I can still get a return at Barnes and Noble, right?
You would still have to figure out which section it's in.
Science Fiction? Religion? Fantasy roll playing? Children? Games?
If I keep a receipt, I can still get a return at Barnes and Noble, right?
You can return it for store credit, I'm actually going to "borrow" a copy tomorrow and I could possibly do a write up or somesuch if you guys would like.
Hey, if BG can manage to get a guest editorial, I am sure you can. Just send us your write-up.
From the Barnes and Noble listing:
The experts contributing to this book have conducted their own research into this seminal event that the Bush administration has used to subvert civil liberties, conduct preemptive wars, and bring the world perilously closer to chaos. In articles and appendices, The 9/11 Conspiracy shows why it's unlikely that the Twin Towers were brought down by the crashing planes and subsequent fires; why the Pentagon was most likely not hit by a Boeing 757; and why the story of Flight 93 could not have happened as the government claims. For example, the Towers were built to withstand much more impact and heat than actually occurred, and the collapse contradicts the laws of physics. The notable contributors here -- including David Ray Griffin and Morgan Reynolds -- have thoroughly scrutinized 9/11 from every angle and found the government portrayal of what occurred deceptive -- and dangerous.
I am dying to see what evidence he comes up with to prove how much heat the towers were built to withstand.
Not to mention his "experts" are a theologian and an economist. If he were writing a book on the religious implications of paying taxes, then they would be experts.
You would still have to figure out which section it's in.
Try "Juvenile Fiction."
I am trying to figure out how to get ahold of Fetzer's and Griffin's new books, without actually giving them any money, short of shoplifting.
If you wait a few months, you can probably find them one of those surplus book stores going for a fifty cents or so. Then again, with just in time inventory these days, whoever the smuck is that decided to publish it may decide to curtail the money losing venture. Who knows, a 100 years from now the books might be valued as examples early 21st century mental illness.
I am trying to figure out how to get ahold of Fetzer's and Griffin's new books, without actually giving them any money, short of shoplifting.
I dare ya's to email or call the publishers and ask for a review copy.
The Windsor tower was engulfed in flames for many hours. Parts of it deteriorated and fell over the hours it was engulfed. However, it did NOT display total disintegration to the ground in mere seconds. In contrast, the WTC south tower showed minimal flames beyond the first few minutes. After just 56 minutes of minor fire, it suddenly and completely disintegrates all the way to the foundation. To equate the South Tower sequence of events to the Windsor Tower fire is fallacy.
I love the why the toofers try and dismiss the fires in the tower? They were engulfed in huge clouds of smoke till the colapse. Dozens of piks show floors full of flame.
The toofers seem to forget the towere were 208' on each side makeing the smoke clouds 2-4 times this size. I wonder what caused all the smoke?
After just 56 minutes of minor fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Tajzpn_iQ
Yup, such small fires you can see the smoke from space.
Can you people stop lying? You're either lying or a moron, so take your pick.
To equate the South Tower sequence of events to the Windsor Tower fire is fallacy.
Exactly. Last time I checked we aren't the ones saying that since the Windsor tower didn't collapse from fire the twin towers had to be controlled demolitions.
To equate the raging fires of other steel framed buildings (which didn't collapse) with the short time the small fires of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is really getting desperate.
Even Popular Mechanics uses words like "perhaps, probably and if.(not to mention the conjecture without proof as they didn't have the leftover steel to work with, we know how quickly that evidence was shipped out)
To have WTC 1 and 2 collapse in the same way is really statistically mind boggling, then add WTC 7.
They fires were small as most of the jet fuel burnt off on impact.
You also can't have it both ways that jet fuel (it would have had to have been the bulk of it) travelled down the elevator shafts to cause the damage in the lobby of WTC 1.
What's left is office furniture etc.
Still not hot enough when you consider there were rescuers up there going from floor to floor office to office looking for survivors of the initial impact of the planes in order to get them out of the building.
I read the rubbish put up on these so called debunking the debunkers sites and I really get a sense of unbelievable sadness to see that the degeneration of what could have been a real opportunity to get to the the bottom of this has turned into an us against them situation.
Insults and untruths on both sides fly thick and fast, without any respect for opinion, the right to have one, or a study into what might be a lead to the truth.
There are people that know the truth and they are not talking here.
Post a Comment
<< Home