Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Holey Cow! Rosie O'Donnell Says Twin Towers Taken Down by Explosives.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
The Cleaner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:42 PM
Original message
Holey Cow! Rosie O'Donnell Says Twin Towers Taken Down by Explosives.
And she's not backing down either. I heard this on Inside Edition...they replayed a clip from The View.

She says she admits terrorists attacked the buildings, but that it's "ignorant" to believe they DIDN'T come down with explosives.

Admittedly I always wondered about it - I mean, they did pancake down just like a controlled demolition...but it just sounds a bit :tinfoilhat: to me...

what do you think about Rosie's comments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. (careful--that link could get this thread in the dungeon i think) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. It was headed there anyway.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think she's a smart woman.
And I agree with her. I've seen buildings with structural failures collapse, and I've seen the demo'd with explosives. The towers didn't have structural failure. It was too clean. No way, it didn't happen the way were were told it did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's been in the news for about a week now, and she mentions it on her blog
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 04:45 PM by OmmmSweetOmmm
rosie.com

I also believe that she has the ability to wake up a lot of people that there is more to the story than meets the eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackHawk706867 Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. The question has to be, is she saying this from any knowledge...
or is this just her opinion? Many experts also believe that the Towers were brought down with explosives, and most especially Bldg. #7.

ww
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm sure Rosie's engineering background is coming in handy...
Oh wait... the engineers who knew about those buildings predicted they'd fall. I guess Rosie's just misinformed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananarepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
123. Which engineers 'knew' about the buildings?
What about the designers who built the towers to withstand a fully loaded Boeing 707 crashing into them? Can you provide an explanation regarding the collapse of building #7?

Until you provide more than a flippant response to what Rosie said, I'll go with her 'expertise' on the matter over yours.

Have a nice day!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. I watched the video and she specifically said building 7...
and that this was the first time a fire had melted steal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. Nobody says the fire melted the steel.
Rosie's wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heiho1 Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
58. BBC link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

"""
It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.

"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

Once the steel frame on one floor had melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened floor below.
"""

My understanding is that Hyman Brown was the WTC construction manager...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #58
157. Your link is from September 13, 2001.
The examination of the actual evidence has moved the scientific explanation for the collapses away from this initial hypotheses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
68. As usual, bolo, you don't know what you're talking about.
Would you like to buy a clew before you kick me to the kerb?

Here's from Jim Hoffman's review of Kevin Ryan's presentation:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstand...

Ryan begins his examination of the official investigations by showing the source of the claim that jet fuel melted structural steel: a number of "experts" including:

* BBC (Chris Wise, etc.)
* Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel)
* NOVA video (Matthys Levy)
* Henry Koffman from USC
* Tom Mackin from Univ. of Illinois
* The New Scientist

Ryan also notes that National Geographic Today and the History Channel asserted fire temperatures of 2,900 and 2,700 F.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedom fighter jh Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #29
149. If the fire didn't melt the steel . . .
. . . then what did?

Rosie may have had a detail wrong -- I believe she said something about melted steel at building 7, when in fact the melted steel was found at the site of the towers' collapse. But so what. The fact remains that there was melted steel with no reasonable explanation that fits with the OCT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #149
156. Reports of "melted steel" were from the Pile.
The conditions under the Pile could easily have melted the various aluminum and even steel alloys found in the towers.

The fires in those buildings never burned hot enough to melt steel. They did burn hot enough to move steel into its plastic stage, where deformations from stress are permanent. That was a factor in the collapses of all three building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm not into conspiracy theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flarney Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. The 9/11 Commission's Report is a conspiracy theory. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soulcore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
56. Then you must not be into the official explanation.
You-tube or Google Video the collapse of WTC 7, then tell me there's no conspiracy.

I think she can wake a lot of folks up, The View has a wide viewership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think that Rosie is an attention whore...
who will say or do anything to keep her name in the news.

And I think she's wrong about this.

(I agree with her on a lot of things. On this, she's wrong.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WorseBeforeBetter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. Do some research if you have the interest/time...
it won't seem so :tinfoilhat: at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
62. New book just published....
'Debunking 9/11 Debunking.' The review I read was quite favorable....and the author agrees with Rosie. Lots of scientific data is cited...quite extensive.

WTC 7...wasn't even hit by a plane yet falls into its own footprint. Come on, people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #62
78. Exactly. and well said
WTC 7...wasn't even hit by a plane yet falls into its own footprint.

It wasn't even hit by that much (if any) debris! Not only that, but you take a look at its fall, and it's exactly like -- EXACTLY like -- every other controlled demolition you've ever seen. Very eerie it decided to fall at all, but then in such a nice, clean pattern. ON ITS OWN!!?? Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. WTC 7 did it for me....and
then I started reading and researching. It was a false flag operation...I have no doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. Just because she said it, doesn't make it so.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. I think she's been reading accurate information re: architecture; steel;
steel USED in architecture; and the absolute impossibility of WT7's either collapse via proximity to WT 1&2 OR its perfect demolition with no discernable professional preparation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. she`s clueless...
..i`ve worked in steel forge shops and steel rolling mills for 15 or so years and i say she does`t have a clue how metal reacts under pressure and heat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opusprime Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. Agreed, metal, heat...
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 05:11 PM by opusprime
2 Pratt & Whitney PW 2043 engines, and a 757 fuselage ripping through the structure at about 450 mph.

on edit: I love that picture by the way. Creepy, but cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #32
80. Nope. WAY off base -- WTC 7 had none of that. NONE of that.
It fell on its own. Perfect pancake from top to bottom. So tell me, you two, what is the scenario that causes that -- with (one more time) no direct hit, no debris to speak of? How, exactly does a 42-story building pancake from the to floor down, onto its own footprint, without provocation if it wasn't explosives? Go google the footage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-02-07 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #80
164. Who cares
Edited on Mon Apr-02-07 12:15 AM by HughMoran
Has shit to do with WTC1 & 2 where so many people died.

Who gives a FUCK how an unoccupied building fell later in the day.

Distract and divide - old strategy, no results, just lame theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roxy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. I like knowledge.... What is the reason that they would be brought down with explosives?
I need to understand why they would do this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Don't hold your breath waiting on a rational explanation.
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flarney Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. That's kind of crappy, there are lots of reasonable questions about 9/11...
...I for one would like to know how the three buildings fell at virtually free-fall speed, as if the steel structure beneath the collapse wave offered no more resistance than air would. I read Popular Mechanic's book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" assuming they would explain what I see as one of the more glaring anomalies about the collapses, but they didn't even mention it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Why they fell so fast.
Momentum. Once the top section of each towers got going, the structure below could not stop it.

The final report on 7's collapse hasn't yet been released (later this year), but the damage from the North Tower falling into it combined with fires on many floors left unfought is the most likely cause for the progressive collapse. No explosives needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. The North Tower didn't "fall into it." It was struck by some debris,
but did not sustain apparent massive damage. The largest fires were on the south side of floors 5-7, yet the building imploded symmetrically and collapsed almost completely into its own footprint at the speed of gravity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:52 PM
Original message
because no skyscraper in history has ever fallen due to fire
Until 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seen the light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
25. Obvious fallacy nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. explain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. No building on 9/11 fell due to fire.
Each building fell on 9/11 due to a combination of factors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. What combination of factors caused WTC 7 to collapse, if not fire?
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 05:13 PM by smoogatz
The FEMA report said fire was the most probable cause, while admitting that it seemed unlikely. If not fire, what caused WTC 7 to implode?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
61. A whole corner of the building was missing


I'm sure that didn't help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. So why ...
didn't it collapse towards that weakened corner? It collapsed as if all four corners were missing! In less than 7 seconds even! I guess those other three corners weren't really holding anything up to begin with? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #61
69. If the corner of the building was missing, how come Deputy
Chief Hayden said the building was bulging on the southwest
corner between 13 and 14, and says they put a transit on it
and measured the bulge. How could they measure the bulge
when the corner was missing between 13 and 14?

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #69
87. Damn That Is Observant! Good On You Petgoat...
you raise an excellent question which needs further exploration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #87
97. The descriptions of the damage are all over the map.
Chief Frank Fellini said there was steel ripped out between the third and sixth floors.

Captain Chris Boyle's hole was 20 stories tall.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said the problem was a bulge between floors 10 and 13.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Given these conflicting stories, the FEMA/ASCE investigators just threw up their
hands and ignored all of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #97
136. What Do You Think Boyle Meant When He Said...
(in the Firehouse Magazine interview, speaking of Building 7) "Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good." I have never been able to understand this statement. Debris from what? Presumably he means debris was falling on the 47 story Building 7 from a taller structure, but what would that have been after the towers had collapsed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #61
99. Which caused it to implode and collapse straight down, symmetrically
into its own footprint? Wow. Kinda defies the laws of physics, no? I mean, if you've got severe structural damage to one corner of a building, if it's going to fall it ought to fall laterally, no? Like a tree that's been chainsawed--right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #61
107. It's possible
that the angle from which the photo was taken makes it look worse than it is (i.e. I would like to see it from another perspective).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #37
102. The final report on 7 from NIST is due out later this year.
Let's both read it and find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #102
103. If it's anything like the NIST report on the towers, it won't be
worth the paper it's not printed on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. WTC7 fell due to diesel fires on the lower levels??
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 05:25 PM by LSK
However, the cause of the collapse is uncertain. A 2002 government report concludes: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heiho1 Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
131. Both FEMA and NIST agree
that if there had been no burning jet fuel, no buildings would have collapsed...so fire was *the* primary causative factor according to the official theorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
38. You only need to read....
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 05:16 PM by wildbilln864
"Rebuilding America's Defenses" published in 2000 I think by The Project For A New American Century to answer your query Roxy66! And welcome to the dungeon by the way! :hi:

Here's a petition I think we all should sign also!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
70. Why was it brought down? Maybe the fact that WTC7 officed
the CIA, the DoD, the IRS, the SEC, and Rudy Giuliani's emergency
command bunker had something to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #14
120. Read up on Philip Zelikow's
concepts of "public myths", "catastrophic terrorism" and "molding" and "searing" events. Then add in the PNAC ideas about a "Pearl Harbor-like event" and Condi's statement about a "catalytic event" and you maybe on the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-05-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
177. Wouldn't have anything to do with the mainframes of the SEC, would it?
Destroyed documentation for many SEC investigations, including the ENRON California electrical swindle.

See also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. I think anyone that takes her word for it
is an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
113. Observation...
on word-play. "think anyone that takes her word for it

is an idiot."

I believe most people involved in this thread have probably done more research than Rosie O'Donnel, and probably has a better understanding of events at this stage. I doubt seriously that anyone here is "taking her word for it". All that just so you can imply unfounded idiocy in other people. Thanks.
quickesst


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. So she really is shithouse rat nuts.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
43. Splain this ...
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 05:22 PM by wildbilln864
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=antql-Nz4bY

What do you see running up the back right corner of the building immediately before the collapse?
And why?

on edit: BTW, it's only 25 seconds!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. A shadow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Right!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. looks to me like windows fracturing?
...the building is actively collapsing - certainly windows are fracturing in the process. I would suggest that what you're seeing is the window glare suddenly disappearing due to the windows shattering as the building begins to collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Well you could be right!
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 06:08 PM by wildbilln864
But we don't really know! An investigation would be nice wouldn't it? Please sign this petition!

I would think that if it were pressure causing this that it would be more random and be in all areas of the building but these shoot up in a straight line! Why would the pressure be more intense at lower levels then step up sequentially blowing out windows? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
88. The Floors Collapsing Upward? :>) Overpressure From The Bottom Up? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. I thought Rosie O'Donnell jumped the shark quite a while ago.
Now I'm sure of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
19. K&R before its sent to the dungeon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
20. I don't think they were taken down by explosives
but I am 100% POSITIVE the bushies knew about the impending attack. YOU CANNOT FLY A PLANE(S) INTO MANHATTAN AND NO ONE KNOW ABOUT IT, the plane was flying in the opposite direction for an hour. That just does not happen. jmho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
21. I saw the show - she was speaking of Bldg 7 specifically.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
22. Wait, did she say Twin Towers or WTC 7? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
24. inside edition is playing it? k&r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puregonzo1188 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
31. I watched it on the video forum and unless you are refering to something else
she said WTC7, not the twin towers were taken down by explosions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #31
116. why did the video get removed from the video forum? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
35. Give me a break
The towers fell because they were hit by planes; there may of been some structural problems, in the construction of the buildings -- but they did not come down from explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. WTC7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. Um....
building 7 wasn't hit by any plane!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
81. And WTC7, which wasn't hit by anything -- what about that
perfect pancaking fall??? Hmmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
36. A lot of people that watch and listen to Rosie don't read DU
more coverage the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
41. I have got to start tivoing the View
She has been right out there on the BFEE. Once I saw last week and now this. Great stuff Rosie. Stay off the airplanes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #41
82. You should. It is MUST WATCH TV for me these days and I used
to absolutely despise The View -- I mean it made me want to hurl. Now I can't get enough of it with Rosie on.

You will be utterly amazed at the fresh, new ideas people have NOT been exposed to she's been able to get out there. Wonderful stuff. Shocking stuff. And she puts that stupid little rightwing shill Elizabeth in her place routinely by telling her how WRONG she is (and she is!). It's great. Best daytime TV other than perhaps Oprah, and it's getting closer as the days go by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
42. I think this thread is a joke.. Who cares what Rosie said today.
You asked, i answered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArmchairMeme Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
44. Appearance
It certainly did appear that it was a controlled implosion. So perfectly falling into it's own footprint.

I also agree with the other poster who brought up the concept that planes just don't fly into Manhattan without people high up knowing about it.There has always been too many safeguards in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
47. I love Rosie, but bin Laden did it with hijacked jets - all else is crazy talk
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 05:35 PM by MethuenProgressive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I&mode=related...

Penn and Teller call BullShit on the nutjobs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Now there's a conspiracy theory!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
71. That Penn and Teller is dumb.
Full of straw man arguments and Fox News tricks.

It chooses geeky spokesmen for one side, and solid citizens for the other.
It uses camera distortion and probably selected footage to ridicule the geeks.

It asserts that anyone who reads one spokesman's book should be thrown down a
flight of stairs.

When Huffschmid asserts a plausible (if imaginative) theory it asks "Did you do that
hard-hitting data research in your ass?

It doesn't ask that question when Dan Daley of FDNY or Dr. Jodi Dean present
similarly unsupported opinions. And it doesn't challenge Glen Corbett's completely
untrue assertion that There's no evidence that there was any type of explosive device.
I would expect a professor from John Jay College of Criminal Justice to recognize that
eyewitness testimony about explosions and flashes of light from lower floors is evidence.

Then Dan Daley weighs in and tells us 10,000 gallons of jet fuel brought the buildings
down, but everybody knows that at least half of the jet fuel (and IMHO probably more)
burned up OUTSIDE the building. He then tells us "everything was vaporized" but fails to
explain how a simple collapse caused by localized fires could vaporize "everything".
Which it did.

The movie then makes an emotional argument, equating theorizing with masturbation and
insulting the dead.

It's silly. Maybe Penn and Teller should stick to lampooning stuff with comic potential
like fractals and string theory. Political propaganda makes for lousy art.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. "everybody knows"
Some people need to get over their disbelief that a handfull of moderately educated, but detirmed, men were clever enough to do what they did. bin Laden did it. Not The Jews. Not the Pentagon. Not the Masons. And not your pet goat. Bin Laden did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. How did bin Laden get NORAD to stand down for 100 minutes,
and then change their story three times about why they couldn't stop
unarmed passenger planes?

How did bin Laden bring down three towers with two airplanes at near
freefall speeds when no steel frame structure had ever been brought
down by fire before?

How did bin Laden arrange for the missile defenses at the Pentagon
to be turned off?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #79
92. Too funny! You need to read the book you have in your sig line.
Oh yeah, you won't because the 9/11 report is part of "the plot"... :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #92
100. What makes you think I haven't read it?
Edited on Fri Mar-30-07 12:11 AM by petgoat
Answer the questions I posed, why don't you.

And note that the 9/11 Commission completely ignored the
collapse of the third building, WTC7. Note that they
explained the collapse of the towers by claiming that
the cores were "a hollow steel shaft," completely
ignoring the presence of 47 massive steel columns in
the core. Recently leaked blueprints show that 16 of these
columns were 52" X 22" at least as high as the 66th floor.

The 9/11 Commission declared that the alleged hijackers'
source of funds was "of little practical significance."

They also said that since those who placed the put option
bets on AMR and UAL had no connection to al Qaeda, therefore
their identities were of no interest.

Most of the information about al Qaeda came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

US authorities admitted long ago that they could never bring KSM to trial
because his testimony was tainted by torture.

Last summer when Hamilton and Kean brought out their book about the 9/11
Commission, they revealed that the Commission did consider the epistemology
of the KSM statements. They wondered if they should visit with KSM and
question him directly, or at least listen in on the telephone while he
was questioned. Nah, they decided, ultimately. They'd just read the
transcripts prepared for them by US intelligence.

Now that may be good enough evidence for you, but I daresay if I waterboarded
W for an hour, I could get him to admit that he blew up the towers, shot down
flight 93, and seduced your wife.

I'd kind of like a better investigation. The 9/11 Commission Report has 115
essential omissions and distortions, detailed in Dr. David Ray Griffin's essay,
"The 571 Page Lie."

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22...






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #75
109. Bin Laden is not even officially implicated
in the attacks. Read his profile on the FBI website.

You are just repeating talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #47
83. Yeah, let's hear it from THOSE bastions of intellectual
prowess and academic excellence.

Las Vegas entertainers. Wonderful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #83
169. Funny...
dismissing Penn & Teller's comments as those of "Las Vegas entertainers", in a thread heralding the comments of television entertainer Rosie O'Donnell.

You don't see the hypocrisy there?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #47
129. All else is "crazy talk"?
What makes more sense -- that 19 Arabs did it with everybody with superior means, motive and opportunity trying their best to stop them or that 19 Arabs did it with the help of a few powerful, well-placed insiders with superior means, motive and opportunity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heiho1 Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #47
167. Penn and Teller
Isn't that kind of like getting your news from Dennis Miller?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #167
170. As Sid has pointed out, it's more like getting it from Rosie. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #170
172. or that. ;)
It's always fun to see how the different povs of so-called OCTers tend to converge, while CTist opinions go in a thousand incompatible directions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #167
171. No, it's more like getting home security advice from an experienced burglar.
They know where the weaknesses are.

If you'd prefer to trust the opinions of the wackos that Penn and Teller chose to focus on in their video, goooooood luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
50. I'll give my standard answer...
So, the same guys who made 911 happen according to you couldn't place at least some WMDs in Iraq post invasion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. they tried....
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 05:44 PM by wildbilln864
apparently!

link 1
link 2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #50
72. Claims of Iraqi WMDs would have been subject to verification
by skeptical international authorities.

The crimes of 911 weren't competently investigated
by anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #50
130. Who says it was the same guys?
You think the same guys who made 9/11 happen left all this evidence behind for the FBI to find almost immediately whether all of their hijackings went off as planned or not: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a09...

Notice any logical disconnect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strathos Donating Member (713 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
55. I think you Rosie detractors are sad and wrong!
She's an excellent ally and we should be happy to have her voice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soulcore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
57. To the dungeon we go.
Thanks for the censorship DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
59. Rosie has a degree in physics?
Really, now...

Buildings fall straight down because gravity pulls straight down. Since the tower was mostly hollow, there's nothing to stop it from falling straight down and pancaking into itself like a house of cards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #59
85. And what, exactly, caused a steel framed building that hadn't
been hit at all, or even littered with that much debris, to self-deflate like that? Quite on its own. Poof! Gone! Sympathy for its bigger siblings?? What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. It Fainted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #85
94. It was the CIA/Jews/Masons/NeoCons with invisible death rays, of course!
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 10:05 PM by MethuenProgressive
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #94
175. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jwtravel Donating Member (42 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #85
96. Not littered with that much debris??
The side facing the twin towers had devastating damage. The pictures are out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. Are you sure the pictures are real? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #96
134. sorry, not enough to collapse it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwtravel Donating Member (42 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #134
141. Not enough to collapse it?
In all seriousness, on what basis do you make this statement? There was a LOT of damage, there were some unique structural aspects (Con Ed power station within building, which required a break in the structural "pattern" of the building) to #7 that exacerbated that damage, and to top that off, the NY FD and other emergency responders saw that damage and predicted its fall. Those folks who were closest to the building, some of whom were experts and were responsible for assessing building damage, saw bulging in major load bearing elements which indicated compromised load paths. Buildings may have more redundancy than an airplane (since weight as a decision factor is less important for something on the ground), but they don't get built with infinite redundancy. It would cost too much.
I am not a structural or civil engineer. However, I am a mechanical engineer and had some Statics/Dynamics in my schooling. Nothing that I saw that awful day aroused my "spider sense"; I was surprised that all 3 buildings lasted as long as they did before collapsing. That's my take on it.
One thing that continues to irk me is people saying that #7 collapsed into its own footprint. Balderdash! The debris from that building was all over the place on the ground, some of it ending up piled against adjacent buildings. In a CD, the only thing the adjacent buildings worry about is light debris and dust causing cosmetic damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattymcq Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
60. SHE SPECIFICALLY SAID BUILDING 7
I watch the show every day and read her blog- SHE IS TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK- you people saying she is nuts or whatever sound just like OLielly and crew....you should first-LISTEN- and then RESEARCH- as Rosie asks everyone to do UNLIKE those faux news and the rest of them that just say I SAID IT so it's true. SHEESH!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Tell 'em pattymcq...
and Welcome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #60
77. Yes she was very smart about it!
First off, I had seen some Scarbourgh piece on the morning MSNBC show with him ranting that Rosie should be fired because she dared to say that the US goverment was responsible for 9/11 because they were hiding ENRON files. Okay..big extrapulation from him, of course, she didn't say that on her blog-she said to look at the links and think.

Then, I saw today, Ms. Rightwing Hasselback flat out asked Rosie, "Do you think the US government was responsible for 9/11?"

She said NO. She said that, however, building 7 was NOT hit by a plane and collapsed exactly like the other two. So she is encouraging thought. For some of us that have had questions for YEARS and have NEVER seen a PEEP in the mainstream media, it's amazing.

Unfortunately, DU is a little like this. Talk is allowed but it's looked down upon. Welcome to nutterville. We love the company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #60
119. She was good.
I watched the clip on 911Blogger.

I was very surprised at the RW apologist who basically said it was OK to invade Iraq because we thought they carried out 9/11. Some people just don't have a clue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
65. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. nuff said? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #65
76. Yes he even said that on TV on the PBS documentary years ago
I remember it very clearly. And what I just realized today was that everyone should know that to "pull" a building is to pruposely bring it down with explosives. And to pull it-means a decision was made, he even says it was a decision to bring it down. SO, I think? They could have done that but how? How did they just get the explosives in there when there was a raging fire? Oh problemo. And of course, the way building 7 fell looks identical to the other towers. It all looks like demolition. And I've always thought the terrorists (whomever they may be) could have planted bombs too. It's not an either or/only terrorists or if it wasn't fire it HAS to be an inside job. It doesn't have to be planes only. Except..except the four thousand other anomalies and the fact that this goverment doesn't give a shit how those buildings were brought down. What if there were terrorists that planted bombs? Those terrorist weren't on the planes. They are still alive. Why didn't our government care to find out? Why indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #65
86. Oh, please. And just when did they get in there to place all the
explosives? Hmm? That's even more implausible than that it collapsed on its own, frankly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #86
110. Explosives could easily be placed in the elevator shafts
using the roofs of the elevator cars as movable staging.

Have you ever been in a skyscraper after midnight? They are
thinly populated with security personnel, typists, janitors,
copy clerks, international communications clerks, and perhaps
a few maintenance personnel on special projects. Nobody would
notice people in the elevator shafts.

The NIST report actually says "There was no evidence of explosives
planted before September 11, 2001," which suggests the explosives
were planted in the wee hours after midnight 9/11/01.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #110
133. I was resonding very specifically to the Larry Silverstein nonsense
that once 9-11 happened, the authorities decided to take out WTC7 on their own. My question: how on earth did they have a chance to plant explosive between the twin towers falling and the late afternoon of 9-11? It's a lie is my point.

it took me a long time to even think about, let alone accept, the notion of explosives in any of those buildings. And let's be frank, there are so many OTHER problems with the "official story" that explosives is almost a moot point. But finally, in the last couple of months, the perfect footprint, and the buildings falling at free-fall speed have convinced me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #65
121. WRH is not credible, don't link to it. It is an anti-Semitic hate site n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
67. I posted that clip
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 07:24 PM by Pharaoh
just today and after 12 votes to the greatest page it was deleted............

I'm still clueless as to why.......

On edit, here it is right here.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LikgKwsbUuM

Why would DU want to delete this clip from the greatest page and the entire site? Inquiring minds want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #67
90. Thanks! And here's a clip for you -- and everyone
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 09:38 PM by Morgana LaFey
Thought this went over the issues of the collapses pretty wellL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87fyJ-3o2ws&mode=related...

Edit: THAT WAS FABULOUS! THanks so much for the clip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
73. I see a whole lot of one-line dismissals of the very concept,
by people who obviously haven't even bothered to investigate in the
least.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #73
89. Or perhaps they have an agenda
or a job to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. We're not real - we're just robot computers programmed to snicker at you
We be well paid CIA shills, too.
So, you want the world to believe the CIA/Jews/Masons/NeoCons brought down the towers and blew up half the Pentagon with remote controlled empty jets that set off pre-planted explosive charges just to stir up anti-Arab hatred so Bush could invade Iraq?
::snicker::
Here ya go - :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. Just to stir up anti-arab hatred to invade Iraq?
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 11:33 PM by petgoat
Not at all.

There was also Afghanistan, where Taliban had shut down
opium production the year before. The invasion came
just in time to plant a record crop. This year's crop
if 57% larger than last year's. 85% of the world's opium
comes from Afghanistan today. How much of that trade does
the CIA get?

There was also the domestic agenda, where 9/11 has been used
to justify the institution of security state measures, with
little protest. Once these liberties are given up, they're
rarely regained.

There is also the creation of a bloated military budget, which
enables looting of public funds for the benefit of Bush cronies.

There is also the side benefit of indebting the federal government
through a war funded by debt, which furthers the neocon's
intention to "starve the beast" and kill the government.

So all in all, there were a whole lot of reasons to blow up the
towers. Not to mention the possibility that they were unprofitable
and represented an enormous asbestos liability.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #93
111. You're muddying the waters
with unconnected accusations. I'm surprised you didn't mention the grassy knoll and faked moon landings.

Any interested lurkers please read up on Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zelikow

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #89
95. Or both. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
74. She's right nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
104. But what does Charlie Sheen have to say?...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #104
105. He says the official story is not credible, as any sensible person would. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
106. My problem with pre-planted explosives
In Seattle, we watched the Kingdome implode, and for many weeks beforehand the local papers warned us not to freak out over the test blasts. Seems that there are no controlled demolition experts who will set to work and just believe that what is in the architect's plans actually reflects on the ground reality. There is always rebar where you don't expect it to be, none where there should be some, and unpredictable amounts of various off-spec materials in the original construction to deal with.

I'll agree that WTC 7 is certainly suspicious, but where did they find the demolition crews to do it without extensive pretesting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #106
108. All three buildings were steel-frame construction so rebar was
not a problem.

In the case of the towers, the obvious explosive overkill
at the top may reflect failsafe procedures put in place
to do away with the need for pre-tests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #108
112. I said "and other materials"
What were the actual specs for the steel, compared to what was in the official plans? We do know that the fireproofing was woefully inadequate.

Give me just one other example of someone doing a controlled demolition without weeks of advance preparation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #112
126. "[T]he fireproofing was woefully inadequate..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. The problem was how it was attached
Very el cheapo methods as I understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. Actually it performed to standards when tested by a longer fire
As the New York Times reported: "On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700C (1,292F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."

Does that sound like "el cheapo" fireproofing to you?

While there is speculation that the impact of the aircraft removed or dislodged some of the fireproofing, without evidence it remains mere speculation. (Particularly since no steel from the impact area was recovered or tested.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #128
135. This is what the report says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28318-20...

The hijacked airplanes that struck the World Trade Center hit with such force that the resulting explosions blew the fireproofing off the steel columns, accelerating heat buildup and weakening the structural core -- contributing to the towers' eventual collapse, according to a report issued Tuesday.

The process was hastened by fires outside that consumed the buildings' face and caused the exterior columns to bow in, according to the report
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #135
142. Let's assume they are correct for argument's sake
But the fireproofing on the 80+ stories below was fully intact and the structural steel was just as strong as it ever was. The damaged section had to bully its way through 80+ intact floors.

Another problem is the hypothesis that asymmetrical damage will lead to a symmetrical collapse. This occurred three times on 9/11 and had never occurred before.

Picture the Eiffel Tower. If you damage the upper portion will it come crashing through all of the support structure underneath?

And even if we fully accept lost fireproofing and heat as the cause of the demise of WTC 1 and 2, we are still left with WTC 7 and its highly questionable collapse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #142
146. Ever heard of gravity?
Lots of potential energy in huge masses of material at that height.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #146
148. Ever heard of resistance?
Remember that you had tons of sound structural steel below the point of impact that was completely undamaged by the incident.

Why did this sound structure suddenly give way to the weight above, especially since it was designed for a load at least three (3) times as great? It offered no resistance to the falling mass. What one would expect to see is the falling mass being progressively slowed as it slammed into one intact floor after another. Instead we see that the existing structure offered apparently no resistance whatsoever.

Another thought experiment for you. Have you seen those collapsing highway safety devices? They are designed to absorb the impact of a moving vehicle and by progressively collapsing (in an accordion-like fashion) they arrest the forward velocity of a vehicle. Viewed in slow motion the first segment of the "accordion" appears to offer little resistance. However, each successive section slows the vehicle just a bit more so that by the end of all the segments the vehicle has completely stopped. Even though the "accordion" is nothing more than a series of plastic segments and the vehicle is a multi-ton mass of metal moving at speed it manages to halt the vehicle.

Even in spectacular fires, structural steel buildings have never exhibited a total top-to-bottom collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. And if the mass is large enough to overcome the resistance?
Put out the numbers that show otherwise, if you have them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. It is still slowed
The mass of an oncoming vehicle certainly overcomes the plastic segments in my aforementioned illustration. Yet the end result is the complete arresting of the vehicle's forward motion.

In like manner each collapsing floor should slow the downward momentum of the falling mass.

Unless you and I are mathematicians it would not do either of any good to "put out the numbers." Others have and they are still disputed. Just for the hell of it I'll include a chart that explains some of this. Perhaps that will do.



This graph shows the total time it should take for the WTC to undergo a "pancake" collapse, with each floor dropping to destroy the floor below it. You can read Dr. Wood's full article here.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. This graph is crap.
Dr. Wood attempts to address conservation of momentum on the web page you linked to, but fails to understand how it applies to her "billiard ball" model. This has been pointed out numerous times here (and elsewhere) but she has yet to revise her model.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #152
158. In fact, it took me about ten minutes to make this -->
Edited on Sun Apr-01-07 07:38 PM by AZCat
http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/7540/billiardballsfi...

I'll admit - it took me longer to make the image and figure out how to post it, but the bottom line is that the physics Dr. Wood is using are pretty simplified, yet she still managed to screw them up. If you want my calcs I can post those also, but they are pretty simple.



On Edit: Wow that took a while to figure out how to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. The same thing was done when Dr. Wood first presented the 'Billiard Balls'.
In the sub-thread that started with her post, AlienSpaceBat posted his calculations in a graph showing the same thing yours does - although he presented it a little differently.




In one of my responses in that thread, I made the comment that Jim Hoffman did a similar calculation and arrived at pretty much the same result.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. Exactly!
Thanks for providing the references (I had forgotten about that thread - should've searched). My point was simple - that Dr. Wood made a horrible hash of a very simple model and that it doesn't take very long to prove her wrong. That several people came to the same conclusion just makes the point all the more clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. If I am remembering things correctly, ...
... she claimed that the billiard ball example doesn't need to factor in momentum because the tower was turning to dust and therefore imparted no momentum to the structure below.

I thought the whole purpose of the billiard ball example was to prove that the official theory of a progressive collapse was impossible because it would have taken much longer than the collapse actually did. Of course the problem is that she didn't even model a progressive collapse if she neglected to account for momentum because of the "dustification" - she is incorrectly mixing two different theories together in her model while still attempting to use it to disprove a single theory.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #161
162. You might be correct...
I had trouble reading her web page (Why is it so many people lay the damn things out so poorly? Is it really that difficult?).

If your interpretation is indeed correct then no wonder it was confusing. One step at a time, Judy, one step at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-02-07 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #162
163. I remember reading this on 'www.st911.org' a long time ago...
Edited on Mon Apr-02-07 12:07 AM by Make7
   -snip-

In an important sense, Prof. Wood's model is counter to reality. In reality, the towers COULDN'T have been brought down by gravity alone under the circumstances present on 9/11. (With her Billiard Ball Example, Prof. Wood just PRETENDS it could happen so as to figure out now long it would take if it HAD happened (by gravity alone)!)

However, there's one critical factor in her analysis that IS related to what we all saw on 9/11 -- i.e., there was no actual 'pancaking' in the ordinary way we might think that term would imply (i.e., 110 floors piling one on top of another) -- but rather PULVERIZATION of the floors as the buildings came down (that is, the floors turned to DUST and thus had no further impact on what was happening below).

Otherwise, the whole focus of the BBE is on TIMING, given Newton's Law of Gravity -- not the ACTUAL collapse time -- whatever number of seconds anyone wants to claim -- but simply the time it WOULD take, if there were no impediments at all, with all the floors successively set in motion by being struck from above -- and successively turning to dust as part of that process. To repeat, the question the Billiard Ball Example addresses is this: If that happened (and the upper floors kept turning to dust), how long would it take for the 110 floors to all get down to the ground?

   -snip-

http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleBBGinny_12Jul2006.html

I'm fairly sure I have read or heard where Dr. Wood has pretty much said the same thing herself somewhere else. Nevertheless the author of the paper I quoted from above claims that she has talked at length with Dr. Wood about the billiard ball example and understands it thoroughly. As you can see it is posted on one of the new 9/11 Scholars websites - so one would hope they have read the paper and also endorse it.


   -snip-

With respect to the simplicity of the BBE [Billiard Ball Example], we need to understand what it's designed to address. The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), as it was originally concocted, made the claim that the WTC towers were brought down by "pancaking" -- i.e., one floor falling on another in a domino effect -- in 10 seconds. (BTW -- the promoters of the OCT (OCTers) seem to have decided they don't like the term "pancaking" anymore; so they've started using the more mumbo-jumbo phrase, "progressive collapse". But if the only force you have to work with in your explanation is gravity, this amounts to the same thing.)

What Prof. Wood does is take the OCT claim at face value. She says, in essence, "O.K. The OCTers say "pancaking in 10 seconds by gravity alone". Let's check this out. If we apply the known Law of Gravity to the situation of the towers on 9/11, can we reproduce "collapse by pancaking" in 10 seconds?"

   -snip-

http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleBBGinny_12Jul2006.html

However one wants to look at it, if she set out to prove that a progressive collapse should have taken much longer than what was seen that day, the first thing she would have to do is actually model a progressive collapse.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-02-07 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #152
165. Each collapsing floor adds far more mass
--and therefore far more kinetic energy. In your car and barrier example, gravity does not apply--the car is not being dropped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-02-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #152
166. Gravity is NOT acting on cars that crash into barriers!
Jeebus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #148
151. "Designed for a load at least three times as great?"
Where are you getting that number, because it doesn't match what I've seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. It's an underestimation
I've read numbers higher than that and chose a very conservative overload factor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. Are you talking about design in general...
or in the specific cases of the WTC towers, because the NIST report certainly does not agree with your assertion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #127
132. Could be. But where is the evidence for this?
Sorry, but firing a shotgun at the insulation from point blank range doesn't count as evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #108
115. Where is all the audio of these massive explosions.
And no, isolated quotes of "it sounded like a bomb" doesn't cut it. If you claim the photo above is the result of "explosive overkill" then surely you can produce the audio. CTists insist the collapse are "just like controlled demolition" but ignore the distinctive loud reports that emanate from actual CD events. Where are the 50 plus "bangs!" you hear from every other CD?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
114. That Rosie fell for this RIGHT-WING deception for deception's sake.
This controlled explosives inside the WTC and B7 is a hoax on a hoax and it smells like money that comes from the same stash that funds Bush, Rove, Limbaugh, etc., and even would include planted posters on DU.

Do notice that several posters here use RW name-calling intimidation tactic.

And, the controlled demo scenario being true or not DOES NOT MATTER. We know Bush was warned, and he rewarded those who thwarted investigations.

This whole thing serves to DISCREDIT those left of the news media that realize the Republicans have been fooled. Even for those of us who do not agree with this scenario, Rush gets to paint us using this one brush color to an ever increasingly divided nation.

That Rosie fell for this is sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #114
117. Roves smears his rivals, not his little buddy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #114
118. Collapse of WTC7
is still interesting because many people have never heard or seen it and it's not in the 9/11 Commission Report.

That and the 9/11 money trail (i.e. who funded the hijackers) are the most important clues in 9/11 truth because the Report doesn't even look into them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #114
125. I too started from the assumption that the CD hypothesis was
Edited on Fri Mar-30-07 10:27 AM by petgoat
somebody's sick joke.

I was only able to examine the evidence objectively when I delinked
the question of explosives from the question of "Did Bush do it?"
by imagining that al Qaeda operatives rented offices in the buildings,
smuggled explosives in using the freight elevators, and set radio
controlled charges in the elevator shafts after midnight.

Could they have done it? Yes.

I find it very difficult to believe that asymmetrical damage and
asymmetrical fires could have caused the perfectly symmetrical
collapses we saw. Probably I could have accepted the towers'
collapses if not for the completely unbelieveable near-freefall
speed collapse of building 7.

Even had the towers' floors pancacked, parts of the extensively
cross-based core with its 47 massive steel columns, 16 of them
52" X 22", should have remained.

The official investigations by FEMA and NIST are a joke. FEMA
investigators weren't allowed site access, they had to fight to
see the blueprints, and the steel was destroyed so recklessly
that not one core steel sample supporting NIST's hypothesis can
be shown.

How did human bone fragments wind up on the roof of the Bankers
Trust Building across Liberty Street? Why won't NIST release the
6000 videos and 6000 photos they have of the buildings?

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #125
138. Even if it were true, at this point posing this scenario HURTS US.
And, I don't think it is true.

I understand your de-linking of Bush for al Qaeda. MIHOP has an implied subject matter. BFEE the most used subject. Certainly al Qaeda COULD have planned more than twenty hijackers. But for that matter, they could have planned any of a gagillion things.

Further, I see asymmetrical damage on 5-10 floors of a hundred floor symmetrical building falling symmetrically completely reasonable and understandable. Especially a building with many perimeter vertical columns that could guide the descent vertically. The steel did not need to melt, it only needed to bend which steel does at any temperature, and increasingly as temperatures rise.

Once one structurally damaged corner would fall, the other side would be ripped out. Then the floor falling unevenly (as I deem you would suggest) would meet the next floor NOT NECESSARILY KNOCKING IT DOWN IMMEDIATELY but waiting until some greater portion of the upper floor to land before that lower floor also rips. This allows a straightening effect, floor after floor.

ALL the investigations were politically HANDLED by Republicans. They're all jokes.

There are good reasons to keep some things hidden before during and after investigations. The question I would raise would be about who decided what to hide and and what to display. Who? Core Republicans? Core Republicans only?

Oh, Republicans have something to hide, in fact a lot. But, this 9/11 demolition stuff is counterproductive in getting rid of the real problem.

Even if true, and we discovered proof, the result would be a big shrug -- so what, we knew they flew the planes, okay, add one more charge -- big (sarcastic) deal. Even if evidence appears that the CIA planted the bombs, no one would believe it until long after the trial ended five years later. What does this do for us now? NOTHING!

The only way we'll get anything done is by getting rid of Republicans first.

Posing this scenario ONLY HURTS US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #138
139. WTC7 is pure
"who do you believe - me or your lying eyes?" stuff.

I'm well-versed in 9/11 anomalies (ISI/Saudi links, PNAC etc) but I didn't get round to seeing the WTC7 collapse until last year.

It certainly made me gasp. And everyone else I have shown it to.

WTC7 is just a starting point, an opening gambit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #139
144. Then the analogy I see would be...
If you catch your embezzling boss cheating on his spouse inside his office, and he says the who do you believe me or your lying eyes, the question is what do you charge him with FIRST, embezzlement or moral turpitude?

To me the WTC7 is the less easy to prove and the lesser advertised crime -- should it stick at all -- and it obscures the investigation into the more known story of that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
122. With Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell on the case
the OCTers have nowhere to hide!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #122
124. Charlie and Rosie have access to the microphones. Our researchers don't.
Edited on Fri Mar-30-07 10:32 AM by petgoat
They are spokespeople, and the credibility of the ideas they
espouse does not rest on their own credibility as researchers.
Of course any reasonable person knows this. That you stoop
to the arguments you espouse shows the desperation in your
attempts to retain your illusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #124
137. My "illusions"?
What would they be, Mr petgoat?

"they are spokespeople, and the credibility of the ideas they espouse does not rest on their own credibility as researchers."

Indeed, but the ideas they espouse aren't considered credible except by the no peer-review, "all structural engineers are in on it" 9/11 Truthiness movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #137
140. Great sweeping statement n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #137
143. Nobody's saying "all structural engineers are in on it" except you,
as a straw man argument.

All structural engineers are out of it. They are out of it because
they don't have access to the blueprints, they were out of it when
they failed to challenge the absurd zipper pancake theory, and they're
out of it when they accept the Bush science of the NIST report.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #143
145. Thanks for proving my point n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #145
147. In your dreams. You guys just want to sow FUD. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
168. I haven't given up hope on her yet.
The day she first made the absolutely false statements about WTC 7 and science, I said I'd give her 3 weeks to recant.
She doesn't need to retract her anti-bush stance after educating herself, and if she admits she made some false statements, her credibility will only be strengthened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
173. i think she's fishing for attention
of all of the strange and ever so suspicious things about 911, she picks the one that is the least likely. idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #173
174. Some People in New York were told and she knows it
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7302

nearly half through it of the clip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heiho1 Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-05-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
176. http://defendrosie.com/
In case anyone missed the online petition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC