Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

Originally posted by esdad71
She did not misspeak, or use a word out of context. She stated that 9/11 was a coverup for Enron.

Do you have the exact quote from this statement? I would be interested because I do not remember hearing that. there was no qualifier? Nothing about the "special" tennants and the storage of the Enron files in the building?

Originally posted by esdad71
Then she said she wanted someone from Yale or Harvard to come prove that the WTC 7 was imploded.

That would be nice... Maybe she should include someone from CDI or another large demo firm.

Originally posted by esdad71
She is spreading misinformation and is doing noting more than filling peoples head with more garbage.

Other than the Enron statement, what misinformation arre you referring to.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Pootie]

Get over it, the popular mechanics article makes sense. The plane that size would have taken anything down to rubbles. Why would you want to waste money on tnt? When you got the biggest and baddest bomb of them all, the damn plane. When the plane hit, that sucker went through to the other side if you watch the video closely. Surely, it would have taken some columns out to do this. Then the impacted floor buckle and the floors above slamned into the floor below. It's like lifting weights, say you're lifting 300lbs, much easier to lift it slowly rather have someone throw the 300lbs on you and then you do "free fall" to the ground.

Case close, the jello is jiggling, and the lights are out. Next subject please!

Originally posted by amfirst
Get over it, the popular mechanics article makes sense. The plane that size would have taken anything down to rubbles.

Obviously not because neither of them did, so that definitely wasn't the deciding factor. Not unless you think it took about an hour in each case for the plane impacts to "register" with the buildings. Physics is instant.

Read even the official reports and they'll tell you how little the planes actually did. Less than 15% of the perimeter columns knocked out on the impacted floors and NIST couldn't get more than a handful of severed core columns in their modeling even with altered impact trajectories for maximum damage.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
that definitely wasn't the deciding factor. Not unless you think it took about an hour in each case for the plane impacts to "register" with the buildings. Physics is instant.

So how long did it take for the Titanic to sink after it hit the ice berg?



Obviously, the ice berg wasn't a deciding factor that contributed to it sinking.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by dbates]

It took time for the water to enter the ship.

The columns were destroyed instantly.

See the difference?



The poster I was responding to said that the planes brought the towers down. The planes didn't do squat. Even according to the official version, if 2 more planes hit in the same places, and did the exact same amount of damage, the buildings would STILL have stood. In other words, the buildings could have easily taken 2x the damage from the impacts and stood, and that's only assuming a safety factor of 2.

Reason being, as I explained above, not many columns were actually severed by the planes before they disintegrated.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by bsbray11]

if the titanic was flying through air instead of water how long would it take to sink?
if it was a building that hit an iceberg?
if it was a plane hitting the titanic in an ice building?

of all the apples and oranges arguments, this is the apple and orangiest!

What happened to the Rosie argument? The facts involved with a plane bringing down the building or not is NOT what this thread is about.

I want to see Dad's response to the question in regards to Rosie's supposed statement on TV about the link between Enron. I never heard it and I have listened to everything she has said.

Now, where I HAVE heard this link is from the brainwashers like O'Reilly and Combover and the other yes-men on those supposed news networks. I have also heard them twisting what she has said and cutting off the segments to fit their message. It's truly pathetic to watch and actually kind of funny because eventually it's going to catch up with them.

Not what I meant. The plane itself did not take the building down.

When the plane hit, it knocked out some of the column, obviously you can see parts of the plane going through to the other side of the building.

The fire heated and weaken the impacted floor. When the metal was weak enough and could no longer hold the floors above, say 40 floors (I'm guessing number of floor on top). The floors above simultaneously slamned into the impacted floor below. Not one floor, but 40 floors above. The velocity, energy and force produce from the drop was so massive that the remainding floors below just crumble.

For the building to hold, the impacted floor would have had to catch 40 floors above, when it drop. I don't think that particular floor was made to catch a drop like that.

So explain to me how 40 floors worth of weight finds its way to the trusses of a single floor, when all of those loads are being held by the columns only.

Originally posted by dbates
So how long did it take for the Titanic to sink after it hit the ice berg?



Obviously, the ice berg wasn't a deciding factor that contributed to it sinking.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It took time for the water to enter the ship.

The columns were destroyed instantly.

See the difference?

We were told that the Titanic sank due to the progressive failure of several watertight bulkheads, in quick succession, causing the ship to fill up with water.

Were there explosions and fires in the engine room that also contributed to the sinking of the ship?

See the difference?


[edit on 5-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

I think Rosie is smart and I agree with her wholeheartedly. Her theory on how the world trade centers should not have melted and pancaked so neatly on their footprints makes sense.

Take a good look at this picture: www.popularmechanics.com...

As you can see, the top portion of the building is still together. Where it callaspe was the middle of the picture where the impact happen, therefore, the weight from above drop down to the floor below and cause it to buckle. The floor was not made to catch a drop like that. You can use a simple physics equation of F=MA "force=mass x acceleration" the force on that floor was more because of the mass of the above floor times the acceleration of the drop to the lower floor. Thus, there was a force on the floor greater then it was meant to hold.

Think of it like this. The acceleration of the floor at first is zero because it's not moving. Now when it drop, say it has a velocity of 50mph. The acceleration will be 50 because it was zero to start with. Times 50 with how much the floors above weight, probs hundreds of thousands of pounds. The floor below is now up against of a force 50 times the amount it was up against before. Imagine that, pretty freaky.

Originally posted by amfirst
Take a good look at this picture: www.popularmechanics.com...

As you can see, the top portion of the building is still together. Where it callaspe was the middle of the picture where the impact happen, therefore, the weight from above drop down to the floor below and cause it to buckle. The floor was not made to catch a drop like that. You can use a simple physics equation of F=MA "force=mass x acceleration" the force on that floor was more because of the mass of the above floor times the acceleration of the drop to the lower floor. Thus, there was a force on the floor greater then it was meant to hold.

I disagree with you ,the Towers were blown up to fine dust.
Infact they just disenerated in med air .
Here are some real pic of the explosion.
letsroll911.org...

Without question, the subject of 9/11 by far inspires more heated debates on ATS-type forums than any other topic. This grand daddy of all 'conspiracy theories' is not your average bear, however. I think one would be extremely hard pressed to find any two researchers who can agree on all the nuances of 9/11.

However, there is one fundamental concept that every one of us should have in common. Not only for the citizens of the U.S.A. - but for the benefit OF ALL MANKIND - the entire sequence of events surrounding 9/11 must be thoroughly investigated with the utmost scrutiny and without any conflict of interest. Anyone who says otherwise obviously does not have our best interests at heart.

Rosie O'Donnell, nobly putting her integrity and life at great risk, has gone to bat for humanity. Whether or not she succeeds, the all important message has been delivered and the damage done. Similar sacrifices will likely be necessary from equally high profile individuals to achieve the desired results.

We must NEVER forget that Rosie had MORE BALLS than anyone else in the mainstream media when it mattered the most. Go Rosie! YOU CAN DO IT!!!

Yes, your right they did blow up in the air, but u got to understand at what point. When the top portion of the building hit the lower portion it was intact for the collision, but quickly crumble as soon as the lower portion starts to crumble. Just like a car accident, if you can pause the collision for a micro second you can see the force of impact at the very begining not causing much damage as the end, but as micro seconds goes by both cars will start to get crush together, imagine one car was the lower portion and the other the upper portion of the building.

Also, it's difficult to see the top portion of the building because of all the debris blocking it. The only way to watch the collision is at the begining of impact from the link I posted. The pictures u showed me was the after effect. Which shows the building crumbling.

Originally posted by amfirst
... and the other the upper portion of the building.

Also, it's difficult to see the top portion of the building because of all the debris blocking it. The only way to watch the collision is at the begining of impact from the link I posted. The pictures u showed me was the after effect. Which shows the building crumbling.

you didnt read what happend read the link again.
you do see the building fall over, it never falls on the floors below.
And the steel is being blasted away from the building.
Look at the pic again and watch the video.



[edit: fixed quote tag]

[edit on 6-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Well, we all know that if Rosie doesn't eat regularly she gets these crazy thoughts. Fire does melt steel, I mean what do you think they use to melt it in the first place.

The only thing I agree with is that the buildings fell awful neat.

Originally posted by amfirst
Get over it, the popular mechanics article makes sense.

Unless you understand physics.

Originally posted by amfirst
The plane that size would have taken anything down to rubbles.

This is the most ill-informed most MISLEADING piece of junk post I have seen today... WOULD IT TAKE DOWN A MOUNTAIN?

Originally posted by amfirst
Case close, the jello is jiggling, and the lights are out. Next subject please!

Good. Then I assume we will not need to see any more of your posts in this 9/11 CONSPIRACY forum?

Originally posted by amfirst
You can use a simple physics equation of F=MA "force=mass x acceleration" the force on that floor was more because of the mass of the above floor times the acceleration of the drop to the lower floor. Thus, there was a force on the floor greater then it was meant to hold.

This post is the WORST application of physics I have ever seen here. This is not a one line response now.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Pootie]