Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

A fact is nothing more than a non-biased observation. I do not 'buy into' anything nor do I need any more college. That has nothing to do with it.

I am not transparent. In fact, it is pretty obvious how I feel, or at least you think so. I believe in a much deeper conspiracy than the WTC 7 my friend.

Let me ask one question? Do you feel that Enron was behind 9/11, because Rosie does. That is her arguement, that it was done to destroy documents connected to that. Werenn't most of those guys charged anyways? I just wish she would have said something about lasers or holograms.

The unfortunate role people investigating 9/11 take, and the truth they are looking for more or less, somehow, get stuck in is that they are thrown in a conspiracy frenzy.

As opposed to taking an objective view and studying what evidence there is that is left, they simply start off learning and then clinging to the government doing (or in Rosie's case, Enron) and it'll ruin them for the worse.

I would entertain it. Please take a look at this link, and make sure to watch the video.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and this one

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you.

Originally posted by esdad71
There are 3 reasons for my belief in the official story.

1. Intel failures led to 9/11

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I can expand on that. Still waiting for some actual debate...

2. Flight 93

So what about it? The only flight that fought back might have been shot down?

3. Flight 587
There is video that shows an explosion, and then the plane crashing, but you never hear about it.

So they'll lie abotu this flight but not the BIG story. Imagine what a open 911 conspiracy would do the to economy. It's possible that the big media/etc avoid the story simply becaus ethey can foresee what would happen if the story got huge.

Esdad71

How about posting a diatribe about how you support Rosie the Ranter and her babble bro?

Calling Rosi the babbling "Rosie the Ranter" is not helping your case Esdad..Ad-hominem attacks really do nothing but describe the desperation of it's dispenser because they can't win an argument. Didn't you mention something earlier about common sense? Even though I'm not a Rosie fan, I think I will trust Rosies common sense over yours, in fact, I'm sure the silly personified cat in your avatar has more common sense then YOU do.

Point I'm trying to make is you are not doing a very good job at convincing anyone new, aside from the people who cling in desperate fashion to the official story. Let me give you a little insight into the common sense in my camp, your going to have to get past building 7 before you even start trying to explain or debate building 1 and 2 andy our not even doing a good job expounding on 1 and 2.. Oh well.


Somone here mentioned that after the collumn failures that loads spread out "randomly" as opposed to evenly.......





That's rediculous and clearly illustrates the mindset of some or resident 'debunkers'.

According to physics and the basic laws of gravity, the load from the failed collumns spread out EVENLY over the undamaged collumns with any momentary inertial effects of the "shifting load" being just that.. MOMENTARY. Any inertial effects caused by any load shift during this time would have not lasted very long and they obviously didn't bring down the towers did they?



BSBrey, I'm surprised that one got past you.

Originally posted by esdad71
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting story. I remember when that happened. At the time i figured it was an attack, and then it faded from memory.

Problem with it here is:
1)
your threads are rather inconclusive
2)
the pilots and experts here dont seem to make a peep about the theory:
www.airdisaster.com...
Does that mean the entire forum and its members are all CIA disinfo agents? Add that to the list of 'stretches'.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Here is a link to the nova presentation.
One more web site. This is the nova presentation that demonstrates the method of collaspe.

If your mind is open check it out.

If your mind is closed, it won't matter what you see.

BTW I'm also a registered engineer with a graduate degree. I'm not a structural engineer but I did take a number of structural engineering classes.

The CT people usually use facts like jet fuel burns at 800degrees F, not enought to weaken steel. The ignore the fact that once the contents of the building started burning the temp would have been much higher.

The people who did the above analysis had access to the plans. Watch the entire presentation and see if you're still convinced there was a different mechanism of failure and ultimately the collapse.

[url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html]Nova slide presentation with sound[/url

Hey thanks for implying that my mind is closed (biased) with a touch of ad hominem, despite the fact that I cited the full documentary that the slideshow is derived from, and then stated reasons that it opens up more problems (that you're now avoiding). The link was all that was needed.

The CT people usually use facts like jet fuel burns at 800degrees F, not enought to weaken steel.

I've never seen anyone state that the fires cwouldn't weaken steel, and applying your strawman to avoid answering my arguments isn't doing you any justice here.



Man I need to get in the habit previewing

[edit on 2-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by esdad71
link to article

Seems that Popular Mechanics has decided to show Rosie a few pointers and offersome help after her rant on The View.

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

While saying she didn’t know what to believe about the U.S. government’s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”

She continued: “To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.”

This again talks about the book that was written but so many people decide to call bunk without showing where it is wrong in explanation and continuing to profess theories with no evidence, not even a blasting cap.

NIST

this year the information will be released by NIST concerning the WTC7. Maybe Rosie will pick up a book and stop reading left controlled WTC conspiracy sites, but I sincerly doubt it.

Don't worry Dad. The book to challenge this one is coming out. And soon. And it is written by physics and engineering people. It's coming.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I've never seen anyone state that the fires cwouldn't weaken steel, and applying your strawman to avoid answering my arguments isn't doing you any justice here.

Uh, I have. Right here on this forum on more than one occasion, as a matter of fact.

So, it's not a strawman.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Uh, I have. Right here on this forum on more than one occasion, as a matter of fact.

So, it's not a strawman.

Like OMG Becky! It must be what everyone believes then...

You are using the statement of a single INDIVIDUAL and trying to apply that belief to everyone here who does not believe one of the many Official Versions of 9/11™? Brilliant. Maybe, you as a "believer" lump yourself in with all other "believers", but that is not how it works for the non-believers.


[edit on 2-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
Like OMG Becky! It must be what everyone believes then...

You are using the statement of a single INDIVIDUAL and trying to apply that belief to everyone here who does not believe one of the many Official Versions of 9/11™? Brilliant. Maybe, you as a "believer" lump yourself in with all other "believers", but that is not how it works for the non-believers.

First of all, why don't you settle down? Sheesh.

Secondly, I didn't apply that to all CT'ers--I did NO such thing. If you think I did, read it a few more times until you see that I didn't.

He said he'd never seen anyone say the fire couldn't have weakened the steel. All I was doing was pointing out that there have, in fact, been people on this forum who have claimed that.

I did NOT say all CT'ers believed that, nor imply anything similar, as you are claiming. But I guess you'll take any opportunity to lob a personal attack at me.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I did NOT say all CT'ers believed that, nor imply anything similar, as you are claiming. But I guess you'll take any opportunity to lob a personal attack at me.

Stop crying Francis. I am not ATTACKING you... read the words.

You took the time to point out a single post out of MILLIONS where some goof ball said something random and used it to "prove" a particular argument was not "a strawman". This implies that others here believe this also which a firmly disagree with. You are grasping at a straw to make a point and you have FAILED miserably.

Originally posted by Pootie
Stop crying Francis.

Do you EVER stop with the personal attacks? Seriously. I mean, are you really incapable of debating civilly? Are you really unable to do that?

You took the time to point out a single post out of MILLIONS where some goof ball said something random and used it to "prove" a particular argument was not "a strawman". This implies that others here believe this also which a firmly disagree with. You are grasping at a straw to make a point and you have FAILED miserably.

I took the time to point out that it's not a strawman argument because it isn't a strawman argument.

You really believe that lots of people here haven't said that the fire couldn't have weakened the steel? You're wrong if you think that. That's been said here many times.

And I don't know why you have trouble believing people on this forum would be naive enough to believe that. How many people the other day were saying that those stupid birds in that video were something else? More than a few. How many people thought the helicopter was something else? More than a few.

But you think nobody ever said fire couldn't have weakened that steel? Okay, whatever.

It's not a strawman argument if people have actually been saying it, and they have. If you don't agree, take it up with them, not us.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Do you EVER stop with the personal attacks?

I believe the mods would warn me if anyone believed this to be true.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You really believe that lots of people here haven't said that the fire couldn't have weakened the steel? You're wrong if you think that. That's been said here many times.

I do not believe that anything more than a tiny minority here have said the the STEEL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WEAKENED. I do believe many, many have said it could not be weakened enough to cause global collapse in three buildings.

Why don't you QUOTE the original threads instead of just throwing "it" at the wall and seeing if you can make it stick.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
... More than a few. ... More than a few.

And more than a few people here believe in teleportation... that does not mean it is credible or should not be ignored in this context.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
But you think nobody ever said fire couldn't have weakened that steel? Okay, whatever.

No, I said you may have found a goofball post or two OR you are twisting words OR the poster should have been more specific.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
It's not a strawman argument if people have actually been saying it, and they have. If you don't agree, take it up with them, not us.

1. The Official Stories of 9/11™ believers live this logic... someone said it so IT IS SO!

2. "people"? ;lol:

3. "us"? Who is US?

Originally posted by Pootie
I do not believe that anything more than a tiny minority here have said the the STEEL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WEAKENED. I do believe many, many have said it could not be weakened enough to cause global collapse in three buildings.

Maybe so, but it's been said lots of times here.

Which means it's not a strawman argument.

You can get as ticked as you want about it. You can think it's a stupid, minority view. But people have been claiming it.

And that means it's not a made-up, strawman argument. And that was all I was saying.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
...people have been claiming it.

And that means it's not a made-up, strawman argument. And that was all I was saying.

This is like saying 2+2=5.

Let me create a logical construct from your posts:

Whiterabbit logic:

"IF I claim one "person" said "x" THAN "x" IS NOT a "strawman" argument".



That does not even make sense. If NO ONE says it it is NOTHING, not an argument, not a "strawman" argument... So... in your world, if someone says ANYTHING it is CLEARLY not a "strawman" argument.

I wonder... is ignorance really as blissful as they say?

Originally posted by Pootie
Whiterabbit logic:

"IF I claim one "person" said "x" THAN "x" IS NOT a "strawman" argument".

If it was "one person" you might have a point.

But it wasn't one person. People have said it. People, CT'ers, actually argued that as a point. So, when we bring it up, it's not a strawman--your side really has been arguing it. Maybe not as often as they argue thermite or whatever, but they have argued it.

I wonder... is ignorance really as blissful as they say?

Can't even go one post without a personal insult.

Alright, let's discuss the topic without attitude please.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
If it was "one person" you might have a point.

Show me the money.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
But it wasn't one person.

Show me the money.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
People have said it.

Repetition is the key...

Originally posted by whiterabbit
...CT'ers, actually argued that as a point.

Every breathing human is a "CTer". If you believe in the Gotti boys and how they committed their crimes you believe in a CONSPIRACY and a THEORY.

Enough with the cheap pigeon holing.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
...your side...

I am not on a team... Funny how you seem to think you are.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
...really has been arguing it.

I haven't seen it.

Originally posted by whiterabbit...but they have argued it.

For the tenth time you tell me... WOAH, I almost forgot that a RANDOM postr or two MAY or MAY NOT have posted that steel CANNOT BE WEAKENED BY FIRE. They DO NOT equal US or ME. THERE IS NO US. You want this to be a TEAM SPORT and it is not. Are you that simple?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Can't even go one post without a personal insult.

You say potato I say potato.