Popular Mechanics calls Rosie a moron

[Mule]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213805.html

For those interested in what physics and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7’s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics offers these notes:

1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.

Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report, and the screengrab below of an image of WTC7's damaged south face).

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melted”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.

NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”

Seems to me I brought up that first line of item #3 right here at least a month ago...once again, my brilliance is underappreciated by you peasants...

I'll be buying a copy of their book, for sure.

Commentary at http://www.coxandforkum.com/

RENOWNED metallurgist Rosie O'Donnell proclaimed on TV Thursday of last week that Sept. 11, 2001, was a more significant date than most of us realized. It was, in her words, "the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."

This, of course, came as news to steelworkers, welders, blacksmiths, firefighters, manufacturers of samurai swords and other fools who hadn't realized that steel is forged in magic furnaces using dragon breath and pixie dust.

O'Donnell made this and other profoundly stupid comments on the daytime talk show "The View," ABC's update of the ancient practice of women chattering around the village well.

The former "queen of nice" seems to think that the show is the perfect venue to audition for grand marshal of the next tinfoil hat parade. ...

[i]in last week's rant, O'Donnell focused on World Trade Center Building 7, which has become the grassy knoll for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Asked if the government was responsible for its collapse, she coyly replied that she didn't know, wink, wink. All she knows is that it's "impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved" and that, for the "first time in history, steel was melted by fire." Wink, wink, again. For the record, fire can melt steel, and buildings collapse when heat weakens steel. But that misses the point. The point is we shouldn't have to argue with crazy people.

(edited out some bad formatting)

[Bay Ridge Dave]

Hogwash!

To be serious, how much did Bush pay Popular Mechanics to state that load of crap?

SC meter = Rosie's Daily Ho-Ho Consumption

[KingOlerud]

Originally Posted by Mule

Seems to me I brought up that first line of item #3 right here at least a month ago...once again, my brilliance is underappreciated by you peasants...

Yeah, that stuff about pre-wiring the building presenting something of a logistical challenge is a real tough acorn to find.

On the bright side, your responses to dl were among the most knowledgeable, if not necessarily intelligent.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by KingOlerud

On the bright side, your responses to dl were among the most knowledgeable, if not necessarily intelligent.

As I said, underappreciated...

[NeilAllen]

The woman said this is the first time in history fire melted steel. You barely expect Popular Mechanics to respond to such nonsense.

Jonah Goldberg had a fun sarcastic response:

RENOWNED metallurgist Rosie O'Donnell proclaimed on TV Thursday of last week that Sept. 11, 2001, was a more significant date than most of us realized. It was, in her words, "the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."

This, of course, came as news to steelworkers, welders, blacksmiths, firefighters, manufacturers of samurai swords and other fools who hadn't realized that steel is forged in magic furnaces using dragon breath and pixie dust.

O'Donnell made this and other profoundly stupid comments on the daytime talk show "The View," ABC's update of the ancient practice of women chattering around the village well.

The former "queen of nice" seems to think that the show is the perfect venue to audition for grand marshal of the next tinfoil hat parade. ...

[i]in last week's rant, O'Donnell focused on World Trade Center Building 7, which has become the grassy knoll for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Asked if the government was responsible for its collapse, she coyly replied that she didn't know, wink, wink. All she knows is that it's "impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved" and that, for the "first time in history, steel was melted by fire." Wink, wink, again. For the record, fire can melt steel, and buildings collapse when heat weakens steel. But that misses the point. The point is we shouldn't have to argue with crazy people.

[METSSC]

Does she ever get challenged on the horseshit she spews on her show or is it just a forum for her to rant and the get applause from her sycophants in the audience? At least Imus is apologizing for being an on air ass

[Jennie Lynn-Hayden]

Originally Posted by METSSC

Does she ever get challenged on the horseshit she spews on her show or is it just a forum for her to rant and the get applause from her sycophants in the audience? At least Imus is apologizing for being an on air ass

That poor Hasselback girl TRIES to refute all of the libs on that damned show and she's tossed aside like a retard at a MENSA meeting.

I swear she's just there as Babs' attempt to promote her belief that conservatives are generally moronic.

[Green Must Go]

What - no comment from deepleft yet?

[Mule]

You would think that the part about Tower 7 having at least 12,000 gallons of fuel stored inside the building on it's own, would answer a lot of questions for some people:

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

[KingOlerud]

You guys seen this?

About a week after 9/11, I found this post on dejanews (or google groups), which was apparently posted to USENET on June 29, 2000. I've never known USENET posts to be able to be forged or backdated and inputted into the USENET database, so it has always intrigued me for that reason. It was posted to a group called "alt.bible.errancy" by a fellow named "Steve Gray" and IT WAS A JOKE:

--------------------------------------
>ENDTIMES
>The Lord came to me as I was in prayer, and this is what He told me. On
>His orders, this will be my last post until 2018, as it is the will of
>the Lord that I will return then to try to convert the lost, as the
>Lord has revealed to me that the Rapture will be in 2018, 70 years (a
>generation) after the formation of the political state of Israel. While
>the Jews have rejected Christ, there will be an outpouring during the
>tribulation and most Jews will finally accept their Messiah. In the
>meantime, I will gather and prepare my flock as we anticipate His
>glorious Second Coming. The Lord has also provided for my family so that
>I can go into ministry full-time. On Earth as in Heaven, the WILL of the
>LORD be done. Amen.

GRAY:
The rapture will be too late. A careful calculation by the late
Terence McKenna shows that, according to BOTH the I Ching and the
Mayan calendar, the world will end in 2012 !!!
But Terence and you are both wrong. An even more careful
calculation by me is as follows. (See, I'm not afraid to reveal the
details!)
Obviously we start with the number of the beast, 666. Now, because
the Great Event will turn the world upside down, change 666 into 999.
Next, because Jesus is both Man and God, therefore having two
identities, multiply 2 by 999, giving 1998. (Hold it! We're not
done!). Since God is Triune, add 3, giving 2001 !!!
Now for the day: When the Great Event occurs, everyone who's not
saved will desperately dial 911, which has immense symbolic
significance. So the BIG DATE is, without question, based on the
inerrant Bible, is SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 !!!
God has not yet revealed to me exactly what will happen on that
day, but it will be BIG BAD NEWS. Be ready or be sorry !!!
--------------------------------------

http://tinyurl.com/2uw8gs

[Deepleft34]

Originally Posted by KingOlerud

Yeah, that stuff about pre-wiring the building presenting something of a logistical challenge is a real tough acorn to find.

On the bright side, your responses to dl were among the most knowledgeable, if not necessarily intelligent.

Even someone like myself who does believe that there was more to 9/11 then we know about found it difficult to refrute your reasoning.

[Deepleft34]

Originally Posted by Green Must Go

What - no comment from deepleft yet?

Just for you GMG!

I liken this debate to a prosecutors "expert" vs. a defenses "expert" in a court case. Who is right and who is wrong is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

Mule, I do consider you somewhat of the resident MOFO expert on this subject. If you could please entertain me and read Dr. Steven Jones' hypothesis and let me know what you think I would appreciate it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...lyCollapse.pdf

I do not know enough about cordite, blast points, demolition to evaluate this report thoroughly...but it is something that many 9/11 skeptics like myself point to as the "red flag" in terms of WTC 7

[KingOlerud]

..

Originally Posted by Deepleft34

Even someone like myself who does believe that there was more to 9/11 then we know about found it difficult to refrute your reasoning.

Thankyou.

[Paulie Cee]

I think I could use some refruting.

[KingOlerud]

Originally Posted by Deepleft34

Even someone like myself who does believe that there was more to 9/11 then we know about found it difficult to refrute your reasoning.

Originally Posted by Paulie Cee

I think I could use some refruting.