Joho the BlogRosie O'Donnell should look things up in Wikipedia first - Joho the Blog

Rosie O’Donnell should look things up in Wikipedia first

HASSELBECK: Do you believe that the government had anything to do with the attack of 9/11? Do you believe in a conspiracy in terms of the attack of 9/11?

O’DONNELL: No. But I do believe the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven. World Trade Center one and Two got hit by planes. Seven, miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.

HASSELBECK: And who do you think is responsible for that?

O’DONNELL: I have no idea. But to say that we don’t know it was imploded, that there was implosion in the demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the film. Get a physics expert here from Yale, from Harvard. Pick the school. It defies reason. [source]


OAKLAND, Calif. — A gasoline tanker crashed and burst into flames near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge yesterday, creating such intense heat that a section of highway melted and collapsed. [source]

And, from Wikipedia:

Molten steel is cast into large blocks called “blooms”…. [emphasis added]

blast furnace

Jeesh. [Tags: ]

18 Responses to “Rosie O’Donnell should look things up in Wikipedia first”

  1. Hey Rosie…..Did you happen to see what happened to that freeway in California? Steel melted and it crashed to the ground. Hmmm, you think maybe thats what happened to the tower?

  2. That reminds me of another dialogue:

    Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?
    Are you crazy?
    Am I?
    Look, Turner…
    Do we have plans?
    No. Absolutely not.
    We have games. That’s all. We play games. “What if?”, “How many men?”, “What would it take?”, “Is there a cheaper way of destabilizing the regime?”
    That’s what we’re paid to do.
    So…Atwood just took the games too seriously. He was really going to do it…wasn’t he?
    It was a renegade operation! Atwood knew 54/12 could never authorize it: not with all the heat on the company.
    Suppose there’d been no heat? And I hadn’t stumbled on the plan? Nobody had?
    Different ballgame. The fact is, it wasn’t a bad plan. It could’ve worked.
    Jesus–What is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.
    It’s simple economics, Turner…There’s no argument. Oil now, 10 or 15 years, it’ll be food, or plutonium. Maybe sooner than that. What do you think the people will want us to do then?
    Ask them!
    (shakes head)
    Huh-uh. Ask them when they’re running out. When it’s cold at home and the engines stop and people who aren’t used to hunger…go hungry! They won’t want us to ask…
    (quiet savagery:)
    They’ll just want us to get it for them.

    What kind of plan would there have been? What peculiar set of circumstances could be contrived that would enable the invasion of the middle east without too much upset?

    Material for a sequel perhaps?

    If so, they’ll have to do without extensive footage of the World Trade Center…

  3. Well, none of us here are demolition experts. I must say it is a little suspect that the building was designed to withstand strikes by aircraft, yet the whole steel structure melted in a fire fueled by jetfuel? Why wasn’t the steel skeleton only melted at the top? If if only that part melted, what caused the rest of the structure to weaken, and fall straight down like in a controlled demolition. Take a look at a pic of the bridge. It only melted in a small section. And an entire tanker burned there. It didn’t take down anything but the center of the overpass. Now the WTC had to have more steel in its whole length than that overpass has in just the middle, and it didn’t have an entire tanker full of gas burn at the top (I’m guessing a good part of the jet fuel burned off in the initial explosion). So what caused the rest of the structure to buckle, and do so straight down (instead of of, say, falling sideways)?

    I’m not a big fan of conspiracies, but I don’t think the tanker fire disproves the WTC collapse theory.

  4. Yeah, with an awful lot of as yet not well explained but-what-abouts…

    But what about the burning temperature of Jet A fuel compared to the melting temperature of steel… but what about the fire at the top melting the steel tens of storeys below… but what about the relative lack of fire in Building 7… but what about the absence of smashed plane parts at the Pentagon or in the field in Pennsylvania…

    The entire scenario, according to any explanation – be it the officially sanctioned version or any of the alternative versions – is implausible. But it did happen, 3000+ lives were lost on the day, thousands of families were disrupted, and the geopolitical aftermath is beyond individual human conception.

    I think the true and complete story – which I would suggest will be a matter for future forensic historians – pales in comparison to the consequences and effects for us all around the world.

  5. I’ve listened to the presentation on the fall of #7, and I have a million apprehensions about the officially sanctioned report, personally, if you can’t beat ’em…

  6. A friend whose name I will keep out of this but who is sober and reliable and whom I trust 100% was walking to work when he saw the passenger airliner hit the Pentagon. This was, obviously, rather traumatic. I thus reject conspiracy theories that say that that aircraft did not hit the Pentagon.

  7. definitely not to be mean, nor argumentative, but, “conspiracies” aside, that is not absolute proof as to what happened. I am not saying it did not, but all the pictures I’ve saved show no single sign of an airliner. just pointing that out, not arguing.

  8. This seems to bear out Noam Chomsky’s point that a large number of Americans seem to believe the twin towers were brought down by a home-grown conspiracy, but take it for granted that it is little more than standard behavior for their government.

    As a matter of fact, Wikipedia has a pretty good conspiracy theory write-up, in addition to its 9/11 entry, and if you don’t care for officially supported investigations or those by mainstream organizations, less conventional outfits from Skeptic Magazine (v.12 #4) to Chip Berlet, the investigator of right-wing movements, have looked into the matter with the same results.

    A point Berlet has made also seems validated: while some of us busy ourselves relearning that steel weakens before it melts, or that controlled demolition is as hard to conceal as anything else in the building trades, or that there are indeed pictures of Pentagon plane wreckage, a genuine cabal carries on a barely concealed effort to turn the United States into Peron’s Argentina.

  9. We had a similar overpass collapse here in New Jersey 10-15 years ago when a fire developed under a section of Route 78 where it enters Newark. I believe it was in an area soring garbage. A large piece of a relatively young concrete and steel road came down. Traffic was disrupted for months while it was repaired, but the repair actually got done sooner than planned.

  10. Just because 99% of all 9/11 conspiracy theories fail Occam’s Razor (are cuckoo) doesn’t mean ther

  11. yup…wisiwig, or, what you see is what you get…

    New York Times – By CHRISTOPHER MAAG
    Published: May 2, 2007
    KENT, Ohio, May 1 — An audio recording of the shootings 37 years ago at Kent State University includes the voices of Ohio National Guard leaders ordering troops to fire into a crowd of students, according to a man wounded in the shootings, who obtained a copy of the recording.

    “The evidence speaks for itself,” Mr. Canfora said. “The voices are right there, very clear. There was an order to fire.”

  12. Rosie is not an expert on this, and so she worded her statement incorrectly. Do you want to hear it from an expert? Then check out Steven Jones.

    Please make the time to watch these two very recent presentations. In my mind, this is by far the most important evidence regarding 9/11. This evidence will eventually win over the public. However, as Jones explains in the first presentation, it takes a while for an unpopular hypothesis to gain popularity.

  13. Crosbie: Don’t know if you realize this, but the story provided by the mass media fails Occam’s Razor:

    Assumption 1 – The impact of an object with {M) mass traveling at {N} units per {O} time + the subsequent localized fire providing {P} units of energy per {Q} time = structural failure of a steel(calculate for the rate of thermal conductivity{R1}, diffusability{S1}, Coefficient of expansion{T1}, Yield{U1}, Shear{V1}, Tensile Strength{W1}, Hardness{X1}. and Density{Y1}) and concrete(again, calculate for the rate of thermal conductivity{R2}, diffusability{S2}, Coefficient of expansion{T2}, Yield{U2}, Shear{V2}, Tensile Strength{W2}, Hardness{X2}. and Density{Y2}) architecture within Z units of time.

    FYI – the values for the lowest quality of steel that I can find(in my collection) are as follows:

    Steel, Carbon Type 1008
    Melting Point: 2500degF
    Brinnel Hardness: 86
    Yield Strength: 24.7 ksi
    Shear Strength: 11.6 ksi
    Tensile Strength: 44.2 ksi
    Thermal Conductivity: 139 Btu/hr-ft-F
    Thermal Diffusivity: 0.37665 sq in/min
    Coefficient of Expansion: 0.007 in/in-F

    Please note that this is the lowest quality of steel I can find, but even with that, I doubt that anyone here will be able to give the energy provided by the mass*speed of the plane, along with the energy provided by the subsequent fire, enough energy to cause any of the WTC buildings to structurally fail.

    I.e. – the sheer amount of steel, and latticework that went into the WTC buildings would have dispersed the heat of almost any fire within them quite efficiently, as almost every steel and concrete building on the planet has been known to do.

  14. Amazing! Its genuinely amazing post, I have got much clear
    idea regarding from this piece of writing.

    My site: google

  15. Even though the busy lifestyle is the most common reason why people make use of
    this, not everyone does it due to this. Most of the smartphones these
    days have a touch screen interface, high resolution screens and web browsers that offer high-speed data access though Wi-Fi and mobile broadband.
    GSM cell phones are intended to be utilized with any kind of network.

    My webpage; how do i unlock a phone

  16. investigators earlier this month, baffling users and commentators on the Web alike.

    Motorcycles are preferred because they offer economic fuel consumption and low
    maintenance. They work very hard and a person can count
    on them to show up everyday.

  17. I am regular visitor, how are you everybody? This article posted at
    this web page is actually nice.


  18. Hey, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues.
    When I look at your blog site in Opera, it
    looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer,
    it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you
    a quick heads up! Other then that, excellent blog!


Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon