Rosie O'Donnell speaks out about WTC 7
When someone on "The View" talks about this, you know it isn't some crazy nonsense. This thing is coming out. Do what Rosie says, and google "WTC 7 collapse" today!
Here's some of what she said:
"for the third time in history
fire brought down a steel building
reducing it to rubble
hold on folks
here we go
• The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
• Silverstein said to the fire department commander “the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
• Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to “blow up”.
• The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.
• Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris."
Here's a really strong video about World Trade Center 7.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739
Categories: 9/11 Truth
posted by Tahoma Activist @ 10:17 AM
6 Comments:
Please get the facts straight.
It is true that WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. It was, however, hit by and severely damaged by debris from the collapse of WTC 1. In fact, the damage was so severe that early on in the afternoon, the NYFD decided to pull back and establish a collapse zone around the building for safety reasons.
The building burned for 7 hours. There is evidence that the fires were fed by diesel fuel leaking from the emergency generator system piping which was in the area of known damage along the south face of the building. 7 hours. Even passive fireproofing systems are only rated for 4 hours.
There is ABSOLUTELY no credible evidence anywhere, ANYWHERE, of molten steel. There is only one third hand report, “a friend of a friend” in mythology parlance.
There is credible data regarding the erosion of the steel. The process is known as “hot Corrosion” and was observed on steel beams that had been buried in the hot, burning rubble pile for several weeks. There is no evidence that this had anything to do with the building collapse.
There is NO credible evidence indicating the presence of any explosives of incendiary devices (i.e. thermite). Any claims to the contrary are not based on sound, valid, science or data.
The claim that “never before in history has any building collapsed from fire,” conveniently ignores some major points.
1- Buildings, even steel buildings, have indeed collapsed from fires.
2- All three buildings were structurally damaged, either by the airplanes or by debris.
3- All three buildings had unique structural designs that do not correlate well with other high-rise fires.
4- The materials used, the fire loads and the level of firefighting all have a major influence in how a building responds to a fire. There are no valid comparisons to 9/11, thus the statement “never before in history,” is nonsensical.
There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of structural engineers, architects, scientists, etc, world wide who seem to be completely satisfied by the explanation that the structure collapsed from damage and fire. Why should we listen to a handful of people who don’t even have formal training in the relevant fields and who consistently and demonstratively distort or misstate the facts?
Okay, ordinarily I don't publish anonymous comments, but I thought this was so important that I better do it.
Number one, if you're going to debunk something, have some facts to back it up. Otherwise it's just your assertion versus mine, which isn't very scientific.
I will attempt to refute what you're saying, although I am not the expert on this subject. For that, I would direct you and anyone interested over to wtc7.net
The Fire Department pulled back, not because the fires were so hot, but because there were several tons of diesel fuel in the building. This meant the building was dangerous at the time, but certainly didn't give the Fire Dept. any idea the building would come down.
You report a lot of NIST talking points, but without actual evidence, I don't see how you can be taken seriously. Where are the examples of these steel high-rise buildings that have collapsed solely due to fire? How much of the building's structural integrity was damaged by fallign debris as a percentage of the load bearing capacity? Do you even know?
The NIST put out a picture that makes it look as if a huge chunk of the building was wiped out, but all other available photos make it clear that the building was hardly damaged.
The truth is that cops and firefighters heard explosions in WTC 1 and 2, and the only reason they didn't in 7 is because it had been totally evacuated and cordoned off. This was a controlled demolition. Larry Silverstein, the building's owner, even admitted as much on a PBS documentary.
Check it out here
One other thing, Popular Mechanics is a total establishment tool paper. They have always supported the military-industrial complex and have never advocated for progressive values of any kind. Please don't come here quoting them as the voice of reason. They are a corporate rag whose sole purpose is to prop of the military products industry.
They probably still think missile defense is a good idea, even though it doesn't even work on a clear spring day with hours advance notice.
”One other thing, Popular Mechanics is a total establishment tool paper.”
That is a classic ad hominem argument. Rather than address the points made you are just attacking the source.
Respectfully, Howard (nice reference, BTW), you either are new to 9/11 research or you are feeding classic establishment propaganda.
Popular Mechanics has put out more than one hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement, using straw man arguments and spurious logic to discredit the movement. They have never done a substantive review of the facts with the leading lights of the Movement, like David Ray Griffin or Dr. Steven Jones. If they had, they would have realized that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of unanswered questions about these attacks that can only be answered by our own government.
Our own government, which right now is controlled by murderous psychopaths who are themselves part of a cabal known as the Project for a New American Century.
One other point: you claim in one of your comments that firefighters didn't hear explosions and explosions would have been heard all around Manhattan. I don't know if that's true, but there are numerous eyewitness accounts on several different mainstream 9/11 truth sites that corroborate the idea that explosives were used.
Firefighters and cops were forbidden by their superiors to talk about it on the record, which is one reason why the story has been suppressed for so long.
As for Silverstein being a stupid criminal mastermind, I don't think that's the case. I think that anyone brazen enough to commit mass murder for money on national television has more balls than you or I can possibly relate to. He may have felt that since hardly anybody watches PBS, and because the Corporate Cosa Nostra would be spinning this whole thing into obscurity, that he could get away with dropping hints, if only to have something for he and his friends to laugh about over cocktails. Or he may have gotten cocky and let it slip. Either way, it doesn't really matter to me. The guy is scum, and deserves to be in prison.
And hopefully, someday, that's exactly where he'll end up. But as long as Bush and Cheney are in charge, and as long as Democrats are too afraid of what the Republicans will do if they look into this mess, the truth will not be brought before a judge. And that's the worst crime of them all, in my opinion. Because the people responsible for this crime don't need to be tortured in a secret prison, they need to be interrogated by our best and brought to trial, and convicted by a jury of their peers.
That's what justice looks like to me.
I'm not an expert, but unlike a lot of America I suffer from common sense. If it looks like a controlled demolition, acts like a controlled demolition then why am I a "wacky conspriacy theorist" to think this was a controlled demolition. All 3 buildings go down within a second of free-fall speed. If controlled demolitions are so hard to setup and execute then how did Bin Laden do it with such ease just using jet fuel? This isn't going away ever because too many people know a controlled demolition when they see one. Frankley before I can dismiss what my own eyes are telling me you'll have to prove to me that this wasn't a controlled demolition. Then we can make the expert's jobs a lot easier and just start jet fuel fires in buildings when we need them to melt into their own footprints.
Post a Comment
<< Home