Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Rosie the Riveting" to Bolt from The View
Rosie O'Donell is leaving The View after her controverial stint there jacked ratings by 17 percent, says USA Today.
Among her many "rants" (the paper's word):
She compared fundamentalist Christians to Islamic extremists: "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state."...
Commenting on the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley: "It's the same thing that happened in the Catholic Church, when a pedophile priest would move from parish to parish because the Catholic Church was afraid of lawsuits. And here's the most interesting thing about the Deliver us from Evil documentary, that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic Church from the '80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."...
Commenting about how Danny DeVito's visit to the show, when he was acting drunk, attracted attention: "The fact is that it's news all over the world. That you know, you can imagine in China it's like: 'Ching chong, ching chong. Danny DeVito, ching chong, chong, chong, chong. Drunk. The View. Ching chong.' "...
Called for the impeachment of President Bush: "I think we should do it so the world knows that the nation is not standing behind this president's choices; that the nation, a democracy, feels differently than the man who is leading as if it was a dictatorship and that we represent this country; he does not lead as a monarch."...
Claimed that the World Trade Center's Building 7 was brought down by explosives on 9/11: "I do believe that it is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower 7 ... which collapsed in on itself. It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. ... World Trade 1 and 2 got hit by planes; seven, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire."...
Defended shock jock Don Imus: "What's the next step ... your job is going to be taken away if you think or say something that America doesn't like?"
More here. USA Today (and everyone else) figures she'll be back on daytime TV faster than even she can say "ching chong ching chong." Here's hoping she and Henry Kissinger start a talk show that goes right up against Tyra's and Rachel Ray's.
Question for Hit & Runners: What percentage of the above statements might you agree with? And will Joy Behar be able to move into the power vacuum created by Rosie being booted out the airlock?
And here's the recent Matrix Awards rant in which Rosie told Donald Trump to "eat me" and that so offended Bill O'Reilly and other delicate flowers of American media:
|4.26.07 @ 10:27AM|#
People don't want to hear the truth. Regular people can't handle the truth. The TV is designed to be a pacifier, not something that makes you think. There's no room in modern America TV for anything more serious than product reviews and "Is your child in DANGER?!?!?" "news" pieces.
Guy Montag|4.26.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Question for Hit & Runners: What percentage of the above
statements might you agree with?
0%
And will Joy Behar be able to move into the power vacuum
created by Rosie being booted out the airlock?
Is she the hottie blonde who married a football player and was
guest hosting on FOX and Friends for a week? Idunno, because I am
usually at work whenever it is that The View comes on. If
that is her, I hope so. Whoever guested on FOX would be great as
the main person on a talk show.
|4.26.07 @ 10:33AM|#
"I do believe that it is the first time in history that fire
has ever melted steel."
That's so dumb I can't even think of a witty comment.
|4.26.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Question for Hit & Runners: What percentage of the above
statements might you agree with?
She won me over with "ching" but lost me at "chong."
ed|4.26.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Rosie is repulsive but anyone who can irritate both Donald Trump
and Bill O'Reilly to the point of incoherent ranting gets at least
one star from me.
Fire doesn't melt steel? Wow. I didn't know that. In Rosie's world
I-beams are dug out of the ground ready-formed, like potatoes.
thoreau|4.26.07 @ 10:34AM|#
In Rosie's world I-beams are dug out of the ground
ready-formed, like potatoes.
Maybe they're intelligently designed. By storks. Or by secret
designers. Something.
Guy Montag|4.26.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Maybe they're intelligently designed. By storks. Or by
secret designers. Something.
Perhaps when she catches up with the Von Danaken fans she will
learn the real truth of how it all works.
ed|4.26.07 @ 10:44AM|#
When O'Reilly finally arrives in hell I'm hoping his punishment
is eternal sex with Rosie.
And Trump has to watch.
|4.26.07 @ 10:45AM|#
"People don't want to hear the truth."
Is it the truth that the Bush administration set up explosive
devices on the Twin Towers to time an explosion at the same time as
they were hit by planes as Rosie implies?
|4.26.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Rosie O'Donell is leaving The View
Not sure I ever heard of it - have I been missing something?
Commenting on the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley:
She calls homosexuals 'pedophiles' - why aren't the interest groups
expressing their righteous outrage?
Called for the impeachment of President Bush:
Gotta get revenge for Klintoon.
Building 7 was brought down by explosives
She missed her calling as a natural-born structural engineer.
"your job is going to be taken away if you think or say
something that America doesn't like?"
Nuttin' new there.
"Is your child in DANGER?!?!?"
Yup.
LibertyPlease?|4.26.07 @ 10:48AM|#
"Question for Hit & Runners: What percentage of the
above statements might you agree with?"
I agree with her that the twin towers and #7 were definately
brought down by something other than just those planes, hell, the
Pentagon had a 16ft hole in it (many photojournalists captured
that) until the collapse.
I also agree with her about the threat of fundamentalist
Christianity being similar to
the threat from fundamentalist Islam. Religion (any flavor) is at
best infantile mysticism, at worst it is incredibly
destructive.
The rest of her rants I disagree with, particularly the
anti-second-amendment ones. But at least she didn't regurgitate the
same sterile talking points!
|4.26.07 @ 10:50AM|#
"Is she the hottie blonde who married a football player and was
guest hosting on FOX and Friends for a week?"
No, that's Elizabeth Hasselbeck. She is as cute as a bug's ear,
Rosie's as ugly as a bug's ass.
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Couldn't care less about the fat ugly thing's ravings. But I say shame on Barbara Walters and ABC for allowing the wicked racism of Ching Chong to go unpunished. Right now, any anti-black statement can get you fired from a network; anti-Asian is still OK.
Guy Montag|4.26.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Mr. F. Le Mur,
"Rosie O'Donell is leaving The View"
Not sure I ever heard of it - have I been missing
something?
No. If anything "interesting" comes out of that show it gets passed
around the cable networks.
"Commenting on the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley:"
She calls homosexuals 'pedophiles' - why aren't the interest
groups expressing their righteous outrage?
Because Foley has an R behind his name.
"Building 7 was brought down by explosives"
She missed her calling as a natural-born structural
engineer.
Or a guest on the Art Bell show.
|4.26.07 @ 10:54AM|#
I agree with her that the twin towers and #7 were definately
brought down by something other than just those planes
If by "other than just those planes" you mean "the force of
gravity," then I agree with you. Why can't the government do
something about that? I mean, it's been 300 years since the laws of
physics were written and they haven't been amended or re-worked for
the modern era.
SugarFree|4.26.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Just remember, all the blame for her being a public figure falls squarely on the shoulders of VH1. Never forget that fact when you are watching Even More Attack of the Hair Metal Bands Part 2.
Guy Montag|4.26.07 @ 10:55AM|#
No, that's Elizabeth Hasselbeck. She is as cute as a bug's
ear, Rosie's as ugly as a bug's ass.
I thought the question was about that other chick, Joy Behar. I
already know Rosie is a pig (a term she approved for use by that
Baldwin boy against his daughter).
|4.26.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Is it the truth that the Bush administration set up explosive
devices on the Twin Towers to time an explosion at the same time as
they were hit by planes as Rosie implies?
It might be. There's never been a comprehensive investigation. It's
certainly worth considering, even though the US gov't won't even
discuss the possibility.
|4.26.07 @ 10:56AM|#
"Fire doesn't melt steel? Wow. I didn't know that."
Not only is that a completely retarded statement, steel doesn't
have to melt to compromise the integrity of a structure to the
point of collapse. It doesn't even have to get anywhere near
it.
The demolition theories have little to no basis in engineering,
physics, materials science, etc. It's rank speculation that doesn't
even make sense to most honest demolition experts.
|4.26.07 @ 10:59AM|#
"I agree with her that the twin towers and #7 were definately
brought down by something other than just those planes, hell, the
Pentagon had a 16ft hole in it (many photojournalists captured
that) until the collapse."
"Popular Mechanics" has debunked all that. Before you buy into all
that nonsense, you should read "Debunking 9/11 Myths". Don't
misunderstand me. I'm certainly no George Bush fan, but I'm not
going to hate somebody so much that I'm willing to believe any
conspiritorial nonsense that comes out about them. As much bad as
the Clintons did, I wouldn't even accuse them of such
conspiratorial nonsense.
|4.26.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Impeach Bush? Yeah, I can get behind that. That's the least we
would do if we as a nation had any self-respect left. I also agree
that the rush to judge Imus was pretty silly.
Le Mur, I missed the part where Rosie called homosexuals
pedophiles. The Catholic priests Rosie is referring to were clearly
pedophiles in a very legal and prosecutable sense. Foley may not be
a pedophile, but he was pushing the envelope.
|4.26.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Question for Hit & Runners: What percentage of the above
statements might you agree with?
About half.
|4.26.07 @ 11:02AM|#
A better question might be, "what percentage of those statements does Rosie believe?" I think she said most of those things because she was either (1) trying to get fired or (2) taking the Morrissey approach and saying the most ridiculous possible nonsense just to generate publicity.
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Didn't Rosie star in some strange adaptation of an Anne Rice sex
novel with Dan Aykroyd?
That may be an ad hominem attack but sometimes resumes should be
considered.
And I 4 1 am still pissed about Barbara's non-response to ching
chong. I'll bet if I went on that show and made a similar joke
about Russian Jews, she'd kick my ass.
|4.26.07 @ 11:05AM|#
I agree with the impeachment comment and the China comment. It probably was just like that in China.
|4.26.07 @ 11:05AM|#
"even though the US gov't won't even discuss the
possibility."
They won't even discuss the possibility because it's so
rediculous.
SugarFree|4.26.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Lichtenberg,
Probably not, but he did add even more fuel to 9/11 conspiracy
fire. It will keep the thread going for an extra 25+ posts than
Rosie the Ranter could normally scrape together.
Anyway, as a form of public censure, Rosie should always have to
eat three saltine crackers before speaking. The spray of crumbs
will lend the perfect level of gravitas to her
pronouncements.
Mike Laursen|4.26.07 @ 11:11AM|#
About 50%. It would have been easier to calculate, though, if you had had ten whacky quotes. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be that hard to find four more whacky Rosie quotes.
eb|4.26.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Rosie's an idiot and Barbara lost any respect I had for
her.
Why is it that lesbian comics stop being funny at the moment they
come out of the closet? Do they get an overdose of self
rightousness that disables their funnybones?
At least Ellen got her funny back to some degree.
|4.26.07 @ 11:14AM|#
I recall Rosie when she was supposed to be the nice talk-show host--à la Mike Douglas. Guess she's found a new persona. I daresay that picking a fight with nearly everyone may not get her the acclaim that she may be hoping for.
The Wikipedia|4.26.07 @ 11:14AM|#
FEMA's provisional study was inconclusive[39] and the collapse
of 7 WTC was not included in the final report of the NIST
investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center when it
was published in September of 2005. With the exception of a letter
to the Journal of Metallurgy, which suggested that some of the
structural steel had been exposed to temperatures sufficient to
melt it,[40] no studies of the collapse of 7 WTC have been
published in scientific journals.
NIST anticipates that it will release a draft report in early
2007.[41] It released a progress report in June of 2004 outlining
its working hypothesis. On this hypothesis a local failure in a
critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling
debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first
vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate
collapse of the entire structure".[42][43] In answer to the
question of whether "a controlled demolition hypothesis is being
considered to explain the collapse", NIST says that it "would like
to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that
could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical
elements." At this point NIST is not committed to any one
hypothesis, and new hypotheses may yet emerge.[41]
|4.26.07 @ 11:19AM|#
God, Rosie grates on my nerves so it kills me to defend her,
but....
She calls homosexuals 'pedophiles' - why aren't the interest
groups expressing their righteous outrage?
No, she implied that Mark Foley, a guy hitting on underage
teenagers, was a pedophile. I don't agree with the analogy because
sending creepy notes to a 17 year old is significantly different
from molesting a 10 year old, but she didn't say/imply that all
homosexuals are pedophiles. Especially considering she's a
homosexual.
...anti-Asian is still OK
Is what she said really "anti asian"? Seriously, I don't understand
the whole "ching chong" flap; what she said was insensitive but not
malicious.
That said I disagree with her views on the WTC, the second
amendment, and any movie she's in.
|4.26.07 @ 11:21AM|#
She won me over with "ching" but lost me at
"chong."
I kinda went the other way on that one. chong I liked, and it
helped me get over my disinterest in ching. Cheech & Chong
movies were really funny, but I always found people who were into
the I Ching to be dorky and pretentious.
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 11:33AM|#
It's possible I'm be over-sensitive, but yes, ching chong is very anti-Asian. If Asians were not, as a whole, so damned nice, apolitical, forgiving, and--to repeat--nice, then they would have raised hell over this. In my book, this beats "nappy-headed ho" any day.
Timothy|4.26.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Dave (obvious from using Wikipedia as some kind of primary source), Lemur, Montag, and a truther: it's a perfect storm of troll in here!
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 11:36AM|#
(And I don't knock African Americans for being pissed over the Imus incident). We can be over-sensitive at times, but some things are just beyond the pale. "the View" may as well have aired a Charlie Chan clip.
thoreau|4.26.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Timothy-
This is the sort of thread that filters were made for.
Have fun under the bridge, trolls!
Guy Montag|4.26.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Rosie has no smile. At least, I've never seen one on
her.
Don't soil Daria with any similarity to Rosia please.
thoreau|4.26.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Threads like this are the reason you "truthers" are never going
to persuade sane people to abandon logic and evidence in favor of
crackpottery.
(All the trolls now drink!)
|4.26.07 @ 11:54AM|#
"erected by fairies"
Hee hee... fairies.... hee hee... erect... chortle chortle...
CB
Complacent Hit and Runner|4.26.07 @ 11:56AM|#
obvious from using Wikipedia as some kind of primary
source
Why use Wikipedia as a primary source when it is so much easier to
go with no particular primary source at all? Them pesky "truthers"
can't impeach a phantom.
Popular Mechanics is also historically excellent on issues
of large scale structural engineering. They can usually tell you
some of the most popular theories that the evidence is not
inconsistent with.
|4.26.07 @ 12:17PM|#
The funny thing (the really funny thing) is, Rosie has a Ph.D. in physics, from the University of Beijing! Go figure!
ktc2|4.26.07 @ 12:31PM|#
As much as I dislike her, from the collection of statements
above the only one I totally disagree with is the 9/11 BS.
The rest while put callously is true.
|4.26.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Defended shock jock Don Imus: "What's the next step ... your
job is going to be taken away if you think or say something that
America doesn't like?"
Yes Rosie, I'm afraid the sad truth is that you only get to be on a
popular program as long as you are popular. Damn the lowest common
denominator and their desire for things that appeal to them!
If you're looking for a job where you can say/do anything you like
without regard the to consequences, try Attorney General. I'm sure
Hillary will throw you a bone.
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 12:46PM|#
I suppose that I partly accept the first statement, but only
because all revealed religions have their dangers. In other words,
there are scenarios where fundamentalist Christianity could become
a real threat to civil society.
Of course this sounds like a different argument than the one Rosie
is making.
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Thanks to TiVo, I have just finished watching 5 episodes of The
View.
Um. Yeah. Feminists everywhere, please tell me you disapprove of
this. Even without the racist bitch, this is exactly the sort of
thing an anti-feminist would concoct as an example of "female
inferiority."
|4.26.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Wow. I'm so out of touch with the kids today. I didn't even know Rosie was on The View. Did she lose her own show? (Was it 'cause she said something unpopular?)
|4.26.07 @ 1:00PM|#
"Yes Rosie, I'm afraid the sad truth is that you only get to
be on a popular program as long as you are popular."
Rose brings ratings to The View. She is very popular.
Without her, the show probably loses 1/4 of its viewers.
|4.26.07 @ 1:00PM|#
i only agree with her about Imus. No responsible media outlet should put her on the air. It is like giving a platform to a mental patient.
|4.26.07 @ 1:05PM|#
With as many cable channels as we have (I know, Rosie is network), it is strange to me that we don't have an all-crazy or all-stupid network. I agree with Rosie on a few issues, but clearly not the 9/11 blubberings.
biologist|4.26.07 @ 1:12PM|#
fundamentalists: agree
Foley and pedophile priests: no problem with her comment, but don't
see the point she's trying to make
Chinese: racially insensitive, probably unintentional (also, stupid
and unfunny)
impeachment: agree
9/11: clearly, she's no engineer, physicist, or metallurgist. she's
probably misremembering the claims that jet fuel doesn't burn hot
enough to melt steel, and it came out stupid-sounding because she's
a fucking talking head, not a scientist. really, who cares what
Rosie O'Donnell thinks?
Imus: he's an idiot, but I agree with Rosie.
hmmm, I agree with her a lot on the selected topics. hopefully just
a coincidence.
Dave W.|4.26.07 @ 1:18PM|#
jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel
She is mocking the idea that WTC7 was
brought down by fires. Presumably, we all agree that the fires
inside of WTC7 were not being fed by jet fuel.
|4.26.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Her problem is that the "fire doesn't melt metal" theory doesn't take into account that fire can compromise the integrity of the metal without melting it. When that compromised metal is holding up a building, well, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out what happened....wait, maybe it does.
biologist|4.26.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Dave W:
my point is, she's probably misremembering different parts of
different reports and mashing them up.
Also, I make no claims about whether jet fuel can burn hot enough
to melt steel, only that I've heard that claimed.
I don't have an opinion on which building was brought down by what
mechanism, nor do I care, unless someone has definite proof that
something other than the jets crashing into the towers were
involved. Proof, not allegations.
|4.26.07 @ 1:34PM|#
If Asians were not, as a whole, so damned nice, apolitical,
forgiving, and--to repeat--nice,
Two words: Virginia Tech.
Dave W.|4.26.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Her problem is that the "fire doesn't melt metal" theory
doesn't take into account that fire can compromise the integrity of
the metal without melting it. When that compromised metal is
holding up a building, well, it doesn't take a scientist to figure
out what happened....wait, maybe it does.
The problem is that even though many tall metal framed buildings
have burned, WTC7 would be the first and last to catastrophically
collapse from that. Sure, I can picture metal softening from fire
and the softened metal buckling and, eventually, breaking, but the
problem with that theory is that the people who design skyscrapers
design them so that won't happen (at least absent some special
circumstances like jet fuel or nuclear fuel). The burning of
carpets and desks and papers is not supposed to be, and in actual
experience is not, up to the task.
Then again, no scientific reports have argued that it collapsed
from fire. The NIST report is due later this year.
my point is, she's probably misremembering different parts of
different reports and mashing them up.
If you read her comments above, I think it is pretty clear that she
is saying that she believes that WTC1 and 2 came down because of
the impact with burning jets. With respect to WTC7 she is saying
that many people believe that it came down because of fires inside
it (not jet plane fires, but run of the mill regular fires), but
she does not. It is true that many people affirmatively believe
that WTC7 came down because of fire, even though the scientific
study has not yet come out.
I don't have an opinion on which building was brought down by
what mechanism, nor do I care
lol. Maybe Rosie is stupid for caring. I mean WTC7 was going to
come down sooner or later, just like the Murrah Building. What
difference does it make? On the other hand, it is hard to see why
Fonz and the others get on her, sometimes with harsh invective,
specifically about WTC7 if her theory on WTC7 is as inconsequential
as all that.
|4.26.07 @ 2:00PM|#
I thought WTC 7 collapsed because it was structurally damaged by the collapses of 1 and 2.
thoreau|4.26.07 @ 2:04PM|#
The problem with any WTC 7 conspiracy theory is that you have to
posit the existence of conspirators who are smart enough to pull it
off and cover their tracks really well, yet dumb enough to even
bother doing it.
Why would it be dumb for conspirators to do it? Because if you've
already got a conspiracy good enough to bring down two massive
towers and pin the blame on two jetliners and thus achieve all your
evil ends, why bother wasting resources on destroying a much
smaller building with a far less dramatic effect (i.e. no planes to
pin it on)? You don't get any additional bang for your buck, but
you do raise all sorts of questions (if it isn't brought down by a
plane).
Conspirators who are smart enough to get it done yet dumb enough to
do it? Yeah, whatever.
|4.26.07 @ 2:04PM|#
...I always found people who were into the I Ching to be
dorky and pretentious.
Hey! Philip K Dick was into the I Ching!
What? Oh, never mind.
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 2:08PM|#
R C Dean
I am going to write your comment off to an attempt at humor, OK?
And we'll just leave it at that.
|4.26.07 @ 2:09PM|#
"Because if you've already got a conspiracy good enough to
bring down two massive towers and pin the blame on two jetliners
and thus achieve all your evil ends, why bother wasting resources
on destroying a much smaller building with a far less dramatic
effect (i.e. no planes to pin it on)?"
Why?
WHY?
WHY?!
BECAUSE IT'S FUN!
MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|4.26.07 @ 2:11PM|#
The problem is that even though many tall metal framed
buildings have burned, WTC7 would be the first and last to
catastrophically collapse from that.
Well, the big towers fell as the result of the fire as well. They
stood up just fine for quite a while after impact; it was the fire
that caused the collapse (in the sense that had the fire been
extinguished immediately or soon after the towers would not have
fallen). Also, WTC7 was structurally compromised by the millions of
tons of debris that fell. It's on film. So all 3 buildings took a
hit and then were subject to intense fires. And all three
fell.
Of course, I suppose the theory that the government knew about the
imminent attacks and then sneaked into the building and set
thousands of charges over several weeks without anyone noticing
might be true too.
thoreau|4.26.07 @ 2:12PM|#
FWIW, I don't have any problem with efforts to understand better how this happened. On the surface it certainly seems a bit surprising that it could happen, but the thought that goes through my head is "Whoah, maybe they need to build these things better!", not "Uh-oh, secret designers pulled off some massive conspiracy!"
|4.26.07 @ 2:12PM|#
highnumber,
Reminds of the time we went with Phil to the universe where the
Axis won. Phil was always good for a laugh.
|4.26.07 @ 2:12PM|#
The problem is that even though many tall metal framed
buildings have burned, WTC7 would be the first and last to
catastrophically collapse from that. Sure, I can picture metal
softening from fire and the softened metal buckling and,
eventually, breaking, but the problem with that theory is that the
people who design skyscrapers design them so that won't happen (at
least absent some special circumstances like jet fuel or nuclear
fuel). The burning of carpets and desks and papers is not supposed
to be, and in actual experience is not, up to the task.
Actually Dave they are designed to withstand fire exposure for
a certain duration without failing (assuming of
course that the fire protection systems for the structural members
are not compromised). They may be rated for only a couple of hours.
They are not designed to withstand fire exposure for an extended
duration.
thoreau|4.26.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Then again, if it had been pummeled by lots of wreckage, and had
experienced the vibrations from being right next to two collapsing
towers, and then you add in a fire, well, I guess it isn't such a
surprise.
And I don't know how you could build something to withstand all
that combined trauma, or if it would be worthwhile to do so for all
future buildings.
|4.26.07 @ 2:18PM|#
but the problem with that theory is that the people who
design skyscrapers design them so that won't happen
Yes, and the space shuttle was designed not to explode on reentry.
Designs have flaws, and the flaw (as far as I can tell) in the
design of the WTC was the inadequacy of the insulation on the steel
frame. If the designers believed that the frame, as designed, could
not have been compromised in a fire they would not have put
insulation on the frame at all. But they did put insulation on it.
Ergo...
|4.26.07 @ 2:20PM|#
"Boner"? "Eat me"?
Those high school seniors will be scarred for life! No one should
ever be subjected to such salty language, particularly not the
delicate lotus blossom that is the modern high school senior.
I try not to think/care about Bill O'Reilly, but seriously, that
guy needs a good cockpunchin'.
Ching Chong, beeyotches.
metalgrid|4.26.07 @ 2:23PM|#
After the horse-on-man action post, you really should have labeled this post: Don't Look a Parting Horse in the Mouth.
|4.26.07 @ 2:27PM|#
In addition to WTC7 being structurally compromised by debris
from WTC1 & 2, it is probable that the fires within were
diesel-fed, and perhaps even fed continuously by diesel under
pressure from the many generator fuel tanks housed in that
building.
So it's not like it was a standard office fire.
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 2:27PM|#
thoreau
the Great Pyramid near Cairo is a remarkably sound structure. Of
course, it's completely useless.
You're on to something with the "why didn't they build it better"
question, but the answer is simply,
what they built was what made the most sense at the time.
I'm sure a 1936 Rolls-Royce is a death trap nowadays, but I'll bet
it was fabulous in 1936. We build the best we can, when whe can,
given what we know when we build it. #7 was ingenious for bridging
a power station like it did. #1 and #2 were amazing for their
ability to hold up--as they did, beyond all expectations. Stairways
in all should have been wider, as we now know.
Live (and die) and learn.
|4.26.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Designs have flaws, and the flaw (as far as I can tell) in
the design of the WTC was the inadequacy of the insulation on the
steel frame. If the designers believed that the frame, as designed,
could not have been compromised in a fire they would not have put
insulation on the frame at all. But they did put insulation on it.
Ergo...
All steel will weaken when it is exposed to high temperatures, the
fire proofing is a means to resist the heating of the steel for a
certain duration. Spray applied fire proofing is vulnerable to
impact, especially if, say a plane crashed into a building. In the
case of the WTC a combination of events that was nearly
unimaginable happened. If someone had presented the scenario that
happened to the engineers during the design they probably would
have been laughed out of the room. It's nearly impossible to design
a building that can resist every conceivable scenario. And even if
you could, the building would be very expensive.
|4.26.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Ethan,
Even with the optimal amount of insulation, the towers probably
would have eventually come down, as the buildings ceased to be a
rigid objects after the planes took out much of their external
supports on one side and a bunch of their internal ones.
The continual bending moments and shears that result aren't
designed for, especially under the stress of fire (both for plain
weakening and for modulus changes (deformation)).
|4.26.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Stairways in all should have been wider, as we now
know.
Wider and built inside a reinforced concrete shell.
Guy Montag|4.26.07 @ 2:38PM|#
The World Trade Center complex is yet another monument to what the anti-asbestos folks have done for us.
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I just don't understand why it's OK to attack Asians (and ching
chong was indeed an attack), but gays, blacks, women, Jews, etc.,
are off limits.
Rosie O'Donnell says ching chong. That's humor. Now, if I were to
say that Barbara Walters is a stupid, old, fat, dyke, greedy (as
all Jewesses are), incoherent,
may-as-well-be-a-welfare-nigger-bitch, cheap-wig-wearing,
whore....then I'd be wrong. Right?
|4.26.07 @ 2:47PM|#
I don't strongly agree with Rosie on pretty much anything, or
agree at all with much, but damn do I like her sass. She's one of
the few human beings on TV who don't carefully measure everything
they say and, more importantly, believes in free speech for
everybody.
I may be the only commenter here who's actually seen The View, but
it's pretty damn boring as is. I doubt I'll being doing any laundry
folding or ironing to it in the future. Thank goodness for being
able to torrent tv shows, or else the only watchable daytime TV
would be Martha, and even she's more restrained these days.
Damn, I sound more and more like a housewife all the time. I swear
I have a hip and cool at-home job.
Dave W.|4.26.07 @ 2:48PM|#
I thought WTC 7 collapsed because it was structurally
damaged by the collapses of 1 and 2.
That is another theory that is out there. One potential problem
with that there is that it fell awfully neatly and without a lot of
visible structural damage. I mean, some pictures of WTC7 shown more
smoke and structural damage than others. There is an impressive
looking gash on one side of the building that is not always shown
at "truther" sites. However, no photos compare with the devastation
at the Murrah building. With the Murrah building, a big section of
wall is ripped out, where explosive force could come in thru the
opening and knock down the columns (even though that didn't
happen). With WTC, the outer wall facing the near tower (forget
which one) stayed mostly intact. It is hard to imagine debris or
percussive force leaving most of the facing on the walls, but still
compromising beams inside somehow, like some kind of shaken baby
syndrome for junior skyscrapers.
It will be interesting when NIST releases its report to public peer
review. Whenever HnR does one of these WTC7-related stories (2d one
recently) I think they are doing advance PR for this long-expected
report. I mean, other than her WTC7 theory, is any of this stuff
O'Donnell is saying even remotely interesting to the kind of people
who read this board?
|4.26.07 @ 2:55PM|#
The rumor mill suggests that her contract wont be renewed
because she was insisting on an "all you can eat on set
clause."
Besides the high costs associated with such a clause, the wording
made elizabeth very uncomfortable.
Chang|4.26.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Lich,
"Ching Chong" may be an "attack," but not a very cruel one. It's
just a "those (fill in speakers of non-English language) sure do
talk funny" observation. It's pretty mild, as racial epithets go
(our language even incorporates this sort of "attack" in the word
"barbarian," which was derived from Greek mockery of the speakers
of foreign tongues).
While you let RC off for his "attempt at humor," you fail to point
out that Cho was not a "Ching Chong" Chinese, he was a dog eating
Korean. The two are as different as warmongering Krauts and
cheese-eating surrender monkey Frogs.
Dave W.|4.26.07 @ 3:01PM|#
The problem with any WTC 7 conspiracy theory is that you
have to posit the existence of conspirators who are smart enough to
pull it off and cover their tracks really well, yet dumb enough to
even bother doing it.
They weren't trying to cover their tracks at first. if they were,
they wouldn't have had Silverstein on TV saying "pull it." They
never denied that it was brought down by explosives. they have
merely failed to say how it was brought down and let the public
draw whatever conclusions it wants in the absence of evidence. The
public clearly wants to believe that it was a very direct result of
the hi-jacking, which is why these threads play out like they
do.
Similar to the fact that at first they were not denying that Flt 93
was shot down. They simply waited for the public to decide that it
was not shot down, and then they confirmed popular opinion after
the fact.
"Conspiracies" are much easier to get away with if you play coy at
first, and only later confirm whatever it is that people have
already chosen to believe. If people had been all angry at the air
defenses for being absent on 9/11, then we would have been treated
to video and blackbox tape of that happening. People didn't demand
that, so we got the narrative of the heroic and suicidal passenger
revolt instead, and Cheney sitting in a room with his wife and a
reporter slowly and thoughtfully mulling over presidential
decisions.
|4.26.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Lichtenberg,
Ching chong was stupid, thoughtless, asinine, etc., but it wasn't
malicious. When Jimmy the Greek said Blacks have large thighs
because they were bred as slaves it was thoughtless and ignorant,
but innocent.
Imus, from what I heard Mickey Kaus (who saw the actual footage)
say, was that it was said in 'bar stool comment' manner. That is,
he wasn't joking, but was actually demonstrating racism. I don't
care one way or another about Imus, but market forces are what
decided his fate.
Dave W.|4.26.07 @ 3:02PM|#
--then we would have been treated to video and blackbox tape of the missile going in--
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Chang
I have to defend all Asians, given the vast number and variety in
my life.
So when a fat, unfunny, stupid, smelly Lesbian--with the obvious
approval of a stupid, old, worthless, fat, Russian Jewess--attacks
any Asian, and no one says anything...then I have to come out with
all guns blazing.
But, on 2nd thought, I was probably at least inconsistent to let
RCD off the hook. If we're going to be hyper-sensitive these days,
then it is damn time Asians of all stripes started screaming bloody
murder.
|4.26.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Look, there was outcry at the time she said it. And if you can't forgive stupid, you're bound for a lifetime of unhappiness.
|4.26.07 @ 3:16PM|#
It will be interesting when NIST releases its report to
public peer review. Whenever HnR does one of these WTC7-related
stories (2d one recently) I think they are doing advance PR for
this long-expected report.
When has a report convinced conspiracy theorists that their pet
conspiracy doesn't exist?
|4.26.07 @ 3:17PM|#
"when is stupid forgiveable?"
It is always forgivable. Hell, I advocated a cable channel
dedicated to it.
Dave W.|4.26.07 @ 3:19PM|#
When has a report convinced conspiracy theorists that their
pet conspiracy doesn't exist?
We don't need no stinkin' report?
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Mackie
yes, I'm going to be unhappy for a long time. I still think that
people who like "Forrest Gump" should be locked up: stupid may be
pitiable, but it is never admirable.
As for the outcry at the time the ugly fat stupid thing said
it...it really wasn't enough. It only seemed to come from
anti-Rosie-ite conservatives in the first place. And, I repeat,
Barbara Walters and ABC should have been shunned like Mel Gibson
for not immediately firing the filthy thing.
|4.26.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Dave,
What were the relative sizes of the Murrah vs. WTC7? What was the
nature of the damage on each? Where was the damage on each? How did
their structures differ? What was inside each? Were there fires? If
so, what was the nature and intensity of the fires?
You can't begin to compare the two buildings and their causes of
failure (or not) if they are significantly different in any of the
above questions.
"They weren't trying to cover their tracks at first. if they were,
they wouldn't have had Silverstein on TV saying "pull it." "
Been visiting one too many truther sites? Skeptic Magazine calls
into serious question the Silverstein "pull it" comment, among
other things.
Here.
|4.26.07 @ 3:39PM|#
I repeat my earlier request to the 9/11 Truth folk: Assuming
you're right, what do you expect me, a flabby nerd in the middle of
Ohio, to do about it?
(1) Vote the bastards out? Most of "the bastards" are either
term-limited, or they're not in elected positions.
(2) Rise up against the oppressors? Unlike me, they have guns
and know how to use them.
(3) Demand that somebody "do something"? That's how you end up with
things like the USA PATRIOT Act.
Chang|4.26.07 @ 3:40PM|#
"Stupid" is one of those descriptors that applies to everyone,
at one time or another. The only trouble is when it applies more
often that it doesn't.
Also, if your identity or self-esteem is tied to "defend[ing] all
Asians," then you are racist. A invididual's status as an "Asian"
has zero predictive ability as to the following qualities: "nice,
apolitical, forgiving, and--to repeat--nice", and I'll add math
skills, study habits, etc. "Asians" describes a diverse set of
individuals, grouped together into a bunch of groups (to which
various mutually exclusive stereotypes apply). It's a big freakin'
continent, with about half of the people in the world.
A short list of counter-examples to "Asians" being "nice,
apolitical, forgiving, and--to repeat--nice": The Khmer Rouge was
100% Asian. The Rape of Nanking was Asian on Asian crime. Mao was
"Asian," as was Seung-Hui Cho.
Ethan|4.26.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Even with the optimal amount of insulation, the towers
probably would have eventually come down, as the buildings ceased
to be a rigid objects after the planes took out much of their
external supports on one side and a bunch of their internal
ones.
The continual bending moments and shears that result aren't
designed for, especially under the stress of fire (both for plain
weakening and for modulus changes (deformation)).
I agree.
|4.26.07 @ 3:54PM|#
But, on 2nd thought, I was probably at least inconsistent to
let RCD off the hook. If we're going to be hyper-sensitive these
days, then it is damn time Asians of all stripes started screaming
bloody murder.
Not helping yourself, Lichtenstein, trying to defend Asians using
the phrase "bloody murder" just a week after a fella named "Cho"
killed thirty people.
|4.26.07 @ 3:57PM|#
While she suck my ding dong {ding dong}
Eyes like a ching chong {ching chong}
Hard on like king kong {king kong}
I'ma get my chief on {chief on}
While she suck my ding dong {ding dong}
Eyes like a ching chong {ching chong}
Hard on like king kong {king kong}
--From "Put Cha D. In Her Mouth", by The Academy Award-winning
Three Six Mafia
|4.26.07 @ 4:08PM|#
I thought the "ching chong" thing was no big deal, but it was kind of ironically funny, coming on the heels of Rosie accusing Kelly Ripa of homophobia because of what she said to Clay Gayken, um, I mean Aiken, when he was subbing for Reg that one week.
Lichtenberg|4.26.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Dean sounds like a British name. Let's see...what other
British-sounding names come to mind when the topic of murder comes
up?
Drop it.
Chang|4.26.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Just because Cho was both asian and a cold-blooded,
crazier-than-a-shithouse-rat stone killer says nothing about Asians
or killers.
Most "Asians" I know are 1st or 2nd gen immigrants, so they are
familiar with their forebearer's "ching chong" languages. A few are
gazillionth generation Americans, and Mandarin sounds like "ching
chong" to their ears. The "offended by ching-chong" gene is not
coincident with the "epicanthal fold" gene.
rehturt|4.26.07 @ 4:44PM|#
What even Rosie and the truthers don't realize is that the demolition charges were always there, put in place in 1970 during construction by order of the Trilateral Comission. It's no coincidence that David Rockefeller came up with the idea for the WTC.
|4.26.07 @ 5:12PM|#
"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in
a country like America where we have a separation of church and
state."
This comparison betrays her complete disassociation with reality.
Some Christians in the US don't want to recognize gay marriage, but
some Muslims in the middle east actively murder gays. A tiny
handful of "Christians" have committed violence at abortion
clinics, but many Muslims in the middle east have strapped bombs to
chest and blown themselves up in shopping malls, schools, buses,
etc. The first amendment is supported by nearly all Christians in
the US, but many Muslims around the world eagerly await a Caliph
who will create a transnational Islamic state.
"Claimed that the World Trade Center's Building 7 was brought down
by explosives on 9/11::
Her claims are incredibly stupid. They're on par with faked
moonshot landings and flat earth theories. What's next, is she
going to claim that Bush is one of the Elders of Zion? 9/11
conspiracies have been *FULLY* debunked by Popular Mechanics. Every
single claim the moonbat conspiracists have made have been
thoroughly demolished.
|4.26.07 @ 5:46PM|#
"If someone had presented the scenario that happened to the
engineers during the design they probably would have been laughed
out of the room."
They explicitly designed the towers to survive the impact from a
commercial aircraft.
The best analysis
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm
An analysis from a skeptic-
http://www.thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm
|4.26.07 @ 6:27PM|#
NewYorican,
That's misleading. They were explicitly designed to survive the
impact (the impact itself) from a Boeing 707 in a low-visibility
approach or hold-type situation (probably 200 kts at most), because
of the incident with the Empire State Building taking a shot from a
slow-moving, lost B-25.
They were not designed to survive the impact and resulting carnage
from a 767 (much bigger) with more than 80% of its Boston-SFO fuel
load and traveling at 400 kts or so.
|4.26.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Near as I can tell, the buildings could not be brought down by planes or by explosives. Therefore, they did not collapse at all. Yep, they're still there. It's just funky camera angles and mirrors, like with a David Copperfield trick.
|4.26.07 @ 6:32PM|#
Rosie's Radical Christian/Radical Islamist comments make sense if you look at risk analysis. What the Radical Christians want is only 1/1000th as bad as what the Radical Islamists want, but the Radical Christians are about a million times more likely to get their prescriptions made into policy. By my back-of-the-envelope calculation, that means Christians are a thousand times more threatening.
Guy Montag|4.26.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Good thing nobody got Rosie started on the flouridation
conspiracy.
I thought those were on her side, like the folks who want the UN to
take over the USA?
Well, there are the ones who opposed flouridation for Chile, purly
on a Marxist supporting basis, using the "carcanegan" excuse. to
prevent that country from reducing tooth decay.
|4.27.07 @ 12:36AM|#
The axing of Rosie is the one silver lining of the whole Imus
affair. And if it brings down The View, a vapid black hole of
soccer mom paternalism, feminist victimhood and celebrity smugness,
the better.
BTW, I thought everyone here already lost respect for Baba Walters
when she hosted that diner party for Fidel Castro.
Tom Cruise|4.27.07 @ 8:32AM|#
Little-known fact:
Men are spontaneously castrated when they appear as guests on
The View.
Science has no explanation of this phenomenon.
You have been warned.
|4.27.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Timon19
"That's misleading. They were explicitly designed to survive the
impact (the impact itself) from a Boeing 707 in a low-visibility
approach or hold-type situation (probably 200 kts at most), because
of the incident with the Empire State Building taking a shot from a
slow-moving, lost B-25.
They were not designed to survive the impact and resulting carnage
from a 767 (much bigger) with more than 80% of its Boston-SFO fuel
load and traveling at 400 kts or so."
Whatever parameters they used, the building design performed
amazingly well. Imagine what would have happened had the target
been the Empire state Building.
I was simply refuting the assertion that the buildings were not
designed to take the impact from a large plane. That factor was
explicitly considered in the design, and the 707 (faster) and 767
(slightly larger and slower) are pretty similar in terms of their
potential to damage a building.
|4.27.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Some numbers from the above analysis...
"The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
This is well within limits that the towers were built to
survive."
|4.27.07 @ 8:00PM|#
And survive they did. Of course, the parameters didn't call for standing after the structure was weakened by jet fuel fires. There's a reason Tower 2 went down before Tower 1 even though it was hit earlier. Tower 2 was hit lower down and the weakened supports had to hold more weight. Therefore, the metal would have to soften less to initiate a collapse.
|4.28.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Yep. Two sides of supporting columns drastically affected = bad
news.
NewYorican,
There was a reason I added the phrase "and resulting
carnage".
Also, I'm not terribly sure that simply taking KE = 1/2(m)(v^2) is
a totally accurate way of looking at how much energy was released.
And what WAS the limits that the towers were built to survive?
That's an important number.
If it's in the link, I apologize for being lazy - I've done enough
bullshit following of links from Truthers (that nearly always get
important bits very wrong), that I don't follow very many links
from either side anymore. It's just a battle of arrogant link
pasting.
|4.28.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"...what WERE the limits..."
Jesus, it's like a hillbilly took over my brain for a second.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245