Rosie's 9/11 Claims - How Do They Stack Up?

These comments refer to an article in Inside Edition:

From the article:

James Meigs, editor in chief of Popular Mechanics said as much as 25% of the building was scooped out by the falling debris. He added, "There were intense fires that burned inside the building that weakend the steel frame."

OK, let's look at what Meigs is saying:

1) As much as 25% of the building was scooped out by falling debris.
--There is no photo anywhere in the public realm showing 25% damage to this building.
--Even if Meigs' statement were completely true, such damage would cause the building to topple over to the side, not collapse at free-fall speed straight down.

2) "There were intense fires that burned inside the building that weakend the steel frame."
--There is zero photographic evidence of this. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence that the fires in the building were small.
--James, how could the fires that were so "intense" they "weakened the steel frame" NOT HAVE BLOWN OUT THE WINDOWS OF THE BUILDING?

Show "You are misquoting them" by JamesB

That may be so

That may be so, but that quote is what the Inside Edition hit piece says:

Another point: How did the "falling debris" get to WTC 7, and how did it manage to seriously damage only this building?

If "Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face," how did the "debris" get there? Do you believe that "gravity-induced" collapse of the two Towers would have thrown that much "debris" that far and with such devastating effect? And that only that one building would have suffered so much?

If you are just talking about the accuracy of the one quote, you are right. The problem is how to answer that article without going into too much detail.

Also, the two most significant points remain: the building did not buckle and fall toward the side that was damaged, and the windows remained intact until it fell.

Add to those points, the sudden onset of the collapse, the free-fall speed, and the near perfect uniformity of the collapse across its length and breadth.

Meigs rebuttal is a joke, though I am glad he sallied forth as it gives us a chance to respond.


The proper responses to these two claims is "Based on what?" If Popular Mechanics somehow has access to information that has not been published in any official reports, then let them produce it.

Any mention of fire and structural damage referred to by the FEMA report, the only report that ever attempted to deal with WTC7, is of a speculatory nature. For PM to grab these "possible scenarios" and present them as facts is irresponsible.

The observations of the aftermath of the Twin Towers collapse show that the buildings adjacent to WTC7 didn't get seriously damaged and didn't have any significant fires, and if you look at the arrangement of the building of the WTC complex, you see a couple of buildings between WTC7 and the towers that would have taken the brunt (and did) of the horizontally-expelled debris at ground-level.

They got nothing. Never did, never will.

By the way,

What does the editor in chief of Vogue think?

Dear Alvin R

....Let's not forget the squibs going from bottom to top.Unlike WTC#1 & WTC#2 They went from top to bottom.
Unpopular mechanic's said this was due to
massive compression.So would it be fair to say that the squibs on WTC7 was reversed compression?
Or maybe the intense heat of the fires caused a vacume?

James Meigs should be Shot

With the rest of them

Don't shoot anyone

Meigs has embraced evil with his deceptions. That doesn't give any truthers the right to even suggest violence should be used against him.

I spoke on nonviolence at national 9/11 conferences in 2005, 2006, and 2007. It is sad that nonviolence is given so little respect within our movement

Dave Slesinger

I agree

Violence never solves problems. It just starts another problem.

The official 9/11 fairy tale is weak because it is not supported by reason. Therefore, the best way to combat it is with reason.

Anger dissipates and wastes energy. If we feel angry about the lies, it is important to focus our energy on tasks that promote reasonable thought and analysis. This transforms the anger into something useful.

9/11 Truth has grown not because we are violent but because we are right and many people are starting to see that.

9/11 lies are being defeated because they are violent and wrong.

When I feel angry about it, I try to do something productive--blog, talk, email, letter to the editor. By keeping a reasonable argument in the public view, we will defeat the lies and violence that characterize and support the official fairy tale.

In this vein, we probably should expect a "false-flag" act of violence by holders of the official lie--an act of violence that will be attributed to the 9/11 Truth movement. A single act like that would do much to discredit us.

Therefore, we must take care to avoid even the appearance of condoning violence in the name of truth. When the truth is on your side, you do not need any other weapon.

good analysis of the

good analysis of the argument. i was troubled when i read the 'debunking' at first, and it took me some time to work through the poor logic. Your ideas on this matter are greatly welcomed. WTC 7 is the key to stopping the terror.