Riveted On Rosie

O'Donnell returns to 'View' amid a firestorm of criticism from O'Reilly and other conservatives

Source: suntimes.com

April 10, 2007
BY DOUG ELFMAN Television Critic

Let's tally the slurs Bill O'Reilly has hurled at Rosie O'Donnell: She's "Tokyo Rosie," "siding with Iran," "rooting for Iran" and "helping the enemy" while "actively supporting Iran against her own country and Britain."

Wow. What has O'Donnell done? Did she supply rocket launchers to terrorists? Not quite.

"Rosie O'Donnell is saying that our country, America, all right, attacked itself to launch the war on terror," O'Reilly has said, among other things.

Wrong. O'Donnell very clearly said she doesn't believe the U.S. government had anything to do with 9/11.

Today, O'Donnell returns from vacation to "The View," and she might respond to Fox News' relentless War on Rosie, which also spread briefly to MSNBC.

O'Donnell did unleash a few controversial statements. But O'Reilly and the rest are taking liberties with most of her comments. Here's what really went down in a seven-minute conversation on "The View" one day last month.

O'Donnell repeated her belief that World Trade Center Tower 7 -- a building not hit by planes -- was felled by explosives. This is also the claim of some conspiracy theorists around the country.

Conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck asked liberal O'Donnell if she thought the U.S. government had anything to do with the attack of 9/11.

"No, I have no idea" who blew up Tower 7, O'Donnell said, and later added earnestly, "We're gonna take a break. We'll be right back in America, land of the free, home of the brave."

Regarding Iran, "View" guest Marcia Gay Harden said the United States should try to strike peace with Iran diplomatically.

O'Donnell agreed and suggested the American media has demonized and dehumanized everyone in the Mideast to the point that none of the people of the region are regarded as humans. They're seen as "just the enemy. They're terrorists."

And she posed the theory that the British government put sailors in harm's way to taunt Iran into action, as a scheme to raise popular support for war against Iran.

She has also said terrorists shouldn't be feared.

Following Fox News' lead, MSNBC's conservative Joe Scarborough showed select snippets of O'Donnell comments and called for her to be fired. To support his case, Scarborough quoted a column in the L.A. Times to suggest the paper was calling her crazy.

That column was written by Jonah Goldberg, a sometimes Fox News guest who once wrote in the conservative National Review about how his mother was the person who persuaded Linda Tripp to record her chats with Monica Lewinsky.

At Fox, talk host Greta Van Susteren interviewed O'Reilly (with no response from O'Donnell) to ludicrously suggest O'Donnell's motive was to specifically incite O'Reilly.

"If you have this verbal battle with Rosie -- sort of like with [MSNBC's] Keith Olbermann -- they love to bait you, Bill, because when they bait you that increases their ratings," van Sustren said, neglecting the fact that O'Reilly started this feud, not O'Donnell.

And, as if he were quoting one of his own critics, O'Reilly said of O'Donnell: "Surely you cannot allow someone to come on the air every day and vent hateful, dishonest propaganda."

O'Reilly interviewed Fox News' Dennis Miller, and they whined it's not fair that Hasselbeck isn't a strong enough conservative to counter O'Donnell. (O'Reilly and Miller had on zero liberals to counter themselves.)

"Elizabeth is a sweet girl, but she has trouble holding her own with those people," Miller said.

This whole routine revolves around an issue O'Reilly doesn't even regard as big news. He was interviewing Dave Zeeck, editor of the Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune, about the subject when Zeeck proclaimed recent comments by O'Donnell and Ann Coulter were no big deal. O'Reilly agreed.

"You may not think they're important stories. And in the long run, they aren't," O'Reilly said.

If not, then why have O'Reilly and others at Fox News people spend so much time interviewing each other about O'Donnell?

10 minutes 'til showtime!!!


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Standing ovation at show's opening

Extremely pro-Rosie crowd today. So far, no talk of 9-11. Some back and forth about Imus....stay tuned

Attack Machine is Effective...so far

I can now understand why various personalities are reluctant to stand up and declare that 9/11 was an inside job. The repug attack machine will spring into action. I also see why its important that we continue to support those that do speak out. At some point the attack machine will become overwhelmed, spend all its time attacking and the brain-dead audience (which includes my mother) will get bored and tune-out.

I have been trying for months to get Ed Schultz to speak out about 9/11 and so far nothing. Now I can see why the resistance to speaking truth is so effective.

Don't waste your time with "Big Eddie"

The knucklehead has made up his mind about 9/11.

End of discussion.

I agree

I had a big e-mail fight with him a few months back when he called us 9/11 truth activists a bunch of freaks. He is a lost cause. He is scared to death of the truth. It was obvious by his e-mails. He knows the truth but won't face it.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Nothing so far -- less than 10 minutes to go

No mention of you know what so far today

That's ridiculous....

These individuals called for her to swing from the gallows, to be strung up like a piniata and beaten, and to be fired, and she's got nothing to say about her right to free speech, her right to ask questions of her Government, etc...?

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Hearty applause from the audience....

....almost everytime Rosie mentioned Free Speech during the Imus discussion, though.....

This worries me:James

This worries me:

James writes:

Ro- Hope u find a 9/11 physicist besides Steve Jones. He is shady. Watch ‘Heavy Watergate’ on Google Video. See www.drjudywood.com

she seems super smart (Rosies answer)


The disinfo artists are trying to derail to movement with their no-plane, space beam crap.

For those who never heard of Judy 'i put a fork in the microwave' Wood, here's the Greg Jenkins interview.

Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11


Bothered a lot of people, but rest assured, she was told about the "No Planer/Space Beam/Mini-Nuke" crowd afterwards, so hopefully she'll know better.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Yes. Space Beams make

Yes. Space Beams make PERFECT sense. Much more likely than planes flying into the tallest buildings!

Seriously, do you think that the media faked footage and then space beams did it. Thats crazy. Why? Where did the space beams come from, why make it so complex, why get the media to help you fake it?

Surely you would want LESS people in on it

Just remember squibs

Squibs are the clearest proof AGAINST both "energy beams" and a mini-nuke. The last IS just possible--but the squibs firmly rule it out.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

b-b-b-b-but Dr Wood sez

that those are "decoy squibs"!

lol, sorry 

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

"decoy squibs"?

That's funny--lol!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

The media fakery . . .

relates to the images of planes, not the mechanism by which the buildings were destroyed. Yell "space beams" all you want, but it has nothing to do with faked footage. Separate issues.

The impossible crash physics prove that the images are faked. Why and how is not for me to answer, but I can speculate that it was easier and more certain to do it that way. The point is moot , though, because the images have to be faked.

My conclusion is the same after debate with physicist "hsgsj" here:


The debate begins with his comment "high school" and ends with my comment"I'm not trying to change the subject." I'm still hoping to get a reply.

(Just because he hasn't replied doesn't mean I'm right, of course - he may not have seen it and he or someone else might have a reply. This is just where I'm at - using the same basic method as Steven Jones and Eric Salter, with better data, and getting a drastically different result that tells me the penetration videos have to be faked.)

You are right that you would want as few people in on it as possible. I'm not so sure that many in the media that were involved knew what they were doing -- they watch TV like the rest of us. So do the FAA and the military, as I discuss here:


Patience = Quality response

Sorry I did not respond earlier on the previous thread. I was thinking about some of the issues you raised and concurrently responding to Reynolds' claims in his Request For Correction he submitted to NIST, while taking care of some other 9-11 analytical issues as well. After a couple of days, I figured the thread was dead. I didn't mean to leave you hanging.

I just submitted a short Letter pertaining to some of the misconceptions regarding the 'no plane' theories. It seems that many people that support the theory confuse some basic principles.

1) The deceleration of the plane is described by its center of mass (CM) motion, not just the tail end of the plane.
2) the average velocity over the impact time is not the same as the aircraft's instantaneous motion

NIST reports a 70% reduction in momentum (equivalently, velocity) of the Boeing-767 whose tail just clears the exterior wall of WTC 2 at 0.2 seconds. This is the plane's center of mass instantaneous velocity as reported by the graph of Figure 9-28 in NCSTAR1-2B. The *average* reduction in velocity over this time period is 25% (take the average height of the graph between 0 and 0.2 seconds) which is consistent with NIST's impact simulation as pictured in figure 7-34 from NCSTAR1-2 (the center of mass only travels 75% the length of the plane in 0.2 seconds).

The tail-end, however, hardly decelerates at all. Video evidence shows this, and the NIST simulation shows this as well.

However, this is evidently 'common'. Sandia National Laboratories conducted a crash test of an F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive concrete block in 1988 (http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx). In my Letter submission, I analyze the tail end motion of the aircraft during impact, and guess what? It does not decelerate (within measurement errors of about 3%) although the entire plane is being obliterated via impact with a massive concrete block. You gotta check out the video --- the F-4 Phantom literally 'melts' into solid concrete, no appreciable deceleration of the tail, and small pieces of plane shoot out transversally upon impact. I wish my day job was attaching rockets to planes and running them into concrete slabs after watching this video....

There you have it. No TV fakery is required since the laws of physics are being obeyed. The plane impact analysis reported by NIST is self-consistent, obeys the laws of physics, and closely matches observation (video evidence). The observation that the tail does not decelerate appreciably is no problem based upon the F-4 Phantom crash test. FYI, NIST reports a net deceleration of 70% just after the plane passes through the outer columns which is equivalent to a 91% reduction in kinetic energy. These numbers should compare more favorably to the other studies you quote.

Ningen, it will probably be about 1-2 weeks before the Letter is posted judging from past experience.

Hope this helps....

No problem

I know that thread was dead and you don't post frequently, and posted here to get your attention. Thanks for responding. I can't understand the center of mass and average velocity stuff now, but hope I can later. If you are right, then I have been operating under a fundamental misconception. This may be beyond my understanding - the way I was looking at it is was much simpler.

A quick thought is that in the Sandia test, all the kinetic energy is being converted to deformation (fragmentation?), and the plane doesn't melt in to the wall at all, but is dashed to pieces against the wall. I'm wondering if the situations are comparable. NIST says "the tail did not slow as the plane entered the building" -- in Sandia, the plane did not enter the wall. What you are saying about 70% deceleration once the plane is in the building gets me to how Morgan Reynolds has presented the problem - how does the plane not slow down as it enters, then suddenly slows down and disintegrates? But maybe I'm missing your point about center of mass and average velocity, and I need to look at the NIST pages you cite (and my proverbial high school physics book).

Like I said, if I am wrong I will publish a retraction. Thank you for continuing this discussion. I look forward to your Letter, and will link to that regardless of whether I agree. That should raise your readership by at least 5 people.

5 people more than have read it so far

I have to make the explanation concise in a blog and omitt all the pics. Hopefully, the explanation may be a bit more transparent in the Letter.

Here's the deal regarding the CM: Consider a head-on car crash into a solid concrete wall. Before collision, the CM of the car is, say, roughly between the driver and other front passenger. At the end of the collision, the car is shorter. The front end is smashed and the back end more-or-less OK. The heavy motor has been pushed back toward the rear of the car. The CM of the shortened vehicle now resides, say, somewhere below the back seat.

During the duration of the impact, the back end of the car travels a further distance than the front of the car. That is the reason it becomes shorter. Also, during the duration of impact, the center of mass continiously shifts from the front seat to the back seat. So, the front of the car decelerates faster than the back end, and the CM decelerates at a rate somewhere in between.

Same principle with the planes. The front of the plane decelerates faster than the back end. In this case, the very back end of the plane hardly decelerates at all. The CM decelerates slower than the front end, but faster than the back end.

One more concept, momentum: the front end can break up into a bunch of pieces during impact, but by finding the sum of all the little masses times the velocities, you can find the deceleration of the front. The previous paragraph still applies.

I hope this is helping rather than confusing.....

I commend your efforts

but to me it appears as if Ningen was somewhat fact repellent on this pet topic of his. I too tried to explain why his conclusions were invalid a couple of weeks ago, but as you can see that didn't stop him from bringing the very same thing up again. A shame...

interns < internets

My response to you was similar

We'll see how it plays out. Why didn't you reply to my response to your Sandia argument?

The shame is you using rhetorical devices like "fact-repellant," "pet topic," and "A shame . . ."

dead-on right. Good post.

Your explanation is, of course, dead-on right. Good post.

I felt the need to 'formally' address some of these issues after reading Morgan Reynolds' official Request For Correction which he submitted to NIST. Using erroneous physics, he interprets the NIST report, and then concludes it unphysical since it does not follow his erroneous physics. He then formally demands NIST issue a correction! His misinterpretations stem from the exact same misconceptions that you and I just outlined in this blog post: CM vs tail-end motion, instantaneous vs average velocity and acceration.

I am very unforgiving when it comes to Reynolds promoting the 'no planes' for multiple reasons, the primary one being that it is unforgivable that he does not know these facts. How could he possibly obtain an advanced economics degree without knowing these very basic things? I fear the most likely answer is that he *does* know....

economics degrees

don't necessarily translate into knowledge of physics.

"Economics is the only field in which two people can share a Nobel Prize for saying opposing things." --anonymous

"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." --Kenneth Boulding, economist

The way I've come to see it, economic theory is mostly handwaving to cover up certain basic truths. Therefore, Reynolds is probably the right man for his "job". He knows...

interns < internets

You address one issue

The deceleration. Maybe you were right - I haven't figured that out - but Reynolds raises many more issues.

Show me it is dead-on right

Sandia, Sandia. Lots of debris outside, and you have yet to show why there was not debris outside the World Trade Center towers.

How did that fuselage pierce steel columns? Please explain and not assume as NIST did.

How did those wing-tips magically propel themselves through steel columns?

Thanks for reading the letter


I know that you know other studies of plane impacts show that the plane is able to penetrate the exterior columns, so this is not solely a NIST conclusion. You quote those very papers on your blogsite, so I find the comment a little disingenuous. I am not relying solely on NIST for the conclusion that a Boeing 767's fuselage is able to breech the exterior columns.

You are right. Sandia's crash test does not prove that a plane can penetrate the steel columns from the tower. That was not the point of the letter as I think you are already aware judging by your previous comments. The reason I analyze the Sandia crash test was to study the tail end of the plane's deceleration when the plane suffers massive resistance (more than would be suffered by the more forgiving 1/4" steel plate box columns with large gaps between columns) against a thick slab of concrete.

The tail deceleration issue has been used by the 'no plane' proponents as centerpiece evidence that TV Fakery was the only solution since the laws of physics were allegedly violated. However, the analysis presented in the letter invalidates this specific point. There may be other peripheral reasons given for TV Fakery, but this issue was by far the strongest argument *if* it were true, which I think I have shown it to be very plausibly false.

The only other main point in the letter was to interpret the NIST report findings. There seemed to be massive confusion, whereas NIST clearly states their findings. I do not suppose their findings to be necessarily true or false, but NIST is clear in reporting their findings: 70% reduction in momentum (velocity) and 91% reduction in kinetic energy once the tail-end passes through the exterior walls.

I have not done the analysis myself to know for sure that the plane was capable of piercing the exterior columns. However, I doubt that anyone shows that the plane *could not* pierce the outside columns. I have read several studies, and all the studies I have seen verify this point and seem quite credible (that is to say, the numbers that I saw used are at least in the ball). I, personally, have not verified their work since I currently see no compelling reason put forth for me to spend my time doing such a thing ---- and it would take quite a bit of time. I don’t consider this to be neglect, rather I would just like a good reason to burn my time instead of other ways I consider to be much more productive to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

As for debris upon impact reflecting off the side of the building: Some debris was visible after impact. How much debris do you expect? How much debris is possible to see if the parts of the plane which bounced off the building were reflected back based upon videos from cameras located fairly far away from the impact?

For instance, in the Sandia test, the pieces which bounced off the concrete slab was the *entire* plane. They were in tiny little pieces and the video was shot up close. How much debris do you see? Now, pull the camera back about a factor of 5 or 10 and multiply the amount of debris in the Sandia case by the small fraction of wing volume which had to directly collide with the exterior columns without piercing in the case of the WTC tower impact divided by the entire volume of the plane. How much debris would you expect to see? Off hand, I would suspect ‘not much’, but I will leave the analysis up to people more interested in such a thing.

To more succinctly answer your questions: 1) I don't see a problem with the fuselage piercing the exterior columns since multiple studies support this claim. 2) You’re right in assuming the wingtips could not magically propel themselves through steel columns: there are only 2 explanations (apart from the no plane notion) (a) the small sections of wings were obliterated as in the Sandia test scattering in many directions which may not be easily visible from video or may not be a significantly large quantity of debris, &/or (b) some fraction of the pieces may have possibly spiraled around the columns into the building. This is not proving anything per se, merely listing the only possibilities.

Your quote: “You are begging the question of how the front of the fuselage would clear the external wall. Like you said, debris was thrown out to the side in the Sandia video. I can't see how that would not happen here, also.”
I am not begging the question. Simply put, I have never addressed it. Hypothetically, if the plane's fueslage collided with a piece of plate steel only 1/64” thick whose outer dimensions match the exterior columns, would you expect the fuselage to penetrate? How about 1/32”? How about 1/16”? How about ¼”? How about ½”? How about 2”? In all these cases, what kind of damage do you expect the plane to suffer? What do you think possible, and why? Please attempt an honest answer --- I am truly not trying to be facetious.

Thanks for reading the letter, and if I didn’t address all of your questions, let me know -----

PS regarding the oscillation of the building: It would be good for someone to actually do the analysis to see if the momentum transfer from the plane matches the sway of the building. NIST used Moire patterns generated from the vertical lines of the exterior columns together with ‘grid’ from the video camera’s pixels to analyze the tower's susbsequent oscillations from impact. I thought it a pretty cool idea, myself…. Ningen, do you know if NIST directly reports this?

I've read it

But I can't say I fully understand it yet. I have to hold off on my response, which could well be thanks, you're right. I understand that you are using the Sandia video for a single purpose. The problem is that I don't question the authenticity of the Sandia video, whereas I do question the
authenticity of the South Tower penetration video, for various reasons. Deceleration may have been a bad argument -- reading Salter's reply to me, I see he was replying to Web Fairy, so maybe I read too much into it. Steven Jones cited Salter's deceleration analysis, as compared to modeled kinetic energy, as proof there was a plane, and I think you cited it the same way in a comment here in February. So I still think there is something to the analysis, and am boggled by the idea of all the deceleration occurring inside the building.

Reynolds raises so many more issues, but it's fine for you to address that one for now. I hope you can look at others.

The front of the fuselage is one issue he raises, I believe, and is the question I have here.

I assume there is some thickness at which the fuselage would penetrate steel plate, and have no idea what that is. But I am not sure your earlier example of a copper bullet hitting steel plate is correct, because projectiles are different, but I don't fully understand Wierzbicki's discussion of the differences with a plane, here:


A page from

Aircraft impact damage
Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan


When he says that "global inertia of structural members" is important, but the effect of local inertia is negligible," and compares that to a projectile impacts into solid objects or thin sheets, where penetration and perforation occur and fracture and local inertia play a major role, I take that to mean that the building's mass as a whole, or at least a significant portion of it near the impact area, provide resistance -- not just the portions of the columns directly impacted. Is that correct, roughly at least?

He compares that to "membrane and bending deformation of thin, shell-like structures accompanied by large displacement, rotation, and strain of material elements, as well as internal contact."

This latter phenomenon is what I would expect -- not penetration and fracture of the box beams.

Would the thin fuselage penetrate a wall of staggered modules of box beam columns, with each wall of the column being 356 mm wide and 9.5 mm thick, and backed by floors that increase the bending resistance? That's the model Karim/Hoo Fatt used based on the columns on the upper floors of the WTC:


p. 1067.


[Update: Actually, I meant to say her model uses box beams of these dimensions -- she did not used floors and staggered columns, which she said both yield more conservative results. Her purpose is too show how thick the box beam walls would have to be to stop penetration (she finds 20 mm, so I take "conservative" to mean that the columns could be thinner and still avoid penetration if they were in staggered modules and backed by floors.]

I expect the fuselage to be crushed against this wall, deforming and displacing back. I expect a beer can crushed by a foot against a steel grate.

I would expect this whether the plane hit a floor dead on, interacting with one floor, or between two floors, interacting with two floors (assuming some initial penetration - I doubt any until the engines hit.)

Karim and Hoo Fatt say on the same page 1067:

"Since the fuselage and engine are either more massive or more impact resistant than the wing, we will allow the front of the fuselage and the engines to penetrate the building."

My understanding is that most of the mass of the plane would be in the portion of the wing (it's one piece) that is between the engines and has the most fuel in it, so I don't know how they transfer that mass to the front of the fuselage. (This may be what I am missing, because I'm still trying to understand center of mass and its effects. Does the front of the plane carry the mass of the entire plane? That doesn't make sense to me, but I am not a physicist.)

So this assumption of the front of the fuselage penetrating seems unrealistic to me -- even without floors behind the beams, and even with the columns not staggered, they have to assume the fuselage in. I expect it to be crushed, yet the NIST diagram you cited shows it penetrating like a projectile, intact until it hits the core.

I suspect that velocity is an important factor here

"I expect the fuselage to be crushed against this wall, deforming and displacing back. I expect a beer can crushed by a foot against a steel grate."




"A corporate jet has skidded off the runway and slammed into a warehouse after failing to take off in the US state of New Jersey."

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

That's a brick wall

And whether or not the front of the fuselage was displaced back is not visible in the picture. It appears that the portion of the brick (cinderblock?) wall that was backed by a steel column did not give way, but that is hard to tell.

What is behind the wall -- open space?

This picture is not at all comparable to the WTC buildings' panels of steel columns backed by floors that the plane had to interact with. I assume the plane was traveling at 150 mph and probably much less.

Here's a better example:


The concrete wall may be stronger and you can see what happened to the fuselage.

The materials do matter:

To the casual observer, it would appear that the facade of the Twin Towers did not offer any resistance at all, and that the plane's wings and fuselage slice through the exterior columns as if they were made of cardboard. . . How was it possible that the relatively weak, light, and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns? The devastating result of this encounter came as a surprise to the engineering and scientific community or at least to the present authors.

Wierzbicki and Teng, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, Int'l J. of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601-625

NIST on Moire?

Is this it?



I don't think I answered all of your questions -- I really have to stop now, and can't reply until late in the week.

Would you mind if I cut and paste your comments onto my blog at 9/11 Blogger, so we could carry on the discussion there? This would not be until next weekend.

It helps

Thank you. You're still talking about a solid concrete wall, though. Did the fuselage penetrate the external columns before the engines and fuel-laden center hit, or did it not penetrate? Hoo Fatt assumed it did, without explanation of how that can be.

Isn't the center of mass of the plane further back than the car?

It doesnt have to be a solid

It doesnt have to be a solid concrete wall. The same phenomena woudl occurr if a car impacted a large sawdust pile if it were traveling 150 MPH. In fact, this is probably a better example.

The same thing would happen: The front of the car would crumple, and the back would more-or-less be OK. However, if you just measured the velocity of the rear bumber before it disappeared into the pile of sawdust, it would be larger than the velocity of the front of the car.

Now, what is the kinetic energy of the car during impact if the front end is moving at a lower velocity than the back-end? Remember that kinetic energy is 1/2 x Mass x velocity squared. THe front of the car has lower kinetic energy than the back of the car due to the difference in velocity, right? So how do you define the kinetic energy of the car?

ANSWER: Use the mass of the entire car, and use the velocity of the Center of Mass of the car.

That well defines the kinetic energy of the car. This is an example of the reason that the CM is such an important concept.


Yes, the CM of the plane is located approximately between the two engines before impact. That does not change the fact that during impact, the CM will shift toward the back end as the front decelerates faster than the tail.

NIST reports that the fuselage penetrates the external columns before the wings/engines (fuel tank is in the wings) pierce the external columns. However, that part of the plane is concurrently obliterated into thousands of pieces much like the video at Sandia. However, most of the pieces still have some forward velocity after clearing the external wall unlike the Sandia video which shows the forward velocity completely stopping and all the bits and peices being ejected at the impact point transversely.

One very minor note for the more discerning reader: the massive concrete block in the Sandia test moves a little along the longitudinal direction of the plane after impact thus conserving net momentum. The WTC towers recoiled as well from the airplane impact as shown in a well-done analysis by NIST using Moire interference patterns generated between the WTC tower vertical columns and the grid of pixels in the CCD of the camera --- the oscillatory motion of the building was measured to such a high accuracy that the different modes of oscillation could be discerned.

For the record, NIST has done some good analysis in certain sections of their report. They have also made some over-reaching assumptions in other sections.

Thank you for explaining

This is the part I don't get:

However, most of the pieces still have some forward velocity after clearing the external wall unlike the Sandia video which shows the forward velocity completely stopping and all the bits and peices being ejected at the impact point transversely.

You are begging the question of how the front of the fuselage would clear the external wall. Like you said, debris was thrown out to the side in the Sandia video. I can't see how that would not happen here, also.

I'm not surprised that the engines would breach the columns, and probably the portion of the wing between the engines that is laden with fuel. The main conclusion of of the Sandia test was that the engines did not penetrate the reinforced concrete wall. They would penetrate the WTC tower, I assume.

That doesn't mean the fuselage would penetrate, does it. How is the soft material of the fuselage projected forward through the steel columns before they are breached by the massive part of the plane?

Before you use the oscillation of the video as evidence of a plane impact, you need to show the video is real.

Sawdust not the same

However, if you just measured the velocity of the rear bumber before it disappeared into the pile of sawdust,

The rear bumper would not disappear into a solid concrete wall.

I know you are limiting this discussion to the deceleration argument, but we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture that the Sandia video is not comparable to the "Flight 175" video. I think it should be much more comparable, and the fact that it is not is the issue. The deceleration argument may not be the right one, though you were citing it a couple of months ago here:


Operating under fundamental misconceptions

Ningen, I applaud you for considering you might be relying on false assumptions. As I see it, they are encapsulated in this sentence:

how does the plane not slow down as it enters, then suddenly slows down and disintegrates?

Again, I need to stress that it constitutes a gross oversimplification to think of the plane as one rigid body whose behavior could be adequately described by just one or two simple equations. Newtonian mechanics are applicable only to punctual masses, which is why spacious bodies are being handled by their center of mass. This is sufficient to simulate their trajectory under the influence of homogenous force fields such as gravity or the influence of forces easily transferrable to their center of mass, however, it does not suffice to describe complex collisions incorporating lots of deformation. That is what FEA is used for.

The plane's velocity is NOT necessarily equal to that of its tail -- that would only apply if the plane was indestructible, i.e. entirely rigid -- so you simply cannot conclude "the plane does not slow down" according to observations of its tail. Neither can you say "the plane then suddenly slows down and disintegrates" -- there is no plane, there are only a lot of more or less losely interconnected, almost punctual masses we call atoms that, unless their interconnections are somehow compromised, together give the appearance of a plane. Again, these are somewhat approximated within FEA.

Now when one of those atoms, which together happily formed a plane before, is being confronted by another group of atoms which together happily formed a column before, it is determined whether the allegiance to their fellow atoms is greater than that of their opposition. This is mostly decided in old fashioned one-on-ones, as on the battlefields of old, and the last line of the Phalanx doesn't even know what's going on at the frontlines. That last line of the phalanx is the plane's tail...

I sincerely hope this somewhat anthropocentric metaphor helps you to understand why you were basing your argument on overly simplistic misconceptions of matter. Let me know if you catch my drift, please.

interns < internets

Sorry, bruce1337

I didn't see this when I went off on rhetorical devices. I have to go to work now and don't even have time to read your comment. I need to think carefully about what you both have said. It will probably be the weekend before I can reply. Thank you both for helping me understand this. Sure, I'm biased in favor of a position I've taken publicly, ad nauseam it seems, but I am trying to be objective and just want to know because it's so important.

Alright, take your time...

and if I shouldn't respond to your answer in due time, drop me a pointer. This place has grown, you know ;-)

interns < internets

yes, and illogically they

yes, and illogically they did not "fake" the videos and tv-footage of the planes well enough...

I find that rather

I find that rather frustrating also, but at least the shills have exposed themselves.

Show "Maybe Rosie already saw NSA-Jenkins' disingenuous misogynist BS?" by Constitutionalist

Go away.

Go away.

Supersmart Dr. Wood?!?!?!


Too funny! Rick, You really outperform yourself with this one...

Supersmart Dr. Wood. Wouaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Show "Judy Wood is not disinfo" by dogster

Wood and Reynolds are a disgrace

to the movement.

I'm glad people informed Rosie about them.

The LAST thing she wants to do is to have Judy Wood on The View.

Nice way to sink the truth movement. I'd like to throttle the asshole who suggested her to Rosie.
On the 11th day, of every month.

Welcome to 911Blogger!

Been a member for 25 minutes I see. Bright eyed, bushy tailed--but soon you'll be a cranky bastard like me! ;-)

Now to the topic: Sorry, chum, even if J. Wood's intentions are as pure as the driven snow, she's showing remarkable bad judgement and naivitie in her attempts to push it to the fore of 911activism. That vid of her responding to questions about calculations and math says it all--(paraphrase) "I don't think we need to look at that---"

Hate to burst your bubble, but these are NOT the words of a scientist who knows how to be taken seriously. Thus, witting or not, she acts as disinfo.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

lets stick to the evidence

and testimony that would/will be used in a court of law to convict. theres enough now. focus on bringing that to the public.

Talk about ad hominem

'It is despicable of Alex Jones and Stephen Jones to speak dismissively of her - on the same level as the neocons with name calling ad hominem.'

As opposed to Morgan Reynolds' sneering attacks on Jones in articles of which Dr. Wood was credited as co-author. Nothing ad hominem about that, now, was there!


This is the first time I have seen the J. Wood interview.
It was more than a little unnerving. I was embarrassed for the woman, and frankly, after seeing that, I find it very hard to believe that she holds a PhD of any kind. That woman successfully presented and defended a thesis in front of her peers? Come on.

No reasonable layman and certainly no scientist or engineer could regard anything she said in that interview as credible.

How on earth could she ever delude herself into thinking these theories, offered without even a shred of reasonable analysis, would be taken seriously? Answer -- I don't think she did.

In my opinion, if she is not a disinfo, she is an academic fraud and I have serious questions about her mental stability.

disinfo site

this little exchange is from total911info. Which I think is a disinfo site. no planes, space beams and other weird stuff.

Assuming you're refering to the vid...

That was blogged AGES ago HERE, at 911Blogger, by, I believe, the interviewer who's a member of the site.

So, what are you saying?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "I agree" by middike

No it's not and "free

No it's not

and "free energy" is an impossibility, at least according to current knowledge

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Um, Hello...Is Anybody Home?

Super smart? Let's hope Rosie O'Donnell was being facetious. Clearly, Woods has some serious issues, not the least of which are psychological.

I thank you for filming this interview. Hopefully, it will put an end to the spacebeam nonsense being touted by space cadets and disinfo agents.

Tomorrow is 4/11

and a far more appropriate day for Rosie to speak up!

just my $.02

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

I guess...

She could say, "As my contribution to the eleventh of every month action, I am asking you America to watch 9/11: Press For Truth available for free online."

Now THAT would make me a happy camper.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Gee willickers...

First, someone votes this blog with a "1", now, they're voting me down for mentioning 9/11: Press For Truth.

I wonder if I had said, "As my contribution to the eleventh of every month action, I am asking you America to watch 9/11 Mysteries available for free online." would I have gotten voted up? Probably. Seeing as how 9/11: Press For Truth is a LIHOP/Limited Hangout/Disinformation movie.

Something tells me I'm not wanted.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


if you really have to complain about getting voted down (which by itself i find pretty annoying, whoever is doing it), it might be better to wait a few hours and to re-chek your rating status before doing so.
I for one voted your above "gee wilickers.." post down, cause it seems to me that all it does is fuel another demolition vs. pakistan fight.

It's not...

CD vs. Pakistan, and do you know why? Because I have promoted CD/Dr. Jones probably as much as anyone. I have a good relationship with Dr. Jones, as well as Dr. Griffin. I have gotten statements from first responders talking about the molten metal. I have promoted health studies about first responders that have talked about pulverized concrete. I have posted arguments from individuals that were working on the steel that said they should have been able to rebuild the steel to see what the cause of collapse was. I have posted arguments that say the steel was shipped and melted down in China. I have a done a lot to promote Controlled Demolition. To insinuate that I am somehow a shill, or a disinformationist is absurd. Yet, that's what some are going with, and I say fine. My actions, articles, devotion to the cause should at this point speak for themselves.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Jon Gold,

I did not mean to say that you are 'anti' CD. I know you do alot of work in both these 911 'areas'.
I also did NOT say you are a disinformationist.
However, i was halfway following that recent CD vs Pakistan fight, and having that in mind...i really dont think its worth to go there again, in such an angry way.
It looks more like a personal issue than anythin else.
...not only disinformationists stir up fights.


That wasn't directed at you.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

It's not personal

We need to realize when we're voted diwn for no reason OBVIOUSLY it's the trolls and take it with humor while exposing the tactic. Getting mad and wound up about it just eggs them on.

Also, re: bruce 1337's suggestion, I've joined the "make who votes public" bandwagon(maybe it's more of a "cart" at this point). If for no other reason than organized groups of trolls will be recognized.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

To me...

It's not so obvious. I would be all for public voting. I do it on my site.

Incidentally, the reason I get miffed when I get voted down is not because of ego. I'm sure some people think that to be the case. It's because most everything I post is 99% for the newcomer. If my posts get voted down, then the newcomer is not going to look at it.

THAT is what angers me.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Jon, you're a big contributor

and an invaluable voice for truth issues. I read everything thats printed here and look forward to your blogs and posts.

We dont agree on everything but I definitely appreciate your efforts and thoughts. please keep it up!

Thank you.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

So, what got you involved in

So, what got you involved in 911activism?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

peole should relax, and not

peole should relax, and not jump on each other so quickly

PfT and Mysteries are both great movies, but I could see that it is better to first expose newcomers to PfT, but that's a matter of opinion

in any case, to vote ppl down cause u think their not "extreme" enough seems silly to me

I think it's a good think that the no-plance/spacebeam crap gets voted down, to show that stuff is absolutely unwelcome, but that aside, shouldn't we try to stick together and unite some more?

It's though enough as it is

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Go rosie websites:

Just found this on a comment on Rosie's blog

This 9/11 Truth page is parked at these sites...
GoRosie.net, GoRosie.org, LoveRosie.net, LoveRosie.org,
StopRosie.net, TokyoRosie.net, TokyoRosie.org, FireOReilly.com, StopOReilly.com, TokyoOReilly.com

Amazing! And glad to see the dialogue on 9/11 continues to grow on her blog

NO! StopOReilly.com is sponsored by angelsfor911truth!

the pod/devil smoke/missle people! no!!!!!

Now i REALLY need to get StopBillOReilly.com up ASAP!

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Re: Pod and Missile

This thread is well worth reviewing


Please review it carefully before voting this post down. Thanks.
On the 11th day, of every month.

O'Reilly is scared of his own Charlie Sheen poll

It's not going his way and he's already preparing his spin....I wonder when he'll finally release the results?....

From prisonplanet.com:

O'Reilly Upset at Support For Sheen on Website Poll

Tuesday April 10, 2007

One of Bill O'Reilly's recent targets has been actor Charlie Sheen, who openly questions the official storyline of the events of September 11th and is in talks to narrate a new release of the alternative theory documentary Loose Change. O'Reilly insists that accepting such a role will cause harm to Sheen's career and asks viewers to vote in one of his unscientific polls (to what end we can only wonder).

On the FOX News website O'Reilly's Most Ridiculous Item reads

We're getting quite a bit of action on our billoreilly.com poll question: Will actor Charlie Sheen damage his career if he narrates a 9/11 conspiracy film?
Some of those voting are far left Kool-Aid drinkers told to support Sheen by nutty Web sites they visit.

Now I really feel sorry for these people, I do, as they are similar to the ones who followed crazy Jim Jones down to South America in the `70s and wound up drinking a poison Kool-Aid-like substance which of course killed them.

People who are incapable of thinking of themselves are always exploited, always, thus the name, Kool-Aid drinkers.

In addition, they are ridiculous. But we want you to vote on our poll, those of you who are thinking for yourselves.

When you visit the site, the question is posed as above, with yes or no as the only answers available. There are no further questions about ideology, party, or where you learned of the poll. We can safely surmise the answers are coming out more "no" than O'Reilly would like, so he blames the phantom far left for skewing his silly poll.

But what is really ridiculous is O'Reilly's mindset that everyone who says something HE disagrees with should suffer for it, either losing employment or office, and he uses his national "no-spin" platform to go after them. He won't have to go far this time, though. Just this afternoon I saw Charlie Sheen in a baseball uniform, plugging away for DirectTV - owned by FOX News owner News Corp.

Will O'Reilly go after News Corp. with the same glee and fervor which he has shown going after ABC and Disney in the aftermath of Rosie O'Donnell's comments? Not likely.


THAT is SAD!!!

If he were ever to research this he might discover that we are all pretty well researched and competent.

Not to mention some of the best people I have ever run across.

Unfortunately he can not allow himself to explore this issue thoroughly enough to speak competently about it.

His judgement resides only in his beliefs. He has not and will not research this for himself.

and that is SAD too =(
Together in Truth!

Show "Hmm, I recently made a blog" by 911truther

We don't need more separation

We agree that plane impact, fire, and gravity cannot account for the destruction of WTC 1 and 2, and that debris impact, fire, and gravity cannot account for the destruction of WTC 7.

I wish Jones would focus on that rather than thermate, and I wish Wood would focus on that rather than DEW. This debate is needlessly dividing us.

The problem is that many people genuinely believe that Jones is pushing thermate to cover more exotic weapons, and many people genuinely believe that Wood is pushing exotic weapons to discredit the movement. This is creating a divide that helps no one but the perps, who we know and have proved used some weapon to bring down the towers and kill thousands.

FEMA and Thermite

"The problem is that many people genuinely believe that Jones is pushing thermate to cover more exotic weapons."

The FEMA report itself studied molten samples and found chemical traces of thermate properties.  They said that the chemicals were capable of turning a steel beam into “Swiss cheese”.  How's that for self incriminating evidence?  They had no explanation for it--only that it was "never before seen in building fires".  However, they didn't recognize it as a variant of thermite. 

They also said it was capable of creating molten steel.  NIST said molten steel was "irrelevant to the investigation". 

NIST is also required by fire testing standards to test for thermite.  They didn't.  They admitted this in their FAQ.

Now Judy Wood (and NIST) are welcome to criticize Jones on his thermite “theory”.  But don't you find it a little suspicious that she can come up with a list of 30 objections without once testing molten metal samples of her own or calling on the government to release samples to prove or disprove Jones' claims?

Release more samples, and let’s have an independent analysis.  Pretending to disprove thermite without even studying samples seems very dishonest.  What caused the molten steel?   If thermite did not cause this—what did?   

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I'm not saying don't pursue this hypothesis

But let's play this out, since you offer the FEMA report as a response to my statement that many people distrust Jones and the thermate theory. First of all, FEMA is untrustworthy - they push a ridiculous collapse theory and show pictures of planted debris. That's not to say that the report is wrong as to the thermate traces and "Swiss Cheese" phenomenon. However, if in fact there is a coverup of some exotic weapon, then it would not be at all surprising to find FEMA pushing false evidence and theories to divert attention. Incriminating, perhaps, though it might lead to some innocent explanation. The point is that it is less incriminating because it might not lead to the real perps. I don't know, and my point is not to say that thermate is wrong and should not be pursued.

Where I take issue, and what the point of my comment was, was the idea that it is "suspicious" not to pursue the thermate theory. She may be wrong, and she may even be intentionally wrong, though i don't believe that, but it does no good to accuse her of intentionally pursuing a flawed theory.

This goes for both sides - the point has been made about Steven Jones' ties to nuclear science, and I don't think it serves any purpose to belabor the point, particularly when it leads to divisiveness.

We can be critical without making accusations of disinfo or stupidity or craziness. As you know, I've been critical of Jones on his treatment of the planes issue, but I try to separate that from the thermate issue.

The problem with release of samples is (1) they are not being released, and (2) authenticity if released. I agree that calling for release of samples is a valid way of pursuing this, but I am concerned that the thermate theory, even if correct, could be "disproved" through release of false samples or a false explanation such as use in cleanup. This could apply to any theory, which is another reason I wish the focus for now would be on the "progressive collapse" fraud. Just getting them to admit that energy was added would be a huge victory that would require investigation of what really happened.

About the molten steel, my understanding of Wood's position is "what molten steel"? I don't know enough about that to evaluate her position.

My main point is simply that Wood and Jones agree that energy was added with a weapon of some type, and I wish they would cooperate in asking NIST to account for that. I don't want to get into why they are not cooperating and who started it, etc., as I know your position. This endless loop of bickering and accusations of disinfo, even if you are correct, serves no purpose except delay, which benefits the perps.

FEMA's credibility

Disinformation is the promotion of misleading arguments. A misleading conclusion is impossible unless it is shown to be supported with misleading arguments. Accusations without credible evidence are just that--accusations.

I don't object to accusations of disinformation if they are supported with very compelling evidence. Does it matter if there is intent involved? No. It's irrelevant if we are primarily concerned with the truth about 9/11. We need to take individuals out of the 9/11 truth debate--just look at the evidence.

About the credibility of the FEMA report: It just happens to corroborate independent studies by Steven Jones. As Hoffman has said: "The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intragranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson."

Evidence becomes more credible when it is supported by corroborating evidence. The thermite "hypothesis" is also supported by independent dust sample analysis. Therefore it would appear to be credible. As well, this FEMA analysis of the steel was done by volunteer investigators http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

I am especially inclined to believe that evidence is credible when it is extremely self-incriminating (you don't incriminate yourself--there is no motive) and NIST completely ignored it. What about NIST's credibility? They ignored this study and called it "irrelevant".

It's like the 9/11 commission report: You look at what they say and then see if it's corroborated by other credible evidence. Some things they get right after all...

"but I am concerned that the thermate theory, even if correct, could be "disproved" through release of false samples or a false explanation such as use in cleanup."

Yes, but the fact is that Jones has samples of his own. These can be retested by others.

As soon as NIST admits there was molten steel they are screwed. Many people observed it--even Rudy, mayor of NY. There are photographs of [large pieces of] previously molten steel. Something caused it—and it wasn’t “cleanup” (when they were trying to find survivors) or normal fires.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I think the word disinfo should be used very sparingly

I understand disinformation to include an element of intent, and would call the promotion of misleading arguments, absent intent, to be misinformation. This is the standard definition, I think.


Misinformation can be refuted without accusations of intent, as you are doing (arguing not accusing). I agree that misinformation can be as damaging as disinformation. I also think disinfo is best addressed by treating it as misinfo. and refuting it. It takes time, but avoids the divisive effect of accusations of disinfo and leads to better understanding by those reading the arguments.

I don't disagree with your arguments, but don't know enough to say I agree. I still have doubts about the authenticity of evidence of thermate and molten steel, but if that's where the evidence leads, great. My biggest doubt is about the amount of thermate and explosive what would be necessary to pulverize the building as we saw. But again, I know little so this is just my opinion.

I still think that the first step is to show that the ""progressive collapse" theory is a fraud, and wish everyone would focus on that.

I also wish the planes issue wasn't bundled together with the "space beam" issue.


I also think the word disinfo should also be used sparingly:

Only when it's true (i.e. supported by strong evidence).

Don't forget that the 9/11 official story is disinformation. If we care about the truth about 9/11 we should expose all misleading arguments.

I consider disinformation/misinformation to have the same effect. Therefore intent is irrelevant. It is very difficult to discern intent.

I could second your post

were it not for this:

it does no good to accuse her [J. Wood] of intentionally pursuing a flawed theory.

Did you see Dr. Jenkins interview with her? She doesn't even seem to have any tangible theory with which to find fault -- only totally cliché star wars imagery -- but she's certainly pursuing that with fervor. Promoting a theory that is not at all substantiated and does in no way advance better understanding of the raw data compared to competing theories is not science. It is bullshit -- and Wood is peddling it.

So either she is the most inept PhD of all time, or her interest lies not in science and the pursuit of truth -- the good ol' dichotomy of incompetence vs conspiracy...

Maybe I just find it easier to believe that no one could possibly be this stupid, or maybe you find it easier to believe that no one could possibly be this snaky, but either way -- snaky or stupid -- Wood's "theory" is not worth further attention (from a scientific perspective).

interns < internets

It is a ghoulish lie to

It is a ghoulish lie to suggest that the people who perished at Jonestown drank cyanide-laced Kool-Aid in an act of mass suicide. Among other anomalies, the local pathologist discovered fresh needle marks in 90% of the bodies examined (others were shot or strangled), and no evidence of cyanide poisoning. The public has a tendency to invoke this incident as the paramount example of delusional cultish behaviour, however the available evidence clearly indicates a mass murder perpetrated by persons unknown, which was subsequently covered up by the U.S. government.

QUOTE (dylan avery @ Apr 2

QUOTE (dylan avery @ Apr 2 2007, 06:59 PM)

Loose Change Forum is from now on taking a NO TOLERANCE POLICY on "No Planes At WTC"

From this post forward, anyone seen promoting that theory ... first offense, 7 day suspension. Second offense, banning.

This is our forum, and we refuse to allow our reputation to be tarnished any further.

^ You got that straight! Great job Dylan!


On 7/8/2006, I added this rule to the 9/11 Truther Forum...

6. There is to be NO posting of articles regarding Holograms, CGI, Mini-Nukes, TV Fakery, and Space Beams.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Too funny Andrew...

Would you like me to post the 100+ Controlled Demolition threads in my forum?

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

elizebeth is a sucker mom

i think elizibeths role is to be be the echo of a viewer base that the neocons are desperate not to lose , shes the gentle blond [dyed] american sexymom who stands with her govt and president in these war ravaged times she only acknowleges error is that the war effor wasnt enough she is the loyal american who does not question authority and shares a red state value system [morning after pills are like leaving a foetus on the side of a road? she was never meant to be strong or big winded just an identity model , remember this is complete psyops,
the`ve spent billions on damage control, [now thats funny] and this is what they came up with

I agree

The typical "Dumb Blond". My country right or wrong. Makes me want to puke. I wonder if she gets the 40 million?

Can we please get onto

Can we please get onto topic?

Did Rosie say anything about 9/11 today?

You tell us--

did she?

And what got you interested in 9/11 activism? Some are too shy to respond--don't worry; I don't bite--too much.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I dont know, I didnt see

I dont know, I didnt see it.

I got intrested after researching it (wondering what possible reason people would think this stuff for!) and the thing that broke it for me was the speed of the fall of the buildings. It seems far to quick and smooth for fire to have caused.

Don't be shy--share!

Here's a link to dz's poll.


You can also write a little bit about yourself and your feelings about 911--don't worry about length; there are already some mini-novels there! ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I am not 'active' as it

I am not 'active' as it were.

Its just wondering what went on really. Like I said the towers fell fast. Especially WTC 7. When WTC 7 was not even hit, how did fires cause such a speedy and smooth fall?

But I am not active and just intrested in the topic and trying to find out what happened.

Well may be you should look

Well may be you should look into your local area and connect with your local 911group--where are you at?

They could also help bring you up to speed about the most glaring aspects--not to mention there are always free dvds floating around!(contrary to what many debunks believe, 911activism is NOT a cash cow. Most people donate their time and materials free--to groups they're involved with face to face, that is)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


well jenny...
it was 2002 and i was 20 yrs old. i noticed a book at borders with the catchy title "everything you know is wrong". then in 2004 i was excited about the ruckus being stirred up by Fahrenheight 9/11. I saw it and enjoyed it.
as i was researching some of its claims on the internet, i came across a post saying that some guy named alex jones had a much harder-hitting film about 9/11.
I downloaded it, and the rest is history.

now im co-founding the first 9/11 truth group in west virginia.

head up, eyes open, fist clenched

"now im co-founding the

"now im co-founding the first 9/11 truth group in west virginia."

Co-founder, huh? I'm impressed--bully for you! ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Nothing today.

Nothing today.

Not today,

But Bill O'Reilly is gonna have something to say about her still tonight......he seems to have a Rosie fetish......only story that's keeping his beat afloat.


Bill the fool...

A comment by Rosie, that was obviously directed at O'reilly himself, was just spun so that it became an issue between "men and women"....I'm sure Newshounds will be adressing it tomorrow....I can't wait.


Elizabeth Hasselbeck

on the Glen Beck radio program right now...talking Rosie
Together in Truth!

If anyone takes her word as gospel

I feel sorry for them.

She did say that if it was an Inside Job that it had to be in the works long before this administration. She either thinks Bush and his crew are idiots or she really thinks he has the best interest of this country in mind and she really likes him.

He would never do anything like this.....riiiiiight!
Together in Truth!

The 9/11- polls: In case you

The 9/11- polls:
In case you haven't voted yet:

Should Rosie O'Donnell be fired from "The View" yes or no ?


Conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly has blasted Rosie O'Donnell for comments she made on "The View" about British captives in Iran.

Whose side are you on?

Rosie's. She should be able to express an opinion that she feels is underrepresented in the media.

Bill O'Reilly's. Rosie has really gone too far this time.



Do you think actor Charlie Sheen will hurt his career by narrating a 9/11 conspiracy film? Yes or no?