I hate Rosie Odonnell

[gtbro1]

  I can't stand this woman. Toward the end of the clip she says "the first time in history fire has melted steel..it is impossible." refering to 9-11 and WTC 7 . what a stupid bitch. She does have a good point about going outside the country if you want to know what really goes on here.

   

&feature=related

[Cap]

  I can't stand this woman. Toward the end of the clip she says "the first time in history fire has melted steel..it is impossible." refering to 9-11 and WTC 7 . what a stupid bitch. She does have a good point about going outside the country if you want to know what really goes on here.

   

&feature=related

Clayton Bigsby would take care of this woman.

What an idiot though.  She has to know that fire can melt steel.

[gtbro1]

Clayton Bigsby would take care of this woman.

What an idiot though.  She has to know that fire can melt steel.

Evedentally she has never seen an oxy/acetylene torch.

[240 is Back]

I suppose you guys can find me ONE BUILDING IN HISTORY that has collapsed from fire?

Post it please.

Remember, WTC7 went from 47 stories of building - into 20 feet of molten metal and tons of 100 cm powderized concrete - in 7 seconds.  Fire doesn't pulverize concrete to this microscopic size, and gravity sure as hell doesnt do it either.  Explosives do.  (Oh yeah - remember that pexky 20- second countdown to demolition? hahaha yes, it was a controlled demolition - and since you cannot wire a building for demolition while it's on fire - we realize it was wired before 9/11.  Then you have to ask why.  Rosie is asking why.  Govt never told us.  So while she's a fat pig, Rosie is being more honest with you than anyone else here)

[Cap]

I suppose you guys can find me ONE BUILDING IN HISTORY that has collapsed from fire?

Post it please.

Remember, WTC7 went from 47 stories of building - into 20 feet of molten metal and tons of 100 cm powderized concrete - in 7 seconds.  Fire doesn't pulverize concrete to this microscopic size, and gravity sure as hell doesnt do it either.  Explosives do.  (Oh yeah - remember that pexky 20- second countdown to demolition? hahaha yes, it was a controlled demolition - and since you cannot wire a building for demolition while it's on fire - we realize it was wired before 9/11.  Then you have to ask why.  Rosie is asking why.  Govt never told us.  So while she's a fat pig, Rosie is being more honest with you than anyone else here)

That wasn't her comment.  She said this is the first time fire melted steel, which is what GT posted. 

[240 is Back]

That wasn't her comment.  She said this is the first time fire melted steel, which is what GT posted. 

Can jet fuel melt those two 6-ton engines at the pentagon which "vaporized"?

What is the burning temp of jet fuel (essentially kerosene) and what is the melting point of titanium?

You gotta laugh here. 

[Cap]

Can jet fuel melt those two 6-ton engines at the pentagon which "vaporized"?

What is the burning temp of jet fuel (essentially kerosene) and what is the melting point of titanium?

You gotta laugh here. 

Again, not what he posted is it?  The building collapsed because the fire burned hot enough to weaken the steel to lose its strength and collapse on itself.

[240 is Back]

Giant pools of molten steel under WTC 1,2,7.

They were burning hotter than jet fuel can EVER achieve, 2 to 6 weeks after the collapses.

Plus jet fuel burns up in a few minutes, and a lot of it burned up in the air outside the S tower.

The fire in WTC2 was almost out - two small pockets of office fires.  There were people waving from the gash in the building.  Not exaxctly a raging inferno.



Rosie is a big douche, yes I agree.  But you can google 'madrid fire' and see what a skyscraper completely engulfed in fire looks like after 20 hours of burning.  It look slike ass, but it's still standing.  They don't vaporize from office fires, G.  They just don't.  It's never happened before or after 911.  And it happened 3 times ON 9/11, in the same place where videtape picked up lots of bomb blasts and firefightrers reported bomb blasts all over the building.  

We can argue all night, but in the end, it doesn't matter.  You dont understand all these little 911 things that don't make sense with the official story, but you'll call BS on them anyway.  Right?

[240 is Back]

Again, not what he posted is it?  The building collapsed because the fire burned hot enough to weaken the steel to lose its strength and collapse on itself.

WTC7 didn't collapse.
COllapsed buildings look like shit - pancakes stacked.  THey don't vaporize.

500+ feet of steel and concrete becomes 20 feet of molten steel in 7 seconds.  And a cloud of powderized concrete.
Never happened before, hoss.

[Cap]

Giant pools of molten steel under WTC 1,2,7.

They were burning hotter than jet fuel can EVER achieve, 2 to 6 weeks after the collapses.

Plus jet fuel burns up in a few minutes, and a lot of it burned up in the air outside the S tower.

The fire in WTC2 was almost out - two small pockets of office fires.  There were people waving from the gash in the building.  Not exaxctly a raging inferno.



Rosie is a big douche, yes I agree.  But you can google 'madrid fire' and see what a skyscraper completely engulfed in fire looks like after 20 hours of burning.  It look slike ass, but it's still standing.  They don't vaporize from office fires, G.  They just don't.  It's never happened before or after 911.  And it happened 3 times ON 9/11, in the same place where videtape picked up lots of bomb blasts and firefightrers reported bomb blasts all over the building. 

We can argue all night, but in the end, it doesn't matter.  You dont understand all these little 911 things that don't make sense with the official story, but you'll call BS on them anyway.  Right?

Okay I'm going to disregard your post again because it doesn't answer my post and that of Gtbro.  His comment was about her statement that fire NEVER melted steel BEFORE, EVER.  We all know you are the best source of information on every 9/11 or politics so we can all assume you know everything and that you can even read minds and know what I think.  I know, I know nothing at all about the secrets surrounding 9/11 to which you were/are privy. 

I never said WTC 7 BTW.  You did. 

[240 is Back]

The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

I don't konw what else to say.

[240 is Back]

I know, I know nothing at all about the secrets surrounding 9/11 to which you were/are privy. 

I don't konw any secrets.

I know there are simple laws o physics which were violated on 911 supposedly.

And I know there are hundreds of scientists who have come fwd and asked why.

[Cap]

The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

I don't konw what else to say.

From what I understand about the Thermite argument is that sulfur is used as an accelerant which leads to higher temperatures.  Is there any other way that sulfur would be in a 100 story building?  Does anyone honestly think that there were no substances in this elaborate structure that would be accelerants in a fire?  There was a college fire recently that was accelerated to 1200 degrees because of chairs.  It was the hottest fire these Firefighters ever battled.  Interesting as to what can cause fire to burn hotter huh?

[240 is Back]

Evedentally she has never seen an oxy/acetylene torch.

~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

gtbro1,

There is a huge difference in the temperature that burning jet fuel can reach, and the temp that an oxyace torch can reach.  Do you agree?  

[gtbro1]

I suppose you guys can find me ONE BUILDING IN HISTORY that has collapsed from fire?

Post it please.

Remember, WTC7 went from 47 stories of building - into 20 feet of molten metal and tons of 100 cm powderized concrete - in 7 seconds.  Fire doesn't pulverize concrete to this microscopic size, and gravity sure as hell doesnt do it either.  Explosives do.  (Oh yeah - remember that pexky 20- second countdown to demolition? hahaha yes, it was a controlled demolition - and since you cannot wire a building for demolition while it's on fire - we realize it was wired before 9/11.  Then you have to ask why.  Rosie is asking why.  Govt never told us.  So while she's a fat pig, Rosie is being more honest with you than anyone else here)

   I know what she ment...and I am not disputing the point of her statement.I am simply pointing out how stupid her statement sounds(the way she worded it) "impossible for fire to melt steel."

                                 

[gtbro1]

gtbro1,

There is a huge difference in the temperature that burning jet fuel can reach, and the temp that an oxyace torch can reach.  Do you agree?  

 yes it is the added preasurised  oxygen that makes the flame blue and gives the torch the needed heat.

[Dos Equis]

I thought I read something on Huffington Post a little while back that said she backed off those comments?

[240 is Back]

I thought I read something on Huffington Post a little while back that said she backed off those comments?

She may have.  Chances are, she realized you cannot work inside those 5 big media companies and question the official 911 story, even if the majority of americans do.

[Dos Equis]

She may have.  Chances are, she realized you cannot work inside those 5 big media companies and question the official 911 story, even if the majority of americans do.

Yes.  True.  You cannot express opinions like that and expect to keep a job in the mainstream media. 

[240 is Back]

Yes.  True.  You cannot express opinions like that and expect to keep a job in the mainstream media. 

I was reading last night about one of the ten 911 commissioners calling the whole thing a "sham" and a "whitewash".

I watch the news 24/7 and it never made coverage.  Sometimes the mainstrem media baffles me.   They will dedicate a 4 minute clip to a bear who got loose in a grocery store and ate 40 loaves of bread, but they rarely discuss the successes, or failures, happening in Iraq.  It's always "X dead today.  Bush wants more money for war machine.  Pelosi does nothing."

I mean, why doesn't the media point out that enemy numbers have jumped from 15k to 70k over 4 years?  I know, I know, we're winning... but this must be the first war in history where the enemys' numbers quadrupling is comsidered a "win".   Talk about low standards.

[Dos Equis]

I was reading last night about one of the ten 911 commissioners calling the whole thing a "sham" and a "whitewash".

I watch the news 24/7 and it never made coverage.  Sometimes the mainstrem media baffles me.   They will dedicate a 4 minute clip to a bear who got loose in a grocery store and ate 40 loaves of bread, but they rarely discuss the successes, or failures, happening in Iraq.  It's always "X dead today.  Bush wants more money for war machine.  Pelosi does nothing."

I mean, why doesn't the media point out that enemy numbers have jumped from 15k to 70k over 4 years?  I know, I know, we're winning... but this must be the first war in history where the enemys' numbers quadrupling is comsidered a "win".   Talk about low standards.

The media spends plenty of time talking about the "failures" in Iraq.  Very little time talking about "good news." 

The media plays an important role in our society, but they really do cherry pick the news.  They love death, mayhem, and sex scandals.  And they continually play the race card.   

[240 is Back]

The media spends plenty of time talking about the "failures" in Iraq.  Very little time talking about "good news." 
 

To me - a dead american soldier is the biggest news of the day - way bigger than some road that got paved using Haliburton guys and cost 5 times what it should have.

To me - a dead soldier is bigger news than any iraqi news.  But I'm an american.

[Dos Equis]

To me - a dead american soldier is the biggest news of the day - way bigger than some road that got paved using Haliburton guys and cost 5 times what it should have.

To me - a dead soldier is bigger news than any iraqi news.  But I'm an american.

To me, a dead American is news, because I'm an American.  But when the media spends an inordinate amount of time highlighting stories about dead Americans both here and abroad, while ignoring good news, that bothers me. 

[240 is Back]

To me, a dead American is news, because I'm an American.  But when the media spends an inordinate amount of time highlighting stories about dead Americans both here and abroad, while ignoring good news, that bothers me. 

What good news shoulod they be talking about?

Roads?  People moving back?  They don't talk about rebuilding New Orleans on a daily basis, and that doesn't bother me, because it's simple civilian infrastructure.  The same way I don't care if my water company puts in a new pipe or the DOT fixes a road - I dont want to see that on the nightly local news.

What is this big news which you believe is more importance than dead soldiers?  Examples please.

[Dos Equis]

What good news shoulod they be talking about?

Roads?  People moving back?  They don't talk about rebuilding New Orleans on a daily basis, and that doesn't bother me, because it's simple civilian infrastructure.  The same way I don't care if my water company puts in a new pipe or the DOT fixes a road - I dont want to see that on the nightly local news.

What is this big news which you believe is more importance than dead soldiers?  Examples please.

This has been discussed on here, repeatedly.  Some examples of prior discussions:

MM's recent thread:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=181815.0

My old thread about good news in Iraq:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=136148.0

The web site from the "good news in Iraq thread:  http://goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm

My old thread about Koreans in Iraq:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=124408.0