"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:

Comments

Frank | April 26, 2007, 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.

Eric Atkinson | April 26, 2007, 10:31am | #

The witch is dead!
If only.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 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.

Matt L | April 26, 2007, 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.

abdul | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

ed | April 26, 2007, 10:36am | #

Yeah, and erected by fairies.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 10:44am | #

When O'Reilly finally arrives in hell I'm hoping his punishment is eternal sex with Rosie.
And Trump has to watch.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 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?

Mr. F. Le Mur | April 26, 2007, 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? | April 26, 2007, 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!

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

abdul | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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).

Frank | April 26, 2007, 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.

Timon19 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Lichtenberg | April 26, 2007, 10:58am | #

Someone help me here: is LibertyPlease? what's called a troll?

Cain | April 26, 2007, 10:59am | #

Don't forget her coddling of David Kirby and the autism/mercury hucksters.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 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.

vanya | April 26, 2007, 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.

Cab | April 26, 2007, 11:01am | #

Question for Hit & Runners: What percentage of the above statements might you agree with?

About half.

Chris | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Ethan | April 26, 2007, 11:05am | #

I agree with the impeachment comment and the China comment. It probably was just like that in China.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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]

Mojotron3000 | April 26, 2007, 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.

independent worm | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Lichtenberg | April 26, 2007, 11:34am | #

being

Timothy | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

George Clooney | April 26, 2007, 11:37am | #

Oh, no, not again!

thoreau | April 26, 2007, 11:37am | #

Timothy-

This is the sort of thread that filters were made for.

Have fun under the bridge, trolls!

uncle sam | April 26, 2007, 11:38am | #

Rosie has no smile. At least, I've never seen one on her.

Timothy | April 26, 2007, 11:41am | #

thoreau: Yeah, I need to update mine. It doesn't include enough people.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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!)

Cracker's Boy | April 26, 2007, 11:54am | #

"erected by fairies"

Hee hee... fairies.... hee hee... erect... chortle chortle...

CB

Complacent Hit and Runner | April 26, 2007, 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.

Alan Vanneman | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 12:29pm | #

LOL. Diploma mill?

ktc2 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Hugh Akston | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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."

Son of a! | April 26, 2007, 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?)

Lamar | April 26, 2007, 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.

me | April 26, 2007, 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.

Lamar | April 26, 2007, 1:01pm | #

me:

What do you think daytime television is for?

Lamar | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

ed | April 26, 2007, 1:14pm | #

an all-crazy or all-stupid network

Watched MTV lately?

Dave W. | April 26, 2007, 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.

Lamar | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

R C Dean | April 26, 2007, 1:34pm | #

If Asians were not, as a whole, so damned nice, apolitical, forgiving, and--to repeat--nice,

Two words: Virginia Tech.

Dave W. | April 26, 2007, 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.

joe | April 26, 2007, 2:00pm | #

I thought WTC 7 collapsed because it was structurally damaged by the collapses of 1 and 2.

thoreau | April 26, 2007, 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.

highnumber | April 26, 2007, 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.

thoreau | April 26, 2007, 2:04pm | #

And I got the 69th post in this thread!

Lichtenberg | April 26, 2007, 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.

Secret Designer #46512 | April 26, 2007, 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!

Sandy | April 26, 2007, 2:10pm | #

joe, you're just shilling for Big Demolition.

Ethan | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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!"

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 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.

Matt L | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Ethan | April 26, 2007, 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...

Elliott | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Timon19 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Matt L | April 26, 2007, 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.

Timon19 | April 26, 2007, 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)).

Matt L | April 26, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Stairways in all should have been wider, as we now know.

Wider and built inside a reinforced concrete shell.

Lichtenberg | April 26, 2007, 2:33pm | #

And again, another unchallenged ref to ching chong.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 2:38pm | #

The World Trade Center complex is yet another monument to what the anti-asbestos folks have done for us.

Lichtenberg | April 26, 2007, 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?

megs | April 26, 2007, 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. | April 26, 2007, 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?

brotherben | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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. | April 26, 2007, 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.

Mackie | April 26, 2007, 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. | April 26, 2007, 3:02pm | #

--then we would have been treated to video and blackbox tape of the missile going in--

Lichtenberg | April 26, 2007, 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.

Lichtenberg | April 26, 2007, 3:09pm | #

Mackie,

I'm not so sure. And anyway, when is stupid forgiveable?

Mackie | April 26, 2007, 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.

Matt L | April 26, 2007, 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?

Lamar | April 26, 2007, 3:17pm | #

"when is stupid forgiveable?"

It is always forgivable. Hell, I advocated a cable channel dedicated to it.

Dave W. | April 26, 2007, 3:19pm | #

When has a report convinced conspiracy theorists that their pet conspiracy doesn't exist?

We don't need no stinkin' report?

Lichtenberg | April 26, 2007, 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.

Timon19 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Son of a! | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

R C Dean | April 26, 2007, 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.

Three Six Mafia | April 26, 2007, 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

van | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Brandybuck | April 26, 2007, 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.

NewYorican | April 26, 2007, 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

Timon19 | April 26, 2007, 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.

Pro Libertate | April 26, 2007, 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.

Maurkov | April 26, 2007, 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.

Lamar | April 26, 2007, 7:13pm | #

Good thing nobody got Rosie started on the flouridation conspiracy.

Guy Montag | April 26, 2007, 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.

Deus | April 27, 2007, 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 | April 27, 2007, 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.

NewYorican | April 27, 2007, 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.

NewYorican | April 27, 2007, 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."

Mo | April 27, 2007, 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.

NewYorican | April 28, 2007, 11:44am | #

Mo,

True.
And the damage was also at a corner, exacerbating the problem.

Timon19 | April 28, 2007, 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.

Timon19 | April 28, 2007, 2:15pm | #

"...what WERE the limits..."

Jesus, it's like a hillbilly took over my brain for a second.