Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Michelle gives Rosie, Truthers some “tough love”

Video: Michelle gives Rosie, Truthers some “tough love”

posted at 6:46 pm on June 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Alas, she continues to ignore the Larger Truth in favor of the real thing. Add 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, subtract modern fireproofing, and the “mystery” here becomes about as profound as an Encyclopedia Brown caper.

I am a little surprised that she thinks this stuff is the purview of an “extreme minority of folks,” though, given the poll numbers Gibby cited to her. I felt like he was waiting for some grand indictment of the left at the end there, and the boss just wasn’t feeling it. That was sporting of her.

Speaking of Trutherism, I’m not sure yet what to make of this. If it’s true, it’s outrageously outrageous. If it’s just standard 9/11 aftermath confusion, fair enough. Either way, the Truthers will have a field day with it: twirling ever-more nefarious conspiracies out of innocent factual errors is their stock in trade.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

3-D Simulation On 911 « Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

Comments

Comment pages:

Encyclopedia Brown …

I really liked those in 3rd grade. I wonder how they’d hold up now?

Probably not as well as “The last starfighter”

—

(I could say somthing about “Truthers” but what more can be said of those who personify ignorance without delving deeply into hyperbole.)

Jones Zemkophill on June 20, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Well, 8% fringe, 25% retarded and there’s your third.

bbz123 on June 20, 2007 at 6:57 PM

I am a little surprised that she thinks this stuff is the purview of an “extreme minority of folks,” though, given the poll numbers Gibby cited to her.

I think it was more along the lines of “an extreme minority of folks are going to keep their tinfoil hats no matter what, but, it’s up to us to wake the rest of the idiots up.”

JadeNYU on June 20, 2007 at 6:59 PM

But how are you going to wake them up? Anyone who still has their tinfoil hat on has it on good and tight. This was never about facts, anyway; it’s about a certain political worldview that’s cherry-picking facts to justify itself.

Allahpundit on June 20, 2007 at 7:03 PM

I thought rosie o fat piggo has an issue with WTC 7 and not the towers?

csdeven on June 20, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Not that O’Donnell isn’t an idiot, but as I recall, even she admitted that the big towers were brought down by the airplanes. Her conspiracies centered on WTC 7 (which of course actually fell due to damage caused by the twin towers falling as well internal fires–Rosie’s failure to recognize as such indicative of the aforementioned idiocy).

To a certain extent a Truther’s a Truther, but those of them who at least accept the testimony of their own eyes when they see videos of the planes actually impacting the WTC towers are a bit farther along than, say, the full-on drool-cuppers of the “Loose Change” crew.

Blacklake on June 20, 2007 at 7:07 PM

They aren’t in search of ‘truth’, they’re in search of religion.

They’re truly basement-dwelling paranoids; black helicopter loonies.

Martin on June 20, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Michelle is right, some of those Gibby mentioned can be convinced with reason and fact. Some, like that brain surgeon, Rosie O, are hopeless. They are as dumb as a box of rocks.

9/11 was a day like no other day in American history. We did the best we could. What else can be said? Were mistakes made? Yes. Was there confusion? Yes. Did Uncle Sam pick himself up off the mat after that horrendous sucker punch and jump into the fight with both feet? Hell yes.

If some of these unhappy, disloyal, yellow bellied traitors want to “imagine” our government orchestrated that day, fine. But they had better not express themselves in front of me. I’m on Uncle Sam’s side.

Zorro on June 20, 2007 at 7:09 PM

I forget which of them mentioned it, but as long as these libs and truthers fixate on “government conspiracies,” they don’t have to accept the reality that it was jihadists who planned and executed the attack. It is easier and more comfortable for them to blame BushCo than to accept the difficult reality: there is evil in the world that wants to eradicate America, truthers included.

Mallard T. Drake on June 20, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Allah, just out of curiosity, how often do you and Michelle talk to each other?

Do you meet face to face often or is it a long-distance work relationship?

I’m probably not the only die-hard with such questions about the operation you folks run admirably.

omnipotent on June 20, 2007 at 7:14 PM

I don’t understand why someone would believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by airplanes, but Building 7 was brough down by Booosh. What would be the point of that??

Unless of course, the airplanes were remote controlled by Bush.

emmaline1138 on June 20, 2007 at 7:15 PM

Allah, just out of curiosity, how often do you and Michelle talk to each other?

We e-mail maybe once a day but that’s the extent of it. MM and Bryan see each other regularly.

Allahpundit on June 20, 2007 at 7:16 PM

Ro is just a chicken truther, afraid to admit the extent of her tinfoil beliefs, unless she really thinks that WTC 7 was wired for demolition just in case some planes flew into the other buildings. She could also believe that Bush knew about the plot and piggybacked the WTC7 demolition onto the AQ operation, which still hides the amount of tinfoil she employs.

rw on June 20, 2007 at 7:20 PM

If some of these unhappy, disloyal, yellow bellied traitors want to “imagine” our government orchestrated that day, fine. But they had better not express themselves in front of me. I’m on Uncle Sam’s side.

Hear hear!

Bob's Kid on June 20, 2007 at 7:21 PM

I agree with Martin (truthers ‘need’ a religion) and Mallard T. (easier to blame BusHitler than face the reaclity of ~10 million Muslims wanting to end Western civilization).

These pathetic folks psychologically NEED for the gov’t to control all aspects of life (hence, all evil stems from the gov’t).

In their worldview, everything can be attributed to man’s dominance over Nature (and each other). Nature can’t win the fight, thus, hurricanes, Global warming, extinction of animals (Oh, what, evolution no longer exists?!?) can all be blamed on mankind. If they had to face up to the reality of Nature (chaos, randomness, fluke occurances) it would drive them MAD! Ooopppss, too late.

omnipotent on June 20, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Thank you for the answer Allah, now we have to get you to show your mug (not coffee either) on a Vent sometime soon (before the End of Days in 2060).

omnipotent on June 20, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Hmmm, I actually dug out one of my Old Encyclopedia Brown books to skim through it.

(I think my personal library exceeds my local county library at this point…)

You know, those books were actually well written for Childrens books. I mean it clearly is a children’s book (A bully named “Bugs Meany”? Seriously.)

But it actually is far more enjoyable than some classical literature I’ve read over the years.

If I had a choice between Encyclopedia Brown, or Madam Bovary… I’d take the Encyclopedia Brown anyday rather than have to read about that “well-bred” narcissistic parasite of a woman.

CURSE YOU CLASSICAL FRENCH LITERATURE!!!!!

And thank you Allahpundit for making me look at some of the old books that were not in my Book-Queue.

Now “Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Checkmate“, “Star Trek Corps of Engineers: Aftermath“, and “National Geographic’s Geography and History of Warfare: Battlegrounds” all get pushed back a day… not to mention my Columbo Season 2 DVDs.

Jones Zemkophill on June 20, 2007 at 7:43 PM

In Rosie’s defense, (can’t believe I’m even sayin’ that), she has only questioned the destruction of WTC7 and not the twin towers.

The Ugly American on June 20, 2007 at 8:30 PM

The fact that MM was on TV is good. Besides, if the rest of the media didn’t give so much time to this maybe, hopefully, it would go away. Probably wishful thinking.

mjkazee on June 20, 2007 at 9:50 PM

Encyclopedia Brown. Wow. I didn’t think anyone else remembered those books. That’s at least 40 years ago. AP, please tell me they were from your parent’s attic, and not still in the school library. Excellent books for precocious kids.

In Rosie’s defense, (can’t believe I’m even sayin’ that), she has only questioned the destruction of WTC7 and not the twin towers.

But the main point is her insistence that the government had a hand in the events of the day. It would require awareness of the main WTC attack to coordinate the “controlled demolition” of WTC7 in such a way as to deflect suspicion. Nothing in that is defensible.

Besides, the Popular Mechanics treatment of WTC7 is utterly conclusive, and their photos of the damaged lower floors of the structure prior to its collapse are more than enough to render the truther arguments DOA.

Freelancer on June 20, 2007 at 9:52 PM

It’s amazing to me that people treat this as “new” information. It isn’t. In April, 2002 Nova (PBS) did a documentary, “Why the towers fell” where they followed a world.

NARRATOR: But what really caused the Twin Towers to collapse? Was their failure inevitable? Or could they have stood longer, giving occupants and emergency crews a better chance for escape? [snip]

NARRATOR: When a blue ribbon team of forensic engineers was asked by the government to determine exactly what triggered the Towers’ collapse, NOVA was there from the beginning, following their quest for answers. [snip]

NARRATOR: From their detailed examination of the Towers’ innovative design to the search for forensic evidence in the molecules of collapsed steel, the investigation team has studied every possible scenario. Could one tower have collapsed for different reasons than the other? Was there something about the Towers—built to maximize rental space—that traded safety for economy?

CHARLES THORNTON (Structural Engineer): A lot of people are saying that the structural engineering of the World Trade Center was miraculously wonderful, that the buildings stood up in the case of two 767s flying into it. I would tend to think they were not as successful as they could have been.

NARRATOR: Was the damage from the explosions and massive fires too great for any building to sustain?

MATTHYS LEVY (Author, Why Buildings Fall Down): As the steel began to soften and melt, the interior core columns began to give. Then you had this sequential failure that took place where it all pancaked—one after the other. [snip]

NARRATOR: Long and thin, these horizontal steel assemblies were connected by bolts to the columns at each end and then welded to the exterior columns for extra support. The trusses were critical for holding the buildings together, and their performance is now at the heart of the investigation into what happened.

Robertson tried to save weight and costs wherever he could. He fireproofed all steel members, including the trusses, with the latest lightweight heat-resistant foam. And he kept the core area light by walling it off with drywall or Sheetrock(TM) rather than concrete.

JONATHAN BARNETT (Professor, Fire Protection Engineering): This is very typical. We often build buildings this way, two layers of Sheetrock on either side of a steel framework. It’s just like you might build a wall, except we use special Sheetrock that’s particularly fire-resistant.

NARRATOR: Although drywall is indeed effective at keeping fire at bay, it has one serious drawback that would reveal itself on September 11th. It’s not very strong, especially when it’s been heated.

The designers of the Trade Center tried to anticipate every possible disaster. The Towers were the first skyscrapers ever explicitly built to survive the impact of a plane.

[snip]

NARRATOR: No one was thinking that there might be even worse to come, but the seeds of destruction that would eventually bring the tower down had already been sown.

These images reveal that spray-on fireproofing was completely blown off critical load-bearing steel, and several of the floor trusses were destroyed. Inside, additional trusses would have been weakened or dislodged, and fireproofing everywhere would have been obliterated.

CHARLES THORNTON: Once the plane hit and the fragments of the plane came through the building, we know it knocked out floors. We also know that it knocked spray-on fireproofing off a lot of the components. Once you lose the spray-on fireproofing you have bare steel. Once you have bare steel you don’t have a fire rating anymore.

NARRATOR: Without fireproofing the steel in the core was now exposed to intense heat.

MATTHYS LEVY: So that fire caused the steel to soften up. The columns in the interior of the core began to soften, buckle, fail. And I saw that the building had really a good chance of collapsing at that point.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

Listen to Nova debunk the truther (this is a recent addition)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

NOVA producer Larry Klein discusses world trade center conspiracy theories with civil engineer S. Shyam Sunder.

TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2007 at 10:01 PM

“These images reveal that spray-on fireproofing was completely blown off critical load-bearing steel”

…and why else would you ‘fireproof’ steel in the first place?

Hmmmm…. Rosie?

The Angel Michael on June 20, 2007 at 10:17 PM

People, people, people!

Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!

TwinkietheKid on June 20, 2007 at 10:27 PM

It is so refreshing to hear Michelle speak to issues such as debunking the “9/11 Truthers”. Her common sense in the face of those on the Left, who it seems will say anything to gain political advantage, is a breath of fresh air.

omegaram on June 20, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Michelle is right, some of those Gibby mentioned can be convinced with reason and fact. Some, like that brain surgeon, Rosie O, are hopeless. They are as dumb as a box of rocks.

I think she’s right too.

The conspiracy ‘group’ fantasy is a big draw also.

Government conspiracy theory clubs feed the need generated by the accusation of secret meetings, black helicopters and devious dealings.

Speakup on June 20, 2007 at 11:02 PM

The fact of the matter, is that you can’t convince these “Truthers” otherwise. You’re assuming these Truthers are logical and rational. They’re not. If they were, they wouldn’t be holding these opinions about 9/11 that are nothing less than ridiculous.

It reminds me of the people who think Waco was a government conspiracy, or better yet, that OJ was innocent. They could be watching videotape of OJ slaughtering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, and that wouldn’t change their opinion.

Glad this Purdue study came out. But is it going to CHANGE anyone’s opinions? Not a chance.

asc85 on June 20, 2007 at 11:13 PM

It’s so sad that we have to PROVE what actually happened. That’s what 13 years in public school does for you.

Mojave Mark on June 20, 2007 at 11:55 PM

I had my run-ins with this greasy sadistic weasel before, and I knew this was not my lucky day.

Courage.

Jaibones on June 21, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Alla, I like Hot Airs layout a heck of lot better than the new one Michelle has. Really. Pardon me MM but it sucks. Big time. Who’s bright idea was it to change it to something so schmucky. It is hard as hell t read. What was wrong with the other one? I thought it was pretty darned nice. Really M. Go back to the original. Quickly. Thank You.

auspatriotman on June 21, 2007 at 1:33 AM

I recently watched a show about people who believe that we never landed on the moon. They refuse to look at facts and speak with people at NASA,who have offered to meet with them and give them some info to help them see the light.

What is so disturbing about this has to do with so many people living in this country with US citizenship wanting to believe that the current administration was behind this. It’s incredible.

Hening on June 21, 2007 at 8:01 AM

I asked a truther once to try to explain the “take down 2 buildings with planes and 1 with explosives” theory, and he said that Bushitler found out about the Al Qaeda plot before hand, but instead of just standing down our defenses, they planted explosives in the buildings in order to increase the casualty count to cause sufficient outrage to start the endless war. When I asked about the Pentagon, he responded, “We may never know the truth.” Wow.

BohicaTwentyTwo on June 21, 2007 at 8:58 AM

If Pearl Harbor and the associated conspiracy theories dogging FDR’s legacy are any indication, we’re not going to get rid of this banal discussion for a long time, I’m afraid. Even worse, misbeliefs about our Civil War still are rampant in the South 140 years after the fact. Back to 9/11/01, I’d say it looks like we’re going to be fighting this fight longer than we’ll be alive.

Perhaps people don’t like owning up to the reality that we got hit; to them, perhaps it feels less frightful to say that, yeah, we really just did that to ourselves. We’ve got to fight that, though. After all, al qaeda is still surely trying to hit us again.

As for WTC7, all that fire from the twin towers had to go somewhere. It wasn’t put out by their collapse, after all. I can’t remember; was WTC7 on fire at some point?

Even if it wasn’t on fire, the building had taken too much. Here’s an interesting article:

flutejpl on June 21, 2007 at 9:37 AM

The tiny clip, the part showing the spread of the fuel in the interior of the building, set a nagging jangle went off in the back of my head.

“That reminds me of something” kept niggling in my brain.

Then it hit me.

The airplanes were homemade FAEs, Fuel Air Explosives.

Ten. Thousand. Pound. FAEs.

Controlled demolition my ass.

see

N. O'Brain on June 21, 2007 at 11:59 AM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/fae.htm

N. O'Brain on June 21, 2007 at 11:59 AM