Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Popular Mechanics debunks Rosie... with a lie


Everyone by now is (or should be) familiar with Rosie O'Donnell's rants on The View recently, in which she single-handedly brought the as-yet-unexplained implosion of WTC7 back to the forefront of the 9/11 discussion.

Her words were met with scorn and ridicule by the usual suspects: the braintrust at FoxNews, the armchair 'debunkers', 'renowned metallurgist' Jonah Goldberg, and now the nattering nabobs of nincompoopery, Popular Mechanics, have chimed in on their blog.

PM's derisive 'debunkings' of the 9/11 Truth movement, and the straw-man tactics which they've employed in the process, have become the stuff of legend among the 'bunkers', and they're always diligent in giving the appearance of a strong backing by 'the experts'.

But in this case, PM is 100% WRONG on the facts, and their mis-characterization (whether intentional or not) is perhaps the most glaring example yet of their abandonment of scientific method in favor of regurgitated propaganda.

And now, to the quotes:


Rosie:

"I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible."


PM:
"Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word 'melted': Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure."


-

FEMA 403 Appendix C, an examination of steel recovered from WTC7 and WTC 1 or 2:

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure" - FEMA 403 C-1.


"The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 C (1,800 F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel." - FEMA 403 C-2


It seems clear from the above quotes that FEMA's experts (Jonathan Barnett, Ronald Biederman, and Richard D. Sisson, Jr. ) saw visible evidence of melted steel.

Thus, Popular Mechanics fundamentally misstates the case with their attempt to disallow the use of the word 'melted'.

PM goes on to say that NIST's 2006 WTC7 Progress Report "points out that 'NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.' ", without bothering to mention that NIST has also claimed, and continues to claim, that "no steel was recovered from WTC7" .

NIST, in this case, appears to be inexplicably unaware of the existence of the above-referenced steel samples from FEMA 403, Appendix C.

That, for NIST, is called 'plausible deniability'. As long as they contend that the WTC7 steel samples don't exist, they can continue to insist that they've found "no evidence", and keep their 'investigation' in the realm of the hypothetical.

It is also the epitome of bad science, to ignore empirical data because it invalidates pre-determined conclusions.

The editors of PM, in their latest desperate attempt at 'debunking', seem to be skating on some rather thin ice as we enter the Spring Thaw...

2 comments:

stinker said...

This has probably been posted before, but there is a new book out by Dr. David Ray Griffin “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory”
www.amazon.com/Debunking 9-11 Debunking

-

hANOVER fIST said...

You don't need a book...you just need a basic understanding of physics.

And a modicum of common sense.

If you could melt steel with fires...what are our ovens made from?

I don't even need to ask that of you, dear readers...I'm sure you've seen controlled demolition collapses...THAT is what you saw on September 11th, 2001.