Rosie O'Donnell Is A 9/11 Nut-Job

The video above can also be viewed here: Meltdown on the View

Rosie O'Donnell demonstrates (once again) in the above clip that she is a deeply confused woman.

Thankfully, Popular Mechanics magazine has answered Rosie's confused claims in a point by point response. You can read the response here: Rosie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds

The response also links to this article: Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story: PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11

Poor Rosie. She's battling depression by hanging upside down (and taking anti-depressants) and having vicious public feuds with all sorts of people and she is paranoid about the United States government. It seems like she can't be very happy, which is odd, since we're all supposed to see how wonderfully happy and fulfilled her alternative lifestyle has made her.

If you haven't seen how Rosie hangs upside down, it's worth a look: Video: Rosie battles depression on “The View”

The video underneath the one of Rosie hanging upside down (from the link above) features Greg Gutfeld, the host of Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld on the FOX News Channel and a conservative contributor to the Huffington Post. I have never seen his show, but when I saw the clip of him talking about Rosie, I very nearly spit out the water I was drinking.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Jim Treacher]

If you like Gutfeld, be sure to check out The Daily Gut! (He posts there every few weeks.)

[Geoff Stevenson]

Popular Mechanics? You can hear Popular Mechanics' David Coburn making an ass of himself and the entire "Debunking 9/11" movement, as he fails, live on air, to answer some basic questions arising from the alleged "debunk"

http://www.yannone.org/audio/goyettepopmech.mp3

From the website at

http://flogcast.blogspot.com/2006/08/popular-mechanics-struggles-to-support.html

Perhaps YOU can answer the questions?

The original Radio program exchange can be heard here -

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

A transcript of the on-air destruction of Popular Mechanic's 'rebuttal' appears below

(Transcript)

PM - Popular Mechanics: Davin Coburn “researcher, editor, reporter on the original 9/11 article”
CG - Charles Goyette, Radio Show Host

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?

PM: Very little… there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.

CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven’t seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.

PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material…

CG: I’ve talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they’re not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don’t really show much of anything.

PM: They don’t show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it’s not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.

CG: Are you telling me that’s the only video?

PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they’re still being used for various investigations.

CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it’s five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?

PM: I think there’s plenty of evidence out there…

CG: It’s not the evidence we’ve seen that we’re concerned about, it’s the evidence we haven’t seen. Does that make any sense?

PM: Oh sure it makes sense…. The evidence is abundant…

CG: It’s the dog that didn’t bark… We know the evidence we’ve seen, that doesn’t cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don’t see. It’s not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?

PM: “Hearst.”

CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, “Oh shut up, you peons don’t know what you’re talking about, everything’s fine, keep on moving, there’s nothing to see here.” Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn’t it?

PM: (does not answer this question)

CG: …I want to come back to the unseen evidence - the dog that didn’t bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle - where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..

PM: It’s not up to us…

CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don’t know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We’re told who did it, we’ve invaded two countries in response to it, we’ve spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?

PM: How can I answer the question?

CG: Because you don’t know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?

PM: (Cannot answer question)

CG: …Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics…say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed… there was damage to Building 7…. What we found out was…about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it… Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower…

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true… I go, oh that’s interesting…if that’s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you’ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn’t show that. So I’m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don’t show me the picture.

PM: …We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate….

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that’s a fine kettle of fish, isn’t it? ….What did you see there that I can’t see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that’s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You’re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they’ve done the worst possible thing, they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn’t know we had different classes of citizens. You can’t tell me it’s because it’s a criminal case because they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: ….I can’t answer that question.

CG: I know you can’t.

PM: (is speechless)….

…Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, “We’re alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We’re alive and well.” How do you explain that one?

PM: It was one BBC report - I am saying that is false.

Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?

PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes…

Caller: What remains?

PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.

Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven’t heard anything about autopsy reports.

CG: I want to know, even if we presume you’re correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh…I mean, where the hell did they get it? You’re not even talking sensibly with me.

PM: Off the top of my head, I don’t know the answer to that.

CG: Of course you don’t.

PM: I’ll get back to you with it.

CG: Is that a promise?

PM: I will do my best.

CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he’s gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had…hijacked those planes. Good, I’d like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?

PM: No, actually I don’t…

CG: You don’t understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers’ DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against - Do you think that’s bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it’s conspiratorial just to want to know?…You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers…

PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that’s worth answering….

CG: …You’ve told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You’re the one with the answers, I’m not. I just ask questions.

PM: …A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over….

CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we’ve invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we’re gonna spend trillions of dollars. It’s not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What’s so hard about that?

PM: The way that you’re framing it is intentionally…

CG: Of course it is, ’cause it’s five years later and we haven’t heard the answer. And you haven’t given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that’s it. You see, it’s the way I’m framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.

PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.

CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that’s it. Hey Davin, thanks…the Charles Goyette Show.

END

[Thomistic]

Geoff,

Where is the evidence that you are playing with a full deck of cards?

I am aware of the evidence I have available, but what concerns me more is the evidence that I imagine might be available.

Until you produce every bit of evidence I can possibly conceive of, including evidence I only suspect exists, but may not actually exist in reality, I think it safe to continue in the assumption that you are not playing with a full deck of cards.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Geoff Stevenson]

Hi Thomistic. You are unlikely to see the full deck of cards, are you, when 5 years after the event, video footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon, has still not been made available. All it takes to stop the conspiracy theorists dead in their tracks, is for all that video - not just 5 frames - to be released. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Quite simple.

[James]

Rosie needs God.

But if she insists on rejecting Him, she will end up with what she wanted.

James

[Thomistic]

Geoff,

I am sorry that you feel upset that the United States government doesn't explain everything to you and/or check with you about all real or imagined evidence pertaining to the Pentagon, which is the headquarters for our national defense.

Even though the government is frequently slow in releasing information and is allowed to have secrets, I understand that it can be hard when you have paranoid fears and firmly believe that you are entitled to information from the United States government on a timetable where you determine what is a reasonable delay in producing evidence that may or may not exist in order to confirm your theories.

I can see how that would keep you up at night.

Tell me, Geoff, have you ever been videotaped entering a hospital with a mental health wing in it? I suspect that you have been in a hospital, and it is likely that such a hospital had a mental ward in it. Why can't you produce frames from the video cameras in that hospital to prove that you were not, in fact, brought in under restraint as a patient for that mental ward?

Additionally, I continue to await the evidence that you are playing with a full deck.

Until you produce every bit of evidence I can possibly conceive of with respect to your mental health, including evidence I only suspect exists, but may not actually exist in reality, I think it safe to continue in the assumption that you are not playing with a full deck of cards.

Based on things you have said so far, I strongly suspect that as far as the inner workings of your brain are concerned, the wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead.

Can you produce proof of life for the hamster, Geoff? If not, can you show me the autopsy papers? What DNA was the hamster compared to in order to determine that it is your dead hamster?

If the hamster is alive, can you please produce a physician's report indicating as much? (You may have to pull the hamster out of your posterior, along with your head.)

Until you produce such evidence as I have suggested, I can only conclude that you are hiding things and are, in fact, an insane person.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Geoff Stevenson]

Hi Thomistic.

If I had ever been commited to a mental hospital and as a result 100,000 civilians died in an illegal war, Afghanistan was invaded and the individual-rights sapping Patriot Act had been pushed through in the USA, then any video footage of that commital would become important. Especially when all video evidence of that commital had been confiscated and held for the next 6 years.

Your argument consists, basically, of asserting that the official line, and only the official line, regarding 9/11, can be accepted as 'the truth'.

Incidentally, I was wondering if perhaps you could produce any proof af God? What do you mean, "No"?

I guess that means God doesn't exist then. Thanks for the line in argument .. it's ... errr ... enlightening.

[James]

I wonder, Thomistic, what part of the US government the US government will want to blow up next?

James

[MJ]

Hey now, chillax guys.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion about the war, about 9-11.

I've read articles in The New American (a conservative Catholic magazine) that the US government knew certain things about 9-11 before it happened.

I suspect, like Pearl Harbor, that there are many things that the government isn't, hasn't and won't tell us.

Whether it's a conspiracy or not, I don't know.

Have ya'll heard of Waco? When the government went in and killed an entire community of people who were living peacefully on their own land in their own housing complex? Our government went in and gassed them to death, and ran them over with tanks. Insanity, that's what that is.

I definitely think our government is hiding things.

I definitely think that our government is messed up.

And what about the fact that Bush, just days after being voted into office, did the very thing he said he wouldn't do? He messed with the state's rights and started that nonsense "No Child Left Behind" thing. He claimed he was pro-life, I ask you, what exactly has he done in the years he's been in office to reverse the horrors of abortion?

I don't have too much faith in him.

I hope Ron Paul gets elected.

Geoff, what sort of proof are you asking for that God exists? A video tape? Comeon, we can prove that God exists without a video tape. That analogy wasn't the best.

[stinker]

Check out the new book by Dr. David Ray Griffin “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory”

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/sr=1-4/qid=1168895874/ref=sr_1_4/102-3028549-2492937?ie=UTF8&s=books

Also, check out the Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Government Officials, Professors, 9-11 Survivors and Family Members who have expressed significant criticism of the 9-11 Commission Report and/or allege government complicity in 9-11 found here:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

[Thomistic]

Geoff,

Here is proof for the existence of God. It was written a long time ago by a man named St. Thomas Aquinas.

I hope this helps you: The existence of God

Pax,

Thomistic

[Imprimartin]

The US Government has screwed up sometimes but we all have. You all need to cut them some slack.

They are allowed to have secrets and have a right not to release whatever they want.

Have a nice day.

Martin

[Qualis Rex]

I am not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch, and yes, there are facts and evidence the government has still not released regarding 9/11 regardless of how much certain segments of the public would like to see them. That's just the way it is. Not a cover-up conspiracy, but most likely a) lack of coordination and communication between departments and b) censoring of materials which may be deemed in any way incriminatory or embarassing to any individuals. For instance, if the structure of building 7 were to reveal shoddy workmanship of a government contractor or if a photo of the plane crashing into the Pentagon were also to reveal a top ranking general caught on the toilet. That type of thing.

This is evidenced in one of the most popular conspiracy theories of all time (no...not THE most popular, which is the JFK assassination): the Rosenberg trials. For generations and over 50 + years supporters, family and general conspiracy theorists have claimed the trials were rigged, the Rosenbergs were innocent and that the whole event was a conspiracy. Their main evidence was the fact that the FBI had classified documents and would not release the evidence to the public citing the interests of national security. It was only in the past few years that the FBI finally released the documents which clearly evidenced that Julius Rosenberg was in fact absolutely guilty of espionage and high treason, and Ethel was either complicit or active in his efforts. The documents also revealed a number of US and foreign operatives as well as the quantity and gravity of the secrets passed by the Rosenberg's, which was why it was not released to the public for so long.

I'm not saying "just sit back, trust and obey your government completely." But I am saying there are many other reasons why government organizations do not release data and evidence to the public besides those of a conspiracy cover-up.

As an aside, MY biggest issue with how the the whole 9/11 event was handled is how ALL the members of the Bin Ladin family residing in the US got fast-tracked out of the country without being interrogated or even debriefed for so much as a "Ya think you can try and call him on your cell-phone to see where he is?" Unfortuntatly, our current government is firmly in the pockets of the Mohammedians.

[James]

There is nothing true you could say which would not cause Rosie O'Donnell to lose it. Let's see:

God's moral Law exists;

Denying your children their fathers is wrong;

Sexual perversion is wrong;

The United States is not the supreme evil of the world;

The hearts of terrorists are infected with evil;

Being nice to terrorists won't disinfect their hearts of evil;

Average people think you're a loon;

I think my daughter should listen to you for 1/2 hr. a day, so she will never want to become lesbian.

You're not what a woman is meant to be.

And so on, and so on.

Rosie needs help - not an audience.

James

[Rev. Mike]

Just a note to Rosie O'Donnell. Yes fire melts steel that's how it is made. Just ask any steelworker you can find on the East Coast you don't need a Yale or Harvard Proffessor. I learned long ago that arguing with consopiracy theorists is a waste of time it only frustrates me and angers the conspiracy cult follower.

[Qualis Rex]

Um...who asked any opinion from a Protestant?

[MJ]

Hey there, Qualis Rex. I for one commend a Protestant for reading a Catholic blog. We all should.

Just because someone is Protestant doesn't mean they can't voice their opinion.

This isn't a "Catholics-only" blog.

:-)

[Qualis Rex]

Protestants are of course free to read anything they want. The more Catholic theology they read the better. But the name of this blog happens to be "Roman Catholic Blog" in case you missed it. As a Catholic, I hear far too much Protestant "opinion" and rhetoric (see: blather) as it is unfortunately pervasive in this society, as they are often taken as spokesmen for "christians" by Jews, Mohammedans and the secular media, all of which LOVE to quote them making stomach-turning comments like "the earth is actually 6000 years old" or "there were definitely dinosaurs aboard Noah's ark" etc. I guess I was under the hopes that this might be at least one refuge from the heretic.

[MJ]

Qualis Rex,

We Catholics can't hide under rocks. We can't ostracize and shut out other religions and peoples - how will we ever gain converts this way?

This isn't to say that we should associate with those who place us in an occasion of sin, but if we see that someone of another religion is open to Catholicism, we should encourage them and welcome them to the blog, to the forums, etc (unless they start preaching to us or blasting us Catholics, then we have the right to ask them to stop).

[Imprimartin]

Qualis Rex,
Besides, it's not as if this is a catholic topic (i.e. salvation, et al). This is something we can agree on.

I too, share your frustration when the media portrays the protestant outlook as the official christian outlook. But that's no reason to bad mouth a protestant who is simply trying to impart wisdom regarding conspiratists.

Martin

[Qualis Rex]

Martin, if you want to believe a Protestant can "impart wisdom" then go right ahead.

and this is where it starts. : (

[MJ]

Qualis Rex,

Just because a guy has a religion other than the One True Faith doesn't mean that he's stupid or ignorant. It just means that he's misled, that he's in error, and we should be charitable towards him, not shoo him away when he approaches us.

Put yourself in his shoes.

[Imprimartin]

Geez, dude.

I believe that because protestants see salvation in a flawed way, their view of God is flawed and imperfect.

But to suggest that protestants are incapable of wisdom is bigotry.

Even the catechism says that there is some good in all religions. Bearing in mind that those same good things are also found in catholicism, sometimes we catholic humans need reminding of what we already know.

Sometimes, that reminding can be done by a protestant.

As the saying goes, even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Martin

[Qualis Rex]

Martin,

the catechism does NOT say there is some good in all relgions. It says "It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men," 2104 I did not say Protestants, Muslims or any other cult or creed are incapable of wisdom. I personally prefer to get my doses of wisdom from those who come from sound theology. Once again, if you want to get your "wisdom" from Protestants or need them to remind you of what you already know, then so be it. "By their fruits shall they be known". Matt 7:16

[MJ]

Of course we all prefer to get our Wisdom from our own Catholic Faith, from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologica, from St. Augustine, etc, etc - no one disputes that.

Look, we Catholics aren't an elitist group. We're priviledged and blessed to have the Truth, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, but just because we have that we shouldn't act like we're above everyone else because we're not.