Scientist Corroborates Rosie O’Donnell’s 9/11 Claim

[DisassociatedDave]

ANN ARBOR, MI (Disassociated Press) April 13, 2007 – Bartholomew J. Sneed, Professor of Physical Sciences at the University of Michigan, has corroborated a recent claim made by Rosie O’Donnell, referring to the collapse of World Trade Tower Seven in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that it is physically impossible for fire to melt steel...

(To read the rest, click onto the link below, or copy/paste it to your web browser. After you’ve finished, be sure to come back to ForumGarden.com!).

http://www.disassociatedpress.com/scro.htm

[spot]

I need this explaining to me. There's no Professor Sneed in the Physics Department at the University of Michigan.

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/physics/people/

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by spot

I need this explaining to me. There's no Professor Sneed in the Physics Department at the University of Michigan.

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/physics/people/

His article makes a lot of sense though :-)

[spot]

How can he write an article if he doesn't exist? Or how can he give an opinion?

The confusion may arise from Bartholomew J. Sneed also being Professor of Linguistic Biology at John Hopkins University while at the same time holding the position of Professor at the University of Wisconsin. He seems something of a polymath.

Rosie O’Donnell did invite expert scientific comment in The View last month, saying (in part) "Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason". Is Bartholomew J. Sneed the reasoned response she called for?

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by spot

How can he write an article if he doesn't exist? Or how can he give an opinion?

The confusion may arise from Bartholomew J. Sneed also being Professor of Linguistic Biology at John Hopkins University while at the same time holding the position of Professor at the University of Wisconsin. He seems something of a polymath.

Rosie O’Donnell did invite expert scientific comment in The View last month, saying (in part) "Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason". Is Bartholomew J. Sneed the reasoned response she called for?

No, but the sarcasm works just as well

[spot]

Sarcasm? Are you suggesting that Bartholomew J. Sneed is a hoax and his comments were lies made up by the reporter in a misplaced attempt at humour?

Absent the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Draft Report on World Trade Tower Seven, due to be issued in "early in 2007" which makes it imminent if somewhat tardy, it seems reasonable for Rosie O’Donnell to invite expert scientific comment. In what way is sarcasm a reasonable response?

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by spot

Sarcasm? Are you suggesting that Bartholomew J. Sneed is a hoax and his comments were lies made up by the reporter in a misplaced attempt at humour?

Absent the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Draft Report on World Trade Tower Seven, due to be issued in "early in 2007" which makes it imminent if somewhat tardy, it seems reasonable for Rosie O’Donnell to invite expert scientific comment. In what way is sarcasm a reasonable response?

“It’s very disappointing,” stated Heck Grimes, a fourth generation steel worker in a Massachusetts fabricator. “Here, we had always thought we had been using fire to help mold steel into forms that could be used to benefit people, and stimulate the economy, when all along, the things we believed we had been making were already just there in the first place.”

would appear to be a very good response to her original comments?