Loud and...

I have always thought that the most ineffective debating tools were: simply shouting down an opponent, using the "case closed" approach, as if your words were the final solution, equating opinion and interpretation to fact, not offering the opportunity for rebuttal, and inferring that anyone who might not agree with your case is somehow less intelligent.

Of course, the majority of public debates are handled in such a fashion these days. My favorite tactic is the one where a participant attempts to shout-down the opponent, as if you can win a debate by virtue of simply having a bigger mouth and more lung capacity. There is no doubt that such a practice can end a debate, but it certainly doesn't prove the point.

I was fully prepared to sit down and write a scathing, inflammatory response to the latest rant from Rosie O'Donnell. She states that she has no doubt that the events of 9/11 were not perpetrated by a group of foreign terrorists, but in fact, these attacks were carried out by operatives acting under the command of our own government.

Of course, now there are cries for her head on a silver platter. The right-wing is demanding that she be fired from her job on The View. She's being compared to Jane Fonda, she's being called a traitor. Of course, her defenders are out in force as well, loud and clear.

I don't believe Rosie should be fired. I don't want her head on a platter. I say, simply let her have her rants, her raves, and go on to the next thing. In my opinion, this is not a matter of politics. It's a case of a highly-opinionated, extremely vocal woman doing what she does best: drawing attention to herself.

She is not, in my opinion, any different than Ann Coulter, at least in her tactics. They have different ideologies, of course, but whether a punch to the nose is thrown with the right fist or left, it's still likely to sting. Shout something in English. Shout it in Spanish. You're still shouting. And making a ridiculous statement as a Liberal doesn't mean it's any less ridiculous. This is not a political issue, it's a matter of noise.

O'Donnell cites seemingly factual material which is highly subjective at best. She claims that the buildings could not have fallen as described because fire cannot melt steel.

She is a very literal person, and those who choose to argue with her need to choose their words very carefully, because she is very liberal (as in free, not political) with her interpretations of data.

I don't think anyone with any knowledge of steel-making would dispute that the temperatures inside those burning buildings ever reached the temperatures required to create molten steel. The jet fuel burned at temperatures somewhere in the area of 1500 degrees, while steel would become molten liquid only at about 2500-2700 degrees.

On that basis, the explanation would have to be that something else went on in those Towers, no?

Of course, she failed to note that at 1200 degrees, steel loses half its strength. She also failed to note that the structures would give way and collapse long before the steel became molten. If I were as literal as she was with my interpretations, I could refute her statement that "fire doesn't melt steel" by simply stating that "steel is very much melted with fire", because they burn combustible materials to melt the steel. And most of the experts agree that the buildings fell as a result of three factors: structural damage caused by the actual impact of the 200,000+ pounds aircraft, the displacement of the fireproofing, and the heat of the fires. No single one of those factors would have likely caused the collapse on their own.

And I'm sure I could, with the help of the right scientific teams, go in and analyze the debris that's been left. If I were to find samples of the materials necessary to construct a nuclear warhead. Would I then be correct in drawing the conclusion that the buildings were brought down by nuclear explosion?

We can all cite studies. We can search the Internet just the way Rosie suggests. And for every scrap of evidence she finds in support of her theories, I could come up with one to refute her theories. There have been studies by teams in support of the "conspiracy theories." There have been studies put together to dispel those "theories." The studies I tended to give credence to were the ones that were conducted for the purposes of finding out what we need to do to prevent those kind of cataclysmic collapses from ever happening again. The bias there is saving lives, not assigning blame, or furthering political agendas.

This debate could go on and on...how could they possibly have planted the amount of charges necessary to bring down buildings of those magnitude, populated daily by that many people, and never have been spotted? Why would the government have Flight 93 crash in a field? Would well trained operatives have left anyone in a position to combat them, as was the case on United 93? And why wouldn't they have done more damage, or for that fact, more precise damage if they'd attacked the Pentagon with a guided missile? At this point, we all have our opinions and interpretations.

But we all have opinions, and we all have intepretations. None are right or wrong, they're simply ours. I don't have the expertise to debate the issue scientifically. I simply interpret the material offered to me, and draw my own conclusions. I am not an expert, and I would be foolish to stand up and tell any one of you accept my interpretations or opinions as fact. Our parents should be the only ones in our lives to get away with saying "because I said so!"

I don't want anything to happen to Rosie O'Donnell. I think she should just be allowed to go on doing what she is doing every day because she has little or no credibility, in my opinion. And it's my opinion; I'm not telling you how to feel about her. She employs all the wrong tactics. A classic example of the "no room for rebuttal" is the fact that she doesn't allow anyone to comment on her blog. She makes her statements, and shuts the doors. She shouts down opponents, resorts to namecalling and other mocking behavior when she is challenged. Her answer to argument would likely be "because I say so." And that shoots her credibility in the foot. I don't think she's wrong in her opinions and interpretations, although I do think she tends to be irresponsible in using the platform that she's been given.

If Rosie O'Donnell had more credibility, I'd have probably been more upset, and likely to have launched that tirade. But to me, she's nothing more than a noisy celebrity simply exercising her lungs, and her rights. She's not likely to foment the overthrow of our government. She's just a talking head on a show that I don't watch.

This topic is very important to me. I watched those Towers that day in person, with my own eyes. I had friends who died in those buildings. And I'd like to think that my words and opinions would matter a whole lot more than they do. But I have to remember that those facts would probably skew my judgement a little. So my credibility would probably be questionable as well. So I don't pass judgement on Rosie O'Donnell's views on the subject. I simply hear or read them, interpret them for what they are, and move on.

We all, in this country, have two options here. We can believe that our nation came under attack by a group of foreign combatants, and that they declared war on us on 9/11/01. Or we can believe that our own government perpetrated one of the most hideous crimes in American history against its own citizens.

It's going to take someone far more intelligent, informed and credible to convince me to ever accept the latter.

Oh, and my comments section is wide open to anyone who'd like to state their own opinion. However, telling me to "get a life" or anything insulting along those lines, will result in your comment being deleted.

Because I said so.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.