Deep Politics Forum

Dr. Lynn Margulis, 1938-2011: A Beacon of Light for 9/11 Truth PDF Print E-mail
Written by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Monday, 19 December 2011 17:37

Even though Dr. Lynn Margulis was best known for her breakthroughs in science, perhaps her greatest contribution was her public support for a real 9/11 investigation

Dr. Lynn Margulis appears quite courageously in AE911Truth's new DVD documentary, "9/11: Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out", in which she notes:

You can't do science when you are deprived of the evidence, and when your hypothesis is the least valid, instead of the most likely.

The most likely hypothesis, in the case of Building 7, wasn't even mentioned. This is not science. So the claim is that it's something else? It's trying to prove preconceived ideas.

AE911Truth is honored by its important relationship with Dr. Margulis and will be dedicating the Final Edition of "Experts Speak Out" to her memory.

The family of Lynn Margulis announced that she died at home on Tuesday, November 22, at the age of 73. She had suffered a serious hemorrhagic stroke on Friday, November 18 - so serious that there was no chance of recovery.

Having authored dozens of books and scientific papers, Margulis was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999.

In 2004, she began looking into the evidence against the official account of 9/11. She not only accepted it, but also always known for her courage - announced her views, writing in 2007:

"Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork.

Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization. I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."



In early 2010, she wrote an article on WTC 7 entitled "Two Hit, Three Down The Biggest Lie". Asking: "Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1, #2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by hijacked airplanes'?," she gave the scientific answer:

"Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition. Two 110-story buildings (towers 1 & 2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation, which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The buildings' steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime."
While many scientists remember Margulis's selection for the National Medal of Science, her appearance in the new film, 9/11: Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out may have the most enduring impact

But much more difficult than the scientific question, she said, is the "science-education problem":

"The persistent problem is how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public, of the overwhelming evidence that the three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition. . . . We, on the basis of hard evidence, must conclude that the petroleum fires related to the aircraft crashes were irrelevant (except perhaps as a cover story)."

The scientific world, including the 9/11 Truth Community - she was a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth - has lost one of our noblest, most courageous fighters for the Earth and the Truth.

What sort of research did she do? Seems to me that she looked at the 911 truth case and decided it made more sense that the OCT... and lent her name to the truth movement. I didn't see any research that she did on 911. Please cite.

She said

"Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition. Two 110-story buildings (towers 1 & 2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation, which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The buildings' steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime."
While many scientists remember Margulis's selection for the National Medal of Science, her appearance in the new film, 9/11: Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out may have the most enduring impact

But much more difficult than the scientific question, she said, is the "science-education problem

Gravitationally accelerated rates Could you explain what that is please?

The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation Were they an apparition or were they part of the operation?

First she says Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted then she says The buildings' steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime. How does she know they were melted if they were quickly removed from the scene of the crime?

Frankly these are embarrassing statements by someone who is supposed to be a scientist. So much for experts...

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:What sort of research did she do?

It was at a very elementary level, her use of her brain...:

""You can't do science when you are deprived of the evidence, and when your hypothesis is the least valid, instead of the most likely.

The most likely hypothesis, in the case of Building 7, wasn't even mentioned. This is not science. So the claim is that it's something else? It's trying to prove preconceived ideas."

Dr. Lynn Margulis, 1938-2011: A Beacon of Light for 9/11 Truth

"In 2004, she began looking into the evidence against the official account of 9/11. She not only accepted it, but also always known for her courage announced her views, writing in 2007:[TABLE="width: 160, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Read more >>

I suppose what Lynn did was look at what was presented to her as evidence. I suspect this is pat of the problem I have with some who use their brains well... they accept the *evidence* statements that others make... and do not vet them, verify, or test them. However based on what they believe is sound evidence they reach a logical conclusion. I believe that not only is the very common but it is understandable because we all can't verify, vet, test and do fundamental research about most things. We simply accept what some *expert* says.

An example might be the duration of the collapse/destruction of the twin towers. For one thing it is quite difficult to fix the end of the event... because it was shrouded in a dust cloud. Also the core stood very several seconds after the floors were gone... is this considered when duration is taken into account? How do we know that there was acceleration of the collapse destruction? Obviously there was acceleration since the movement began from 0 velocity. But when we drive, for example, we start at 0 velocity... accelerate to say 40 mph and then drive at that constant speed until we come to a traffic signal and then decelerate to 0. Most of the duration of the journey was at 40 mph... the average was lower...there were periods of acceleration and deceleration. To describe the motion we need to have a detailed time/distance study.

And in the case of the towers collapse time/distance studies have been done for portions of the destruction where it was possible. Those studies reveal the the motion was NOT accelerating but moving at 65 mph. If this is true can we assume that the the velocity stayed constant or accelerated or slowed down for the parts we can't see which were obscured by fall debris? Don't know.

But we shouldn't be stating that the towers collapsed at *close to free fall* acceleration... because that is not an accurate statement... that is not a fact, and therefore it can't be used as *evidence* of some process. Whatever the behavior of the parts of the building as it came apart is or would be evidence of what was going on. But we need to have real data before we can interpret the meaning of it.

My sense is that many people are not looking at real data derived from the visual record and instead taking conclusions more from assumptions that facts and data.

Another example is the collapse of bldg 7. There was a period of 2.25 seconds which was clocked at free fall acceleration. But what was actually clocked at that rate? The FACADE of the building... we can't tell if the entire bulk of the building was dropping at that rate because we are only looking at the skin... the curtain wall of the building. YES THAT is dropping at FF for 2.25 seconds... THAT had nothing below it to resist its descent. But that was not RESTING on any columns. There is some visual evidence to strongly suggest that there was actually nothing behind and attached to the curtain wall facade when it cam down. For one, we saw the east Penthouse drop down BEFORE the facade moved downward. This implies that the portions beneath the East penthouse were *gone* and so at least that portion was gutted or *not there*. Secondly as we see the collapse we observe an inward bowing of the curtain wall... and a distortion of it as well. This too, suggests that there was nothing behind the curtain wall to support it... and that what we saw was not the building collapsing, but the curtain wall collapsing. Regardless we need to explain how the floors, and structure of the building collapsed before the facade... But we need to begin with accurate observations and data... not sloppy conclusions that the building was descending at FF for 2.25 seconds... when the observation was that the facade was descending at 2.25 seconds at FF. If we don't use accurate observations we can't expect to understand what we are seeing.

Neither of the above examples means that the collapses were natural events. We don't know. But framed as we often hear is really unsound conclusions and sloppy science... and it's deceptive... and nothing more than garbage in equals garbage out.

Lynn should know better. Trust but verify... I see trust... but I don't see any verification.

ANOUSHKA SHANKAR
Breathing under water (9:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_HT-d8W1...re=related

[U]***
[/U]

Jeffrey, like many who play around with the analysis of state crimes against democracy (and other forms of government -- budding, fixed, seemingly secure behinds its redoubts -- pun intended), you are chattering among the leaves of the tree, thus in full agreement with Salandria's insight that it is in the minutiae where the argument gets prolonged and bogs down. Your arguments seem logical enough, but you missed my point (and, more importantly, Margulis') that your logical error exists much higher on the logic/decision/science/evidence tree).

The issue may be reduced (but perhaps I am taking liberties, or in error) to the statement about the preposterousness of the very idea inside the official story, or the officially released evidence, or the officially sanctioned explanations. There is little reason to examine the logic and science behind the official story because it, in itself, is illogical..., that the hypotheses put forth in its defense (or, if you insist, against its detractors) tentatively and then assuredly and then changingly..., and then with multiple explanations, pathways, and other forms of cognitive infiltration. Now we have the many leaves to get lost in, unable to see the target, like Salandria hinted.

And, as Salandria stated, it was plainly obvious to anyone not wearing layer of scales on their eyes, or blinders around them, what occurred in Dealey Plaza.

It is equally plainly obvious what happened on that "severe clear" day.

As hinted, the severe clarity available to airborne pilots did little to assist them when their flying acuity was built on instrumentation clouded by drills, to say nothing of the obvious-but-rarely-spoken-of presence of Doomsday coordinating aircraft etc., or encased in multiple command structures -- including, according to recent reports, clandestine systems in control of individuals outside the command structure.

I sincerely hope that you get to the bottom of the question as to how precisely it was that all those buildings came down. I'll wager a tenth of a derivative and a draught of your favorite that is was because maintenance contracts hadn't been let by the ole management team of the WTC when they needed to insure the re-application of copious amounts of Elmer's Glue.

Either way, you've lost, because:

all else aside, the logic and the totality inherent in vast amounts of the informational evidence (as opposed, perhaps, to the less reliable visual evidence or, more importantly, the physical evidence the vast amount of suppressed, destroyed, hidden, masked, secreted away, or put beyond legal reach) and which far outweighs all else seems to make moot any criticism of the now-deceased Margulis' logic, scientific credentials (and thus her ability to think scientifically and logically), lack of research, etc.

Her essential point is perhaps -- I have not conducted a seance -- that no one can claim to have investigated the event logically, scientifically or legally in the absence of the physical evidence, that what is or could be then commonly known heavily predicates against the official stories, and that the bulk of the evidence is withheld by the government (or its direct or indirect agents).

What should one begin investigating
if one does not have access to the physical evidence?

Orling, my worst fears about you are confirmed in your posts here...but I never had any doubts.

I don't accept the official account. It is so full of holes it is a laughable. At the very least it was a cover up and the events of 9/11 were used to launch illegal wars and a series of repressive measures in domestic policies. 9/11 appears to be a false flag and a further march toward a fascist state with hegemonic goals.

I don't consider AQ as the likely planners of 9/11. But my research has shown that the destruction of the WTC was not the complex conspiracy that many think it had to have been. This does not mean that it could have been done by 19 disgruntled radicals with box cutters and likely means it wasn't. So who was behind it, what actually happened and how was it carried out?

I think at least one aspect of the cover up was to shield the PANYNJ, the architects, engineers, developers, NYC DOB, contractors from liability claims since the destruction revealed that there were design flaws almost like a ticking time bomb... regardless of the cause. it really didn't take that much to bring them down. I do not think jet fuel melted steel nor the fires ALONE weakened enough steel for the twins to collapse. I have not ruled out in my thinking that whatever planes struck the towers contained some devices which did weaken the steel... or there may have been a few devices preplaced which would be set off by the plane strikes. I don't subscribe to the theories of elaborately timed and extensively placed explosives and so forth up and down the towers. I've argued in these threads that the collapses themselves were *natural* and explainable with engineering and physics, but we don't know what caused the... in both the twins and bldg 7. I have advocated for years that researchers must focus on the initiating events... the factors... multiple ones I believe which let to the core column failures in all three buildings which caused them to then collapse... the twin from the crash zones down... bldg 7 from a region around the transfer trusses above the Con Ed substation. NIST explanations were full of flaws and appear only to bolster the offical 19 hijacker caused destruction.

It sure seems like the SOBs in the MIC took advantage of the event after the fact. There may have been *rogue* elements in the MIC who planned it as well... which is the 9/11 truth position - MIHOP. Yes a logical case can be made that they were the planners, but logical cases have been made that it was a zionist conceived plot, or even a *wall street* conceived operation. All those interests seemed to benefit from the events.

My approach has been to investigate the event itself believing that this would help identify who the likely mechanics and planners were. If such investigation shows that the destruction could have only been achieved with some military type explosive or device... DEWs or mini nukes that would lead the further investigation in a very specific direction. Ruling out DEWs and mini nukes opens up the possibilities but does not rule of the same suspects... it just means that they were smart enough to not leave the finger prints leading to them... with enough ambiguity to have researchers arguing about that happened. And this is precisely the state we are in for 10 years... trying to figure out what actually happened. Many have already leap frogged right to a SCAD and false flag. And this may be the case. I do not rule that out. But I believe the case needs to a technical forensic one... not a logic based one. And it is a logic based one which Margulis uses and in opinion she makes some factual mistakes as well. But she is not the only one who seems to not be concerned with the details. Most 9/11 truthers seem to rely on appeal to authority arguments...their chosen authorities... such as Margulis who clearly has not done any of her own independent research beyond reading the 9/11 truth based materials. Fetzer is another example of this... Even Charles Boldwyn's work is nothing but a physics lesson, but misapplied to the actual observations and the actual structure of the towers. He's correct about Newtonian physics, but he doesn't use the actual building structure or the observations in his analysis. Fail.

As in the JFK matter there was a state coverup... But even in that matter forensic scientists have dismantled the state's case. And that is what is needed with 9/11... competent forensics. Dr. Margulis was not engaged in this. It is my belief that the fact that the gov destroyed or is withholding evidence suggests they are involved... but it's *proof* only of their involvement of the cover up... not the crime. It may be... but that case has yet to be made... and it will be from the forensics and we may be able to do that with the evidence we have access to. No need to not try, nor fudge the science and make hollow claims.

Reseach continues.