01-01-2012, 03:06 AM
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...
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...