national medal of science winner Lynn Margulis: WTC-7 was demolished

[mhgaffney]

Margullis has just endorsed David R Griffin's research on 9/11. Of course, it also follows that she thinks 9/11 was an "inside job..."

It will be interesting to see what filth the true believers will now sling at her. Their only hope is that if they sling enough -- something might stick...

MHG

Two Hit, Three Down - The Biggest Lie

National Academy of Science member and Distinguished Professor endorses
David Ray Griffin’s work exposing the truth of 9/11

By Lynn Margulis

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”?

The scientific answer:

Because all three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition. Ignited by incendiaries (such as thermate) and high explosives (including nanothermite), 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.

Impeccable logic and addiction to reading inspire this truth-seeker. With his practiced scientific mind (he has organized professional philosophy-of-science conferences and published several books on this theme) coupled with investigation of evidence from not only us scientists but from witnesses, documentary film-makers, scholars, architects and engineers et al., he concludes that the virtuall free-fall collapse of the three (not two) World Trade Center buildings in 2001 was a premeditated, exquisitely executed operation. He recognized this “tragic publicity stunt” (my claim) was likely intended to provide the “new Pearl Harbor” desired by radical neoconservatives, some of whom had become members of the Bush administration (see Ch. 6 of Griffin’s 2006 book, Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11).

The far-more-difficult 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. (Much has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, see Ch. 4 of The Mysterious Collapse). 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).We citizens of Earth within and beyond the boundaries of the United States who demand detailed evidence for extraordinary claims agree with Griffin: the rapid destruction of New York skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 was planned and executed by people inside the US government.

Griffin’s eight books about 9/11 (listed below) are his call to his kind of truly patriotic action. They show in appropriate detail, accurately documented, that the official government conspiracy theory can not be correct journalistically, scientifically, and morally. Muslim airline hijackers, in short, never triggered the collapse of high-rise steel-framed buildings at gravitational acceleration into neat removable pieces. They didn’t remove the remaining steel girders before they could be studied as evidence for a huge crime. They were not described in telephone calls by passengers and crew members from the four airliners –all the evidence for al Qaeda hijackers on the planes dissipates under close inspection (for example, even the FBI now admits that the reported cell phone calls from 25,000 to 40,000 feet never happened).

And to me the most compelling and obviously incorrect accusation is that Muslim hijackers caused the pulverization of cement high-rise office buildings into tons of dust that contain crystalline thermate and other minute metallic particles not found in the usual charred remains of fire rubble. Minute iron-aluminum-molybdenum rich spheres, steel perforated with swiss-cheese type holes and large quantities of unreacted nanothermite are not components of petroleum office fires. Besides the fact that building fire temperatures, even if fed by jet-fuel, could not have risen beyond 1,800°F, and hence they would be nowhere close to the of 2,800°F needed to melt iron (or for molybdenum that melts at 4,753°F). The facile appeal to the presence of gypsum (calcium sulfate) in the office wall-board fails to explain why sulfur was found in the intergranular structure of pieces of steel. (There was no detection of calcium!) The New York Times, in a rare example of honest reporting about the WTC collapses, called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation”).

Nor could “Muslim terrorists” have accessed and then planted in these buildings huge quantities of nanothermite. This recently developed high explosive was developed mainly in secrecy by professional scientists and engineers who enjoy government grant support for “nanotechnology” by the military. Significant quantities of red-gray crystals of nanothermite have been found in several independently collected samples of WTC dust studied by a team headed by physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University. Niels Harrit, a University of Copenhagen professor of chemistry who specializes in nanochemistry, is the first author of a peer-reviewed paper reporting this team’s results.

The two mutually exclusive “9/11-conspiracy theories”, the patently and nefariously absurd tale our government imposes on us and the true, criminal story yet to be entirely brought to light, deserve the attention of all literate people. Remember: Only two airplanes struck, but three buildings collapsed at free-fall velocities on that same day. Begin with Mazza’s review and Griffin’s book that detail the nanothermite scientific studies. Examine the government’s reluctant late admission that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds to realize this is a scientific impossibility unless all the steel columns were partitioned into neat, removable pieces by explosives. Find out what happened to two men, Hess and Jennings, trapped inside WT7 in its abortive explosion before noon. Truth here, as David Ray Griffin tries to tell it, is (at least to me) stranger and far more dramatic than even the best fiction.


Suggested sources of evidence and explanation:
John B. Cobb, Jr. 2008 Back to Darwin: A richer account of evolution, Erdmann Publishers
Michael Ruppert 2009 Collapse: Peak oil, global politics, depletion of world resources and the end of “civilization” Chelsea Green Publishing Co. White River Junction VT
Lecutre by D.R. Griffin and M. Ruppert on DVDs.
DRG:
1. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004)
2. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005)
3. Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006)
4. 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott)
5. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007)
6. 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (2008)
7. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (2008).
8. The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (2009)

For the rest of the article go here:
http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com...he-biggest-lie

[mhgaffney]

This actually was posted in the Rock Creek Press -- back on Jan 24th -- just before Griffin's book about WTC-7 was released.

You will notice that Margulis cites the very points I posted on this board -- hard evidence for extreme temperatures -- for temperatures way way way beyond what you can get with ordinary building fires.

I posted this some weeks back. That's when Dolt's "real expert" from Randi, Tom-what's-his name, fled the board.

He hasn't been back since, to my knowledge.

You don't need to be an engineer to get this.

[mhgaffney]

my my it got silent in here.

[Florida_Bronco]

So many memories of TomK and Beerslug stomping your ass up and down this forum.

Sigh.

[mhgaffney]

Stomping?

Only in your vacuous head, Florida.

The truth is not a shouting contest.

Nor is it a good old boy's club.

Nor a popularity contest. And thank heaven for that.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

my my it got silent in here.

Just really too stupid and ridiculous to even comment on.

[TDmvp]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

[Rohirrim]

What we should think about, when we think of 9/11, are the three basics of prosecutorial responsibility required to successfully argue a case: means, motive, and opportunity.

We have the accepted version of events (accepted by the vast majority, anyway) that Al Queda, a fundamentalist terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden, trained a bunch of terrorists to hijack passenger airliners and crash them into prominent U.S. landmarks; the White House, the Pentagon and the WTC. We now have the back story on all these hijackers down to where they came from, where they trained, who trained them, who hatched the plot, who led the plot, and how it was carried out, including airport video on the morning of the attack of the terrorists getting on the planes and cockpit tape of some of them on the planes during the hijackings. We also know who was on the planes and who died that day. So, we know they had the means (to buy plane tickets, to pay for flight lessons, to purchase box cutters, etc.). We know they had the motive (all we have to do is read some of their own literature and websites and watch their self-promoted videos on Al Jazeera). And we know they had the opportunity (buy plane tickets).

Now, there's the conspiracist case. In order to buy into this case you must first cast out the entire scenario of Al Queda because they had nothing to do with it, or were limited dupes. In fact, it seems to be evolving now that Bin Laden might actually be working for the CIA. Anyway, their final argument is that the government did it.

So, did the government have the means? Sure. They could come up with all the explosives necessary. Of course, from manufacture to procurement, explosives of that caliber are intensively controlled, so they would require the cooperation of individuals all along the chain of control to participate in the plot. You can't just remove tons of high explosives from the chain of control without notice, unless we accept the idea that the CIA might operate its own, covert, high explosives manufacturing facility somewhere, which of course means you have hundreds of persons involved in that capacity. Also, under the "means" category, they would have also, by necessity, been coordinating this act with the terrorists who took over the planes. There had to be some synchronicity of a very high order going on here. Something even more complex than say, a multi-service rescue of hostages in a foreign country. We're talking Jack Bauer/Mission Impossible stuff here. Talk about "synchronize your watches!" So, the terrorists themselves have to ultimately be operating under government control. Could the government pull off this kind of synchronous operation?

Then, we get to motive, and this gets very sticky. Maybe we can argue that a bunch of neocons desired some "catalyzing" event so they could pull off an attack on Iraq, but one could also argue that they already had this "event" in hand because Saddam was already violating UN directives and the no fly zone. In other words, if the goal was to attack Saddam, the U.S. government already had cause prior to 9/11, so you could argue that the additional plot would be almost ludicrously superfluous, akin to going after an ant with a baseball bat. The case for attacking Iraq could have already been made in front of the UN security council. Of course, Bush manipulated 9/11 into the eventual case that was made, to his own shame and discredit, but under motive, it seems highly overblown the idea that we couldn't have gone into Iraq without 9/11 happening. With or without it, Bush would have gone after Saddam.

Under motive we also have to come to grips with the numbers of individuals who would have been involved and what their motives would have been. Of course, this is the element of proof that the conspiracists studiously ignore. They won't answer it, think about it, talk about it, or consider it. Why? Because the plot they outline would have required the cooperation of thousands in all levels of employment, from high explosives experts, to police, security guards, building workers, maintenance crews, military, airlines (all facets), firemen, inspectors, etc. etc. etc. The whole idea is just too ridiculous to even contemplate. You would have to accept that there were police and firemen who would go along with this government plot to the extent that they would stand silent while the lives of hundreds of their brothers were extinguished. What would have been the motives of all these thousands to attack and kill their own countrymen, women and children on that morning - and then never speak of it afterwards? Money? Political ideology? We have entered the realm of insanity. Obviously.

Finally, we come to "opportunity." Would the government have had the opportunity to wire the buildings (especially buildings of the magnitude of the World Trade Center), in the furtherance of the plot, without detection? Anybody who has ever seen a building wired for demolition would simply laugh at such a ludicrous idea. It would be virtually impossible.

So, when we ponder the means, motive and opportunity for Al Queda attacking us on 9/11, the case is straightforward and simple. When we consider the case of the conspiracists, we come to a wall of sheer buffoonery and insanity, which of course is why they never address the basic, prosecutorial issues. Instead, they rely on an almost OCD examination of the rubble left over from the attacks. They search for the flea on the elephant while ignoring the elephant. They get all feverish about a molecule of thermite and cry out "It must have been explosives" while ignoring the fact that to even consider the implications of their conspiracy is lunacy. In other words, due to the fact that your idea of a vast government conspiracy is impossible on its face, by scientific necessity the explanation for anything you do find in a microscopic study of the rubble must be something other than a vast government conspiracy. Simple.

Which brings us to the final quandary. What is the motive of the conspiracists? Gaffney now brings forward as evidence the testimony of an esteemed biologist who agrees with the conspiracy idea. Biologist, mind you. When we follow the link, we see the picture of this biologist, and the other conspiracy "scientist" she now endorses, surrounded by all the books they have for sale. In fact, since Gaffney started coming here, his one abiding drive seems to have been that he has books for sale. So, what conclusion can we draw?

The conspiracists have the means. They can certainly write books and make videos. We have ample proof of that. They have the motive. The oldest one of all; The profit motive. And they have the opportunity. 9/11 happened. A great, national tragedy. Probably the worst tragedy to befall this country in its history. Made even worse by the knowledge that our failure to live up to our own principles, in many ways, led to the events of that terrible morning. The great lesson to learn from 9/11 is that America must return to its ideals and take George Washington's final warnings about "foreign entanglements" to heart. We must turn away from a corporatist driven, "for profit" (for the few) driven foreign policy to policies that reflect our principles and ideals first. Even in this spill in the Gulf we can see our failure.

We have allowed our government to become the tail of the oil dog. Our government allowed the oil industry to write the regulations that now fill our waters with sludge. Those regulations were intended to protect the health and well being of our own citizens and our environment, and our politicians sold us down the river for the cheap cash of corporate lobbyists. Our government overthrew a freely elected Iranian government in the service of BP profits, and now BP destroys our entire Gulf community and the livelihood of thousands of Americans, in search of more profits. We have made friends of the worst of the worst, from Saddam to the Sauds, at the behest of the oil companies. These are the actions we took that brought 9/11 to our doorstep. We colluded with tyrants, criminals, despots and murderers. Until we learn this lesson, it seems, we will be continuously beaten over the heads with the price we must pay for such collusion. We must get off the oil teat and throw these bastards over for the general welfare and benefit of our own citizens.

That's what we need to learn from 9/11, and now, this Gulf disaster.

What have the conspiracists learned from 9/11? They can sell books.

The worst kind of parasites imaginable.

[El Guapo]

Can't wait for the mythbusters to take this on someday (they said they're exploring the idea of doing this).

Hogwash, I say.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Margullis has just endorsed David R Griffin's research on 9/11. Of course, it also follows that she thinks 9/11 was an "inside job..."

"Hey, did you hear"? "Margullis is coming to join us."

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Stomping?

Only in your vacuous head, Florida.

The truth is not a shouting contest.

Nor is it a good old boy's club.

Nor a popularity contest. And thank heaven for that.

Nope. They proved you wrong over and over again. You just don't want to accept it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Nope. They proved you wrong over and over again. You just don't want to accept it.

It's not possible to convince somebody that their religion is wrong. There are those who want to believe and those who want to know. Those who want to believe adopt religions. How do you convince them not to believe? You can't.

[Florida_Bronco]

Originally Posted by Maverick_7

Can't wait for the mythbusters to take this on someday (they said they're exploring the idea of doing this).

Hogwash, I say.

National Geographic had show on here awhile back that completely destroyed their arguments. They even involved some of the truthers (including the kid from Loose Change) who pretty much looked like deer in the headlights when trying to argue their case.

They still broadcast it occasionally. I highly recommend it.

[W*GS]

Sigh.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What we should think about, when we think of 9/11, are the three basics of prosecutorial responsibility required to successfully argue a case: means, motive, and opportunity.

We have the accepted version of events (accepted by the vast majority, anyway) that Al Queda, a fundamentalist terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden, trained a bunch of terrorists to hijack passenger airliners and crash them into prominent U.S. landmarks; the White House, the Pentagon and the WTC. We now have the back story on all these hijackers down to where they came from, where they trained, who trained them, who hatched the plot, who led the plot, and how it was carried out, including airport video on the morning of the attack of the terrorists getting on the planes and cockpit tape of some of them on the planes during the hijackings. We also know who was on the planes and who died that day. So, we know they had the means (to buy plane tickets, to pay for flight lessons, to purchase box cutters, etc.). We know they had the motive (all we have to do is read some of their own literature and websites and watch their self-promoted videos on Al Jazeera). And we know they had the opportunity (buy plane tickets).

Now, there's the conspiracist case. In order to buy into this case you must first cast out the entire scenario of Al Queda because they had nothing to do with it, or were limited dupes. In fact, it seems to be evolving now that Bin Laden might actually be working for the CIA. Anyway, their final argument is that the government did it.

So, did the government have the means? Sure. They could come up with all the explosives necessary. Of course, from manufacture to procurement, explosives of that caliber are intensively controlled, so they would require the cooperation of individuals all along the chain of control to participate in the plot. You can't just remove tons of high explosives from the chain of control without notice, unless we accept the idea that the CIA might operate its own, covert, high explosives manufacturing facility somewhere, which of course means you have hundreds of persons involved in that capacity. Also, under the "means" category, they would have also, by necessity, been coordinating this act with the terrorists who took over the planes. There had to be some synchronicity of a very high order going on here. Something even more complex than say, a multi-service rescue of hostages in a foreign country. We're talking Jack Bauer/Mission Impossible stuff here. Talk about "synchronize your watches!" So, the terrorists themselves have to ultimately be operating under government control. Could the government pull off this kind of synchronous operation?

Then, we get to motive, and this gets very sticky. Maybe we can argue that a bunch of neocons desired some "catalyzing" event so they could pull off an attack on Iraq, but one could also argue that they already had this "event" in hand because Saddam was already violating UN directives and the no fly zone. In other words, if the goal was to attack Saddam, the U.S. government already had cause prior to 9/11, so you could argue that the additional plot would be almost ludicrously superfluous, akin to going after an ant with a baseball bat. The case for attacking Iraq could have already been made in front of the UN security council. Of course, Bush manipulated 9/11 into the eventual case that was made, to his own shame and discredit, but under motive, it seems highly overblown the idea that we couldn't have gone into Iraq without 9/11 happening. With or without it, Bush would have gone after Saddam.

Under motive we also have to come to grips with the numbers of individuals who would have been involved and what their motives would have been. Of course, this is the element of proof that the conspiracists studiously ignore. They won't answer it, think about it, talk about it, or consider it. Why? Because the plot they outline would have required the cooperation of thousands in all levels of employment, from high explosives experts, to police, security guards, building workers, maintenance crews, military, airlines (all facets), firemen, inspectors, etc. etc. etc. The whole idea is just too ridiculous to even contemplate. You would have to accept that there were police and firemen who would go along with this government plot to the extent that they would stand silent while the lives of hundreds of their brothers were extinguished. What would have been the motives of all these thousands to attack and kill their own countrymen, women and children on that morning - and then never speak of it afterwards? Money? Political ideology? We have entered the realm of insanity. Obviously.

Finally, we come to "opportunity." Would the government have had the opportunity to wire the buildings (especially buildings of the magnitude of the World Trade Center), in the furtherance of the plot, without detection? Anybody who has ever seen a building wired for demolition would simply laugh at such a ludicrous idea. It would be virtually impossible.

So, when we ponder the means, motive and opportunity for Al Queda attacking us on 9/11, the case is straightforward and simple. When we consider the case of the conspiracists, we come to a wall of sheer buffoonery and insanity, which of course is why they never address the basic, prosecutorial issues. Instead, they rely on an almost OCD examination of the rubble left over from the attacks. They search for the flea on the elephant while ignoring the elephant. They get all feverish about a molecule of thermite and cry out "It must have been explosives" while ignoring the fact that to even consider the implications of their conspiracy is lunacy. In other words, due to the fact that your idea of a vast government conspiracy is impossible on its face, by scientific necessity the explanation for anything you do find in a microscopic study of the rubble must be something other than a vast government conspiracy. Simple.

Which brings us to the final quandary. What is the motive of the conspiracists? Gaffney now brings forward as evidence the testimony of an esteemed biologist who agrees with the conspiracy idea. Biologist, mind you. When we follow the link, we see the picture of this biologist, and the other conspiracy "scientist" she now endorses, surrounded by all the books they have for sale. In fact, since Gaffney started coming here, his one abiding drive seems to have been that he has books for sale. So, what conclusion can we draw?

The conspiracists have the means. They can certainly write books and make videos. We have ample proof of that. They have the motive. The oldest one of all; The profit motive. And they have the opportunity. 9/11 happened. A great, national tragedy. Probably the worst tragedy to befall this country in its history. Made even worse by the knowledge that our failure to live up to our own principles, in many ways, led to the events of that terrible morning. The great lesson to learn from 9/11 is that America must return to its ideals and take George Washington's final warnings about "foreign entanglements" to heart. We must turn away from a corporatist driven, "for profit" (for the few) driven foreign policy to policies that reflect our principles and ideals first. Even in this spill in the Gulf we can see our failure.

We have allowed our government to become the tail of the oil dog. Our government allowed the oil industry to write the regulations that now fill our waters with sludge. Those regulations were intended to protect the health and well being of our own citizens and our environment, and our politicians sold us down the river for the cheap cash of corporate lobbyists. Our government overthrew a freely elected Iranian government in the service of BP profits, and now BP destroys our entire Gulf community and the livelihood of thousands of Americans, in search of more profits. We have made friends of the worst of the worst, from Saddam to the Sauds, at the behest of the oil companies. These are the actions we took that brought 9/11 to our doorstep. We colluded with tyrants, criminals, despots and murderers. Until we learn this lesson, it seems, we will be continuously beaten over the heads with the price we must pay for such collusion. We must get off the oil teat and throw these bastards over for the general welfare and benefit of our own citizens.

That's what we need to learn from 9/11, and now, this Gulf disaster.

What have the conspiracists learned from 9/11? They can sell books.

The worst kind of parasites imaginable.

This.

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by Florida_Bronco

National Geographic had show on here awhile back that completely destroyed their arguments. They even involved some of the truthers (including the kid from Loose Change) who pretty much looked like deer in the headlights when trying to argue their case.

They still broadcast it occasionally. I highly recommend it.

Do you have a name or something, I would quite like to see that show.

[Florida_Bronco]

Originally Posted by gyldenlove

Do you have a name or something, I would quite like to see that show.

9/11: Science and Conspiracy.

Looks like it's going to be on tomorrow night.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...acy-vs-science

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Florida_Bronco

9/11: Science and Conspiracy.

Looks like it's going to be on tomorrow night.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...acy-vs-science

Good synopsis of the show.

Gaffney will be here soon, with his poetry and organic gardening expertise, to inform us that National Geographic are stooges
of the Government and no matter how much evidence they present......it's dead wrong.
Only Troofers know the troof!!


CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE

Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS

Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Testing the Official Story: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.

Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.

Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the chemical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Testing the Official Story: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.

Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...#ixzz0pMvLxBD8

[SoCalBronco]

Everybody's gotta price....including Gaff it would seem.

How utterly shameful.

Hey Gaff....why don't you try living like the rest of us for once. You know...earning a wage from a hard day of honest work.....rather than exploiting tragedy and death.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Hey Gaff....why don't you try living like the rest of us for once. You know...earning a wage from a hard day of honest work.....rather than exploiting tragedy and death.

He can't - he has neither the moral nor literal balls.

[mhgaffney]

The circle jerk continues...

You clowns are a work. You keep patting one another on the back -- to bolster your own denial. It's a circle of knee jerks.

One or two of you said I was refuted. But this is bull shyte. Dolt's "real expert" never even tried to explain the physical evidence of extreme temperatures. That's when he disappeared.

Ordinary building fires cannot melt steel. Nor can they boil lead or melt molybdenum. Yet all of these things happened.

Dolt's "real expert" also obfuscated about the WTC-7 free fall. And yes, NIST did try to evade this issue in its draft report. However, after David Chandler, a high school science teacher, embarrassed them at a public hearing in August 2008 when NIST unveiled its draft report -- the NIST scientists were forced to modify this key part of their analysis in the final report, which was released several months later. In the final NIST acknowledged that WTC-7 did collapse in an absolute free fall for the first 2.2 seconds.

But if you watched the video of the public hearing in August 2008 you heard/saw NIST lead scientist Shyam Sunder state unequivocally that free fall was incompatible with NIST's probable collapse scenario.

Whoops! NIST contradicted itself -- again.

The reality of extreme temperatures means some other agent had to be responsible.

Given the implosion -- NIST should have considered explosives as the most likely collapse scenario from the very beginning. They did not -- for good reason. Had they looked they would have found the residues and the flakes of unexploded nano thermite in the dust. Proof of a demolition.

I repeat - this physical evidence will stand up in a courtroom. Dolt, where will your "real expert" be then?

[mhgaffney]

I occasionally receive emails from around the globe -- including one recently from an editor I know in New Zealand.

You clowns -- through your continuing denial -- which prevents you from acting in the best interests of the nation -- have a become a laughingstock around the world.

Here is how the international community increasingly perceives you and our nation.

[The Lone Bolt]

Gaff, tomk tried to explain to you why just about everything you just printed above is wrong, you just didn't want to hear it.

One example: the "nano-thermite" in the WTC dust. There was none. Tomk explained to you exactly why Harrit's sample could not have been nano-thermite.

But you didn't want to hear it, thus you continue to repeat this nonsense when you've been previously proven wrong beyond any doubt.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Good synopsis of the show.

Gaffney will be here soon, with his poetry and organic gardening expertise, to inform us that National Geographic are stooges
of the Government and no matter how much evidence they present......it's dead wrong.
Only Troofers know the troof!!


CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE

Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS

Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Testing the Official Story: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.

Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.

Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the chemical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Testing the Official Story: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.

Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...#ixzz0pMvLxBD8

You believe what you hear and see on TV? Obviously.

You are going to be told more lies.

You should listen to Lynn Margulis. She is an independent scientist -- not under the control of government or corporate media.

[Spider]

just imagine if the inter webs was around when the titanic went down ........