Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist - AE911Truth.org

magnetmanca Says:

Oct 18, 2011 - I think you are missing the point of what she said earlier in the video. She excels at thinking and is approaching it in a logical way based on what she's seen and heard about how it came down.See most people believe that when part of a building gets weakened by by heat, that part of the building would bend and then collapse. That is why the pancake theory makes no sense. Considering the building was quite high I don't see how the whole thing would collapse due to heat itself.

magnetmanca Says:

Oct 18, 2011 - I've read your arguments and so far you haven't offered up any real plausible reasons for why the buildings came down the way they did. You say heat can bring down a building, but near free fall speeds I don't think so.

magnetmanca Says:

Oct 18, 2011 - watch?v=wFidciVopu4 Try debunking what the explosives expert says. You can't say this guy is talking shit because his words make sense.

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 18, 2011 - From the evidence of this video she most certainly does not excel at thinking, she comes across as insane.

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 18, 2011 - Yawn. There are 6 companies world wide that demolish tall buildings, he is not in one of them. He is a either a liar or an incompetent, most likely a combination of the two. Like many troofers, he likes the sound of his own voice and the adulation of fellow bed wetting basement dwellers. Suffice to say, that none of the collapses look or sound like controlled demolitions. and given that it would have been impossible to rig the buildings, I am quite confident he is talking shit.

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 18, 2011 - Just to be clear structural failure of columns on the damaged floors caused by the plane and an unprecedented fire brought the buildings down. I was mistaken, you'll actually have to check my comments on another video for a more detailed explanation - i didn't write it here and cant be bothered to repeat it.

bjdm3089 Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - Although I anticipate a response filled with more fallacious arguments and baseless insults, I feel it is necessary to address your doubts. It is indisputable that NIST's refusal to explore the controlled demolition hypothesis a) violated national standards for fire and explosions investigations (NFPA 921, circa 2001); b) does not explain the constant downward acceleration of all three towers (resistance of undamaged structural steel?); c) denies clear evidence of flows of molten iron

bjdm3089 Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - In brief, whereas Lynn and other experienced professionals in fields relevant to 9/11 research utilize the scientific method in order to corroborate their hypothesis, presenting forensic evidence along the way... You blatantly insult these professors and scientific experts using childish fallacies, all the while ignoring ALL the forensic evidence they have specifically asked you to address. Whether you dismiss this evidence out of fear or mere hatred, I do not know, but I pray for you

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - Ignorance personified. Thermal expansion is a fully understood behaviour of materials. There are many peer reviewed papers based on the findings of NIST and there is NOTHING stopping troofers creating their own finite element model to substantiate their claims. Nothing other than the fact most are too stupid to spell 'finite'.

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - You are correct about one thing, I am going to insult you. You may be able to form a sentence and use words like 'fallacious', but it doesn't stop you being a pig ignorant bed wetting tinfoil idiot like the rest of the morons who populate these pages. a) doubtful b) yes is does, perfectly and whats more it is substantiated by seismic readings which is a fuck load more than any troofer pet fantasies c) there is no such 'evidence'

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - Biology isn't a relevant field to structural engineering is it? Troofers do not corroborate their fantasies, they cherry pick data without understanding the implications of their logical errors and then use flawed reasoning to attack plausible explanations while simultaneously using the same shitty logic to say 'X' must be wrong, therefore my fantasy is right. Troofers are unsurpassed masters in the abuse of scientific method. Lynn Margulis should be fucking ashamed to be in this video

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - b) I have explained this in a reasonable fashion without insults on other videos if you care to look at my comments. I'm sure you wont because the opinion of someone who has actually attended lectures in the subject will come a long way down your list of authoritative voices compared to say, a biologist, or a janitor, or a mentally ill tinfoil basement dwelling loser.

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - It is your argument which is fallacious - there is not one industry or academically recognised figure in 911AE. Not one. These are not people to be respected, they are a mix of the ill-informed, vain publicity seekers and fantasists.

ComicPenius Says:

Oct 21, 2011 - If thermal expansion easily capable of dropping a building in ~10 seconds then NIST should have no problem in releasing the input parameters for their model. Refusing to release such data only creates suspicion so even you should support the release of the data.

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 22, 2011 - Apart from the fact that you clearly have no understanding of how materials behave under temperature, you have a bigger misunderstanding of things are proven. If troofers want to be heard they must first demonstrate they have a case. In this instance they must build their own model, with their own plausible assumptions and conditions to show that an alternative explanation exists. You've had 10 fucking years to come up with the goods and you have come up with NOTHING.

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 22, 2011 - You aren't taken seriously because you do attempt to argue seriously. The whole '911 troof community' is a pathetic joke. The sad truth (for you at least) is that, even if your nutty theories are correct (which of course they aren't as any 7 year old child can figure), there isn't a single person in your group of 'engineer' and 'scientist' heroes that have the intellectual capacity to demonstrate it. Not one. 10 fucking years. Nothing.

ComicPenius Says:

Oct 22, 2011 - Excellent! So you support the call for NIST to release the data from their model? After all, if any contrary theory is "nutty" there won't be any problem. Right?

oidunno88 Says:

Oct 22, 2011 - No, I support the idea of troofers doing the hard work that they expect of others themselves. You people have had 10 years. Put up or shut the fuck up.

ComicPenius Says:

Oct 22, 2011 - No, AE911Truth are putting up and mental midgets suffering from cognitive dissonance, like yourself, are telling them to shut up.I assume your scientific credentials are greater than Lynn Margulis? Care to share them?

stallioonie Says:

Nov 24, 2011 - rest in peace!

tanabear911 Says:

Nov 28, 2011 - Lynn Margulis RIPIt is sad that so much time has passed since that fateful day and 911 BS still rules the world.

betamale3 Says:

Dec 3, 2011 - >>I assume your scientific credentials are greater than Lynn Margulis? Care to share them?<

jedichris8 Says:

Dec 4, 2011 - Yep! Pretty obvious all 3 buildings were blown up, anyone with any common sense can realize this, but this woman speaks the truth and she KNOWS they were blown up as well. Soon the world will see the true darkness of the result of this inside job. The time is coming soon people.

ProthoPectore Says:

Dec 4, 2011 - a "gaia hypothesis" jedi.....