The 9/11 Anti - propaganda onslaught thread.

[eyeno]

8bitagent wrote:

Hey, if the shoe fits...or in this case, a left handed glove. 9/11 can be the work of Cheney and the Mossad to some, the work of Muslims in a cave to others, to me it could be all of those but I see the clear
unmistakable work of devotees of the black lodge

You're not wrong. But you know how it goes with that sort of stuff. It takes a special sort of sight to see it. Trying to show it to other people is 'extremely' difficult. Completely invisible to most people.

[8bitagent]

Maybe Ramzi Yousef had his own private Djinn...both these politicians and jihadis talk of "God" speaking to them. And I remember in the summer of 2000 a ton of UFO reports across Afghanistan and Pakistan that rattled even the Taliban and bin Laden associates.
Bush, bin Laden, Hitler...to me these are all mere vessels being worked through and groomed from birth.

IF there is such a thing as negative emotional/trauma energy as a sort of feeding frenzy, than events like Shock and Awe, the Japanese atom bomb, Hiroshima, Darfur, Khmer Rouge, the holocaust and 9/11 would be quite the trough

[8bitagent]

I realize even 9/11 "truth" research is counter productive...I feel like Ive wasted a decade of my life on "deep research"...where did that lead me? Certainly didnt get me a job, a girlfriend, or where I wanted to be in life. Maybe it got me more aware of the structure of things...but its not like I can totally avoid monsantos, chinese sweat shop products, and every bad thing at all times. The beauty of the moment is around us, and I think even the anti official story stuff is still stewing in the orgy of chaos that is the 9/11 trauma inducing snuff films. Plane impact, buildings falling, people's horror...repeated over and over again. It's part of the spell, and thats why I am glad Ive avoided tv since 2002 at least. Cant imagine how thick they layered it on this weekend

8bitagent wrote:

Hey, if the shoe fits...or in this case, a left handed glove. 9/11 can be the work of Cheney and the Mossad to some, the work of Muslims in a cave to others, to me it could be all of those but I see the clear
unmistakable work of devotees of the black lodge

You're not wrong. But you know how it goes with that sort of stuff. It takes a special sort of sight to see it. Trying to show it to other people is 'extremely' difficult. Completely invisible to most people.

Well that's why only here would I even dare mention it. I already get laughed out of liberal circles for saying 9/11 is a coverup of intelligence/Saudi interests.

But this is RI...where Jeff wrote extensively of spooks of suit and tie and non corporeal alike dovetailing the narrative of mankind. To me it's obvious, and I ain't even religious or have any interest in this stuff.
I just see the patterns of criminals much like detectives and reporters did in late 1960's San Francisco with the Zodiac case. Some things I believe go beyond an explanation of a smoke filled room of rich fat cat globalists. Hell, not to alleviate sin, but I sometimes think half these globalist crooks aren't even aware of what they are doing. All mere pawns for the greater food trough.

Parsons and Hubbard...their fun little play date ended with a distinct nine eleven synchronicity...ya just can't escape it. But I do not believe in God or Christ or any 'savior'...I wish I did. I simply believe people need to be kind, loving, laugh and work on themselves and bettering the little time they have. Everything else is a trick.

[Nordic]

Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11 – and Former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee – Calls for a New 9/11 Investigation

That would be Bob Graham.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/ ... ation.html

The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, previously stated that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here).

Today, Graham called for a new 9/11 investigation. As Raw Story notes:

Graham on Monday called on the U.S. government to reopen its investigation into 9/11 after a report found that links between Saudi Arabia and the hijackers were never disclosed by the FBI to the 2002 joint Congressional intelligence committee investigating the attacks.

“In the final report of the congressional inquiry, there was a chapter related primarily to the Saudi role in 9/11 that was totally censored, every word of the chapter has been withheld from the public,” Graham said on MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show.

“Some of the other questions we ought to be asking are if we know that the Saudis who lived in San Diego and now apparently in Sarasota received substantial assistance, what about the Saudis who lived in Phoenix, Arizona? Or Arlington, Virginia? … What was happening in those places?”

“I believe these are questions for which there are definitive answers, but the American people and largely their elected representatives have been denied that information.”


Many other 9/11 Commissioners and congressmen have called for a new investigation, including:

For example:

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also says that it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
Senator Mike Gravel – who was the main congressman responsible for making the Pentagon Papers public – calls for a new 9/11 investigation
Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”
Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants a new investigation
Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11
Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new investigation
Congressman Dan Hamburg wants a new investigation
In addition,many high-level military and intelligence officials have called for a new investigation, including:

Daniel Ellsberg has called for a new investigation
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time”
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
And numerous high-level judges, legal professors and trial lawyers call for a new investigation. See this and this.

[Nordic]

Another good one from the same fellow:

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917

You really need to click on the link for all the damn hyperlinks, which I am too lazy to replicate here!

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/ ... -1944.html

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917

Posted on September 11, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
- Scientist and writer Arthur C. Clarke

Airplanes have been flown by remote-control since 1917. As Wikipedia notes:

In 1917, Archibald Low as head of the RFC [Britain's Royal Flying Corps] Experimental Works, was the first person to use radio control successfully on an aircraft.

***

There were also [during the 1930s] remotely controlled cutters and experimental remotely controlled planes in the Red Army. In the 1930s Britain developed the radio controlled Queen Bee, a remotely controlled unmanned Tiger Moth aircraft for a fleet’s gunnery firing practice. The Queen Bee was superseded by the similarly named Queen Wasp, a later, purpose built, target aircraft of higher performance.

As the Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum notes, President John F. Kennedy’s older brother flew a secret mission involving the remote-control flying of a bomb-laden airplane to attack Nazi targets inside France:

On the 31st July 1944 a U.S.N. special air unit, codenamed Project Anvil, moved to Fersfield from Dunkeswell in Devon. The mission was to involve the use of explosive-laden PB4Y-1 Liberator bombers under radio control. The crew of two, Lt Joe Kennedy (pilot), and Lt. Wilford John Willy (radio control technician/co-pilot), were to take off with 21,150 lbs of Torpex in 347 boxes and establish radio control of the Liberator by a Ventura mother-ship. Once full control was established and tested, at a pre-determined point the crew would parachute from the aircraft through the nose wheel bay emergency exit and the bomber would continue the rest of its mission under radio control, finally crashing onto the target.

In addition, Norad has been able to fly planes remotely for many decades:

NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program know as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them.

As Wikipedia explains:

The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) was an automated control system for tracking and intercepting enemy bomber aircraft used by NORAD from the late 1950s into the 1980s. In later versions, the system could automatically direct aircraft to an interception by sending instructions directly to the aircraft’s autopilot.

***

In normal operation, communications between the SAGE centers and the interceptor aircraft was relayed via radio equipment at the radar sites, which were more widely spread out than the SAGE centers themselves. A properly equipped aircraft, like the F-106 Delta Dart, could feed the SAGE directions into the autopilot and fly “hands off” to the interception.

NASA and the FAA flew a plane by remote control in 1984:

In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire.

***

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glide slope.

Indeed, prior to 9/11, remote-controlled planes could fly up to 8,600 miles (from the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain’s International Television News).

One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”

Some have speculated that remote control played a part in 9/11:



And some allege that the use of remote control could explain some of the strange behavior by the 9/11 planes.
Indeed, more than 40 years ago, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested shooting down a military drone airplane, pretending it was a real airplane, and then blaming the attack on the Cubans as a way to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

Interestingly, NORAD – which is the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland – had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft“.

And coincidentally, Fox TV aired a fictional drama 6 months before 9/11, in which the U.S. government intended to fly a plane into the World Trade Center via remote control and blame it on terrorists.

Note: While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

Why, because then the public would know that the "hijackings" could have been stopped! But they weren't, because they weren't real hijackings! Can't have that getting out, now, can we?

[justdrew]

I still think and have since day one, that the planes were remote controlled. The 19 thought they were doing one thing, but once the hijacks started, something they didn't expect started happening. Probably they briefly or finally lost or never had remote control of the 4th plane due to an error of some sort. Remote control is not only indicated by the high precision flying, but by the hijackers failure to make any demands, or issue any statement. The radios must have been shutdown. Maybe a little bit of... "holy shit, we're not in control either! WTF!" type message got though, and was recorded on those tapes the FAA guy destroyed.

[2012 Countdown]

I certainly could allow the possiblity of RC. Making all those turns, the war games, the blips. Certainly. And yes, those destroyed tapes I bet told the tale. Fuckers.


While I am thinking about it, just thought I'd mention that I destinctly recall the two heads of the commission, during the first few weeks of press conferences, doing an about face. The press kept asking if the commission found fault and 'was it preventable'. Again, I remember seeing and hearing them come out one day and say 'YES, it was preventable'. This is not a charge to be made lightly, so they had to see damned good evidence. Then in the next few days they came out with the opposite, and that is when the 'failure of imagination' talking point came out and kept being repeated. Kean and Hamilton, dutiful stooges for the elite.

[Bruce Dazzling]

I certainly could allow the possiblity of RC. Making all those turns, the war games, the blips. Certainly. And yes, those destroyed tapes I bet told the tale. Fuckers.


While I am thinking about it, just thought I'd mention that I destinctly recall the two heads of the commission, during the first few weeks of press conferences, doing an about face. The press kept asking if the commission found fault and 'was it preventable'. Again, I remember seeing and hearing them come out one day and say 'YES, it was preventable'. This is not a charge to be made lightly, so they had to see damned good evidence. Then in the next few days they came out with the opposite, and that is when the 'failure of imagination' talking point came out and kept being repeated. Kean and Hamilton, dutiful stooges for the elite.

RC has always resonated strongly with me, too.

Assuming the technology was solid at the time, it certainly would have taken the problem of amateur pilots needing to fly like pros out of the equation.

It also could explain how hijackers were persuaded to take part in the plot, as perhaps they were never told that their final destinations were suicide crashes.

It could be that the hijackers were told to overpower the flight crew and enable remote access (assuming that enabling is/was required) until they received further orders, and that by the time they figured out that the planes were headed for buildings (if they ever did figure that out), there was nothing they could do about it.

Flight 93 is the anomaly. Maybe these particular hijackers figured out what was going on and managed to take control of the airplane back from the remote handlers. This could explain why they were so wildly off course, and why there was a need to shoot them down.

And the Dov Zakheim/$2.3 Trillion/System Planning/Flight Termination System connections are compelling, at the very least.

Edited for grammar.

[munkiex]

RC seems like a strong possibility to me as well. The plotters could plant all the evidence they wanted, but they still needed the guys to get on the plane. However, they couldn't risk failure in them taking over the plane or some sort of failure in their ability to fly the aircraft.

In this scenario, you also have an interesting possibility with Flight 93 being self-destructed either on purpose or due to some kind of RC malfunction (i.e., it wasn't going to get to the target, so it had to be destroyed).

I don't like to go too far with the speculation beyond what evidence we can produce, but I'll admit in my head that's how this went down.

The other thing that captured my fancy way too much were the odd phone calls from the passengers and crew during the hijacking. Man, that's a rabbit hole if there ever was one...

[82_28]

RC seems like a strong possibility to me as well. The plotters could plant all the evidence they wanted, but they still needed the guys to get on the plane. However, they couldn't risk failure in them taking over the plane or some sort of failure in their ability to fly the aircraft.

In this scenario, you also have an interesting possibility with Flight 93 being self-destructed either on purpose or due to some kind of RC malfunction (i.e., it wasn't going to get to the target, so it had to be destroyed).

I don't like to go too far with the speculation beyond what evidence we can produce, but I'll admit in my head that's how this went down.

The other thing that captured my fancy way too much were the odd phone calls from the passengers and crew during the hijacking. Man, that's a rabbit hole if there ever was one...

Yeah. It had to be RC when it comes to it. And the phone calls being made from the planes is ridiculous. I'm sure we've all (well, at least, I have) just turned on the radios to our phones just to see if we can get signal reception in flight -- just see a bar or two on our devices. I've never been able to do it, but then, I don't fly much.

However, this makes for excellent potential double binderific radio controlled planes being hidden behind a partial truth which isn't about the truth at all, but the narrative. The narrative is the truth. Phone calls were made by the radios in cell phones by passengers in the planes. I mean, hell, the "Muslim terrorists" could have simply had at their disposal in their seats the complete control of the aircraft through a laptop if we were to go that route. But, of course Wi-Fi tech (what we know of it) was very rudimentary in 2001.

However, as for me, I discarded the "Muslims did it" within a week at least. Why go the route of having actual terrorists aboard planes, with so much to go wrong in the conduction of the act of 9/11 and leave it to a bunch of dudes when you could simply remote control the planes anyhow?

Simple.

You hide the lie behind people's inborn prejudices. The legacy of this prejudice against anything Arab or Muslim goes back many, many years. And the buildings didn't come down due to the planes themselves, thus the psychological need for both the near ground Pentagon attack and the "failed" plane that came down in PA. It was the psychological thrust of all four aspects (and then add wtc7 as the finishing touch which happened at sunset) which was needed to pull the whole thing off and to make it stick. We have been taught to view history as though one thing happened one day and the next day this or that happened. No. It does not work that way in the grander schemes. But it does in 99% of the population's minds because of not what we were taught, but THE WAY we were taught. Thus nobody can tell the difference between reality and fabrication. It is my belief that this whole charade was planned at least, at least, 20 years earlier and the smaller plans went into effect through that time to massage in the mentality required for this event (9/11) to have the mass desired effect. I believe the towers were built with the meaning that they were going to tumble on a given day in 2001, just as DC is built upon a grid of occult significance.

I also believe that, nowhere but here would hear me out on that because the psychological operation had built within it immediate ridicule due to the empirical wars that were due to be launched soon after in order to slaughter people in a mass luciferian orgy for profit and total global control of everything which every honcho of every country is a part and parcel of. Sure, I've got an imagination and this all could be me just shootin' the shit, but there's, I think, at least something to it.

[8bitagent]

Well well, it just keeps getting better:
Michael Jackson was suppose to be in the WTC towers the morning of 9/11?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44519865/ ... rtainment/

MSNBC's 10 minute piece on evidence of Saudi involvement behind 9/11
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... -questions

That's the thing about total Saudi involvement in the attacks...Moore didnt mention shit about it in Fahrenheit 9/11, but everywhere the hijackers went or lived
they were met and surrounded by a cadre of Saudi officials, agents and point men.


On a side note:
I don't believe for a second in most the Loose Change theories, no disrespect to anyone. I've seen way too many family members and some 911 operators intimately describe the conversations they
had with some of the Flight 93 passengers. I consider the passenger revolt the first blow against the NWO. The plane impact is clearly there in Shanksville. Ive seen no evidence of a missile. I have seen a lot of plane parts dug out of the hole and personal items taken. Same with the Pentagon hole.
And sadly it's the physical anomaly debate the media and leftists who hate us always focus on.

There did need to be some guarantees with 9/11. You don't put years(decades? centuries?) of hard work into something and leave it to pilot chance or possible error.
The towers need to collapse and the planes needed to hit precisely where they did with precision. Am I convinced it was explosives? Not at all. Even remote control Im not completely sold on.

And you have to understand that Manchurian brainwashed jihadis will do anything. They will gladly suicide and "martyr". Perhaps some were scared, like Atta's young companion Alazziz al-Omari.
Maybe even Princess Diana's driver was under some sort of high level programming. Or maybe something else entirely is at physical work. Who knows

I've come to become more interested in human interest stories relating to 9/11 than research or theories. Like Ladder Company 6, where 8 firefighters and an older woman they rescued were on the north tower
4th floor when the building collapsed on them...yet they were in the one tiny pocket where survival was possible and lived to tell about it. Or the missing Indian woman whom authorities say disappeared on sept 10th, but whose American husband was convinced died at the towers. Or the identity of the Falling Man. Or the hospitality of the US plane diverted to Nova Scotia. I like these stories.
And stories like some widows of 9/11 going to Afghanistan to try and learn the culture and speak out against the war, because they knew what it was like to be widowed. Or Malayla Joya, speaking out against both warlords/Taliban and the US military.

[Nordic]

I still think and have since day one, that the planes were remote controlled. The 19 thought they were doing one thing, but once the hijacks started, something they didn't expect started happening. Probably they briefly or finally lost or never had remote control of the 4th plane due to an error of some sort. Remote control is not only indicated by the high precision flying, but by the hijackers failure to make any demands, or issue any statement. The radios must have been shutdown. Maybe a little bit of... "holy shit, we're not in control either! WTF!" type message got though, and was recorded on those tapes the FAA guy destroyed.

Hadn't thought of that! Damn, that just makes a whole ton of sense!

Some of these things I've realized in moments of clarity. When I wasn't even thinking about the subject at hand. Had the same realization about The Patriot Act, that a person couldn't even have TYPED it, much less written it, in the time between 911 and when it hit congress.

You think about it and it's just one of those "duh" moments.

Any patsy has a moment where he realizes he's a patsy. I wonder what that must feel like. Has that ever been dramatized? I'm sure it has been, I just can't think of where, off the top of my head.

As far as remote control, my father, who worked in ther high tech top secret weapons development field and did a certain amount of spook work in his career, told me years before 911 how planes, any planes, could be flown remotely and literally land on a dime.

Basic cruise missile technology using GPS. The military grade GPS is insanely accurate, not like the version of it the public gets to use.

[munkiex]

Any patsy has a moment where he realizes he's a patsy. I wonder what that must feel like. Has that ever been dramatized? I'm sure it has been, I just can't think of where, off the top of my head.

My recollection may be fuzzy, but isn't that one of the subplots in "American Tabloid"? That's one I need to put in my re-read list.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Any patsy has a moment where he realizes he's a patsy. I wonder what that must feel like. Has that ever been dramatized? I'm sure it has been, I just can't think of where, off the top of my head.

The greatest stand-alone X-Files episode ever: Season 4, Episode 7, Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man.

[IanEye]

Lynn Margulis, Evolution Theorist, Dies at 73

By BRUCE WEBER

Lynn Margulis, a biologist whose work on the origin of cells helped transform the study of evolution, died on Tuesday at her home in Amherst, Mass. She was 73.

She died five days after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke, said Dorion Sagan, a son she had with her first husband, the cosmologist Carl Sagan.

Dr. Margulis, who had the title of distinguished university professor of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, since 1988, drew upon earlier, ridiculed ideas when she first promulgated her theory, in the late 1960s, that cells with nuclei, which are known as eukaryotes and include all the cells in the human body, evolved as a result of symbiotic relationships among bacteria.

The hypothesis was a direct challenge to the prevailing neo-Darwinist belief that the primary evolutionary mechanism was random mutation.

Rather, Dr. Margulis argued that a more important mechanism was symbiosis; that is, evolution is a function of organisms that are mutually beneficial growing together to become one and reproducing. The theory undermined significant precepts of the study of evolution, underscoring the idea that evolution began at the level of micro-organisms long before it would be visible at the level of species.

“She talked a lot about the importance of micro-organisms,” said her daughter, Jennifer Margulis. “She called herself a spokesperson for the microcosm.”

The manuscript in which Dr. Margulis first presented her findings was rejected by 15 journals before being published in 1967 by the Journal of Theoretical Biology. An expanded version, with additional evidence to support the theory — which was known as the serial endosymbiotic theory — became her first book, “Origin of Eukaryotic Cells.”

A revised version, “Symbiosis in Cell Evolution,” followed in 1981, and though it challenged the presumptions of many prominent scientists, it has since become accepted evolutionary doctrine.

“Evolutionists have been preoccupied with the history of animal life in the last 500 million years,” Dr. Margulis wrote in 1995. “But we now know that life itself evolved much earlier than that. The fossil record begins nearly 4,000 million years ago! Until the 1960s, scientists ignored fossil evidence for the evolution of life, because it was uninterpretable.

“I work in evolutionary biology, but with cells and micro-organisms. Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould all come out of the zoological tradition, which suggests to me that, in the words of our colleague Simon Robson, they deal with a data set some three billion years out of date.”

Lynn Petra Alexander was born on March 5, 1938, in Chicago, where she grew up in a tough neighborhood on the South Side. Her father was a lawyer and a businessman. Precocious, she graduated at 18 from the University of Chicago, where she met Dr. Sagan as they passed each other on a stairway.

She earned a master’s degree in genetics and zoology from the University of Wisconsin and a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of California, Berkeley. Before joining the faculty at Massachusetts, she taught for 22 years at Boston University.

Dr. Margulis was also known, somewhat controversially, as a collaborator with and supporter of James E. Lovelock, whose Gaia theory states that Earth itself — its atmosphere, the geology and the organisms that inhabit it — is a self-regulating system, maintaining the conditions that allow its perpetuation. In other words, it is something of a living organism in and of itself.

Dr. Margulis’s marriage to Dr. Sagan ended in divorce, as did a marriage to Thomas N. Margulis, a chemist. Dr. Sagan died in 1996.

In addition to her daughter and her son Dorion, a science writer with whom she sometimes collaborated, she is survived by two other sons, Jeremy Sagan and Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma; three sisters, Joan Glashow, Sharon Kleitman and Diane Alexander; two half-brothers, Robert and Mark Alexander; a half-sister, Sara Alexander; and nine grandchildren.

“More than 99.99 percent of the species that have ever existed have become extinct,” Dr. Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote in “Microcosmos,” a 1986 book that traced, in readable language, the history of evolution over four billion years, “but the planetary patina, with its army of cells, has continued for more than three billion years. And the basis of the patina, past, present and future, is the microcosm — trillions of communicating, evolving microbes.”


Oddly enough, no mention in this article of her involvement in AE911Truth.org .