Last week NASA conducted tests it believes conclusively solved the mystery of why the space shuttle Columbia was destroyed minutes before it was scheduled to land last February.
The Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times and all the other establishment media agencies dutifully reported NASA’s conclusions that the “smoking gun” had been found.
There is now little doubt the shuttle was irreparably damaged upon launch when foam insulation from the external tank broke free and slammed into the leading edge of the left wing.
Amazingly, however, nearly six months after the shuttle disaster, only one news agency in the world has reported what Paul Harvey would characterize as “the rest of the story.”
Back on Feb. 2, the day after the disintegration of the shuttle – even before there was any certainty about the cause of the disaster – I reported in WorldNetDaily that this problem with the foam insulation had been well-known by NASA for the last six years. Further, I reported, with the help of internal NASA documents, that the new foam insulation used for the last six years on shuttle missions was chosen because it was “environmentally friendly.”
In other words, human lives and millions of dollars in technology were put at risk because of the environmental fad.
It gives me no comfort to say, “I told you so,” not when it involves the lives of the entire crew of the Columbia. But there are important lessons to learn from this disaster – and it is obvious NASA, Congress and the American people are not learning them yet.
More than six years ago, NASA investigated extensive thermal tile damage on the space shuttle Columbia as a direct result of the shedding of external tank insulation on launch. Six years ago! The problems began when the space agency switched to materials and parts that were considered more “environmentally friendly,” according to a NASA report obtained by WorldNetDaily.
In 1997, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage was experienced during launch when the external tank foam crashed into some tiles during the stress of takeoff. Fortunately, the damage was not catastrophic. But investigators then noted the damage followed changes in the methods of “foaming” the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being “environmentally friendly.”
Here’s what that report said: “During the … mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA’s goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of ‘foaming’ the external tank had been used for this mission and the (previous) mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter.”
While the NASA report on that earlier Columbia mission ended on a positive note, suggesting changes would be made in procedures to avoid such problems in the future, obviously the problems continued.
With all the reporting done on this tragedy over the last six months, how is it possible that only WorldNetDaily has reported this critical component of the disaster? How is it possible WorldNetDaily was able to report this the day after the disaster while the rest of the media still have not caught up? Why is this cover-up continuing? Is it a result of environmentalist activism among the nation’s press corps?
The original report is still there on NASA’s website for any other enterprising journalist to go see for himself or herself. I’m not making this stuff up.
Maybe it’s time for you to give the other journalists a little direction. Maybe it’s time for you to pass on this tip to television, radio and print media outlets. Maybe it’s time for you to ask the hard questions since our “watchdogs” seem a little timid or lost.
