General/Off-topic |
|
|
|
9/11 - Islamic Terrorism or American Terrorism?
|
1. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 04:51 am |
Danish Scientist on TV: Nano-thermite Behind Collapse of WTC Buildings on 9/11, Not Planes
On the morning of April the 6th, Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, who is an expert in nano-chemistry, was interviewed for an entire 10 minutes during a news program on the topic of the nano-thermite found in the dust from the World Trade Centre, (WTC). This explosive interview is posted at YouTube, with English subtitles here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6DQjBfbn24
During this news report, Harrit, who is one of the nine scientists primarily responsible for the pivotal paper entitled: ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’, talks about how their research, which was conducted over 18 months, led to the conclusion that planes did not cause the collapse of the three buildings at the WTC on 9/11.
He says that they found such large quantities of nano-thermite in the dust from the WTC, that he believes that this product, which has the ability to melt metal, as well as break things apart, must have been brought into the WTC site in tonnes, on pallets. Consequently, he suggests that we need to address this matter with those who were in charge of the security at the World Trade Centre on 9/11.
Harrit, like Dr Steven Jones who also played a major role in this ground-breaking research, refers to their findings as “the loaded gun” and implies that military personnel may be able to enlighten us more on the little-known topic of nano-thermite, which differs from regular thermite in a number of significant ways, including that its ignition temperature is far lower than that of the conventional kind.
|
|
2. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 07:24 am |
Conspiricy theory number 3.632......
|
|
3. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 07:50 am |
Conspiricy theory number 3.632......
truth hurts? you can`t handle it?
Edited (4/23/2009) by tamikidakika
|
|
4. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 12:48 pm |
truth hurts? you can`t handle it?
First you open a topic and then when someone disagreees with you, you jump on them!!! Maybe YOU are unable to handle it!
Edited (4/23/2009) by catwoman
|
|
5. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 12:57 pm |
First you open a topic and then when someone disagreees with you, you jump on them!!! Maybe YOU are unable to handle it!
when someone disagrees with a topic, he/she has to come up with a plausable argument to prove his/her point. I see that neither you or Trudy is able to do that.
|
|
6. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 01:00 pm |
truth hurts? you can`t handle it?
Canim, I´ve heard so many ´theories´ (mind the ´´ !!) that I hardly believe anyone of them at all. From KGB, Mossad, Bush in person, CIA, MIT, MI5, FBI, Al-Quaida, Elisabeth the Queen of England to Marsians. (Just not heard any story in which a cloggie was accused.... )
|
|
7. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 01:03 pm |
Canim, I´ve heard so many ´theories´ (mind the ´´ !!) that I hardly believe anyone of them at all. From KGB, Mossad, Bush in person, CIA, MIT, MI5, FBI, Al-Quaida, Elisabeth the Queen of England to Marsians. (Just not heard any story in which a cloggie was accused.... )
I`m still waiting for you to refute this hard fact that there was explosives in the building. I don`t care about what the queen of england has told you.
|
|
8. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 01:17 pm |
And I say it was Ydoolb Traf from the planet of Yloh Teihs who destroyed the towers with undetectable thought stream. Now, tami, please refute this theory
|
|
9. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 01:24 pm |
And I say it was Ydoolb Traf from the planet of Yloh Teihs who destroyed the towers with undetectable thought stream. Now, tami, please refute this theory
if you want me to refute it you first have to prove it.
|
|
10. |
23 Apr 2009 Thu 01:34 pm |
if you want me to refute it you first have to prove it.
I just did
As for your "sensational" theory of conspiracy, google a tad more to get this and millions of alike explanations. Geezz..get a life tami, stop looking for cheap excitement, don´t you know that all theories of conspiracy are construed in such a way to seem really plausible on the first glance (and on the second and third as well)
|
|
|