National media tends to be conservative and cautious, lawsuits and court appearances being somewhat damaging to their reputations and balance sheets.
So, after no doubt, some consideration as to the legal and political ramifications of transmitting a refutation to the official version of 9/11, TV2 in Denmark went ahead and aired the above interview with Professor Niels Harrit, whose findings are giving a clearer picture of how the three towers collapsed into their own footprint.
It seems too that at last, the FBI whistleblower, Sibil Edmonds, is having her voice heard....
Here`s a link or two, firstly during the first "official inquiry". Interview with American radio station.
Secondly to Counterpunch, the online news source....January 2008....
Of course, none of these "facts" give the full picture of what is going on within the military industrial complex, the cost of which is beginning to exceed that of education, law and order, pensions, health, transport.....
It`s an old game, isn`t it? The militaries tell the politicians and the population that there are threats from a dangerous enemy, but fortunately, they have the troops and weapons to save the nation...and each year it costs just a few trillion dollars more.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Something interesting in the State of Denmark.
Posted byBlogItemURL> landsker at 4:50 am
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
indeed.
about the video.......
The man being interviewed misrepresents the facts.
The discovery of the thermitic materials was not by chance. The forward to the study in question states that the purpose of the inquiry is to look for other materials besides jet fuel that could have caused the collapse.
He states repeatedly that nanothermite is an exposive which it is not. Thermite burns fast and nanothermite faster.
The buildings could very well have been demolished with thermite (my hero Edward Abbey of The Monkeywrench Gang fame used to cut down billboards with the stuff) but it would have to have been perfectly placed against critical parts of the superstructure and ignited at exactly the right time for a controlled demolition.
Leaving it sitting around on pallets would not work. Thermite will not cut through concrete, which was the material used for the floors.
He states repeatedly that nanothermite can not occur naturally and then describes the building being completely pulverized except for the steel girders.
Nanthermite is made of pulverized aluminum and iron, materials that existed abundantly in the building, and the fact that they found what amounted to tons of un-reacted nanothermite proves that it can occur naturally. Much more likely than a demolition expert screwing up and having tons of material left after such a perfect demolition.
Its too debunkable to be believed.
Listening carefully to the interview, he states that apart from the Nano-thermite, which as you say, burns/ cuts through steel, but is not an explosive...in his estimation possibly hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were also used.
Not wishing to get into a debate over the how and who did it... but I`d agree with the position of most people who call for a full and fresh investigation...
Or does one blithely accept the official version?
Two planes demolish three towers, a boeing passenger plane flies through the re-enforced walls of the Pentagon, and the US airforce is coincidentally grounded for the day, conducting an exercise that involved passenger planes being hijacked by middle eastern terrorists...
A new examination of the evidence, perhaps at the international court of justice in Holland.
It seems you blithely accept information that makes 9/11 seem suspicious. Why do you do that?
Again, follow the two steps I told you about. You'll get another debunked theory -- the stand down. Let me help you by providing you the link below. Then try and find counter arguments for it. The website even encourages you to do so.
This way you'll find the REAL truth. You can do it, Landsker!
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down
By the way, did you know that not only the integrity of the study by the 9 authors (8 of them conspiracy theorists long before they started their research -- including Niels harrit) has been put into serious question, but the conclusions and applied methodologies have been as well?
If you want I could provide you with more information on this matter. Just keep an open mind!
I found it a pity you simply brushed off the links to the websites I provided in my previous comment to another post of yours, without using a single sound counter argument...
Post a Comment