Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

    Last April, a Danish scientist named Dr. Niels Harrit published a A peer-reviewed paper reported that a little known high-tech explosive called nano-thermite was found throughout the World Trade Center dust. He was criticized for his sample collection, analysis methods, and the conclusion. Yet here is what the true experts in this fields have to say about this paper:

    "...provides indisputable evidence that a highly engineered explosive called nano-thermite was found in the dust of all three buildings that came down on 9/11 2001 in New York city.

    This advanced explosive incorporating nanotechnology is only available to sophisticated military labs."

    This statement is from non-other than the British Institute of Nanotechnology - a leading organization of nanotechnology in Europe. According to its own website:

    "Between 2001 and 2003, as part of the formulation of a nanotechnology strategy for the UK , the then DTI approached IoN to organise fact finding Missions to key nanotechnology locations"..."From 2002 – 2007, IoN was the lead partner in Nanoforum, www.nanoforum.org ‘the European Nanotechnology Gateway', an important dissemination project aimed at raising the levels of nanotechnology knowledge across EU Member States".

    This is their advisory group.

    Their endorsement of Dr. Harrit's finding lend him huge credibility, and the significance is unimaginable.

    Since the publishing of this paper, main stream media has gradually changed their attitude towards the so-call "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist". The following are a few examples:

    1. ON NOVEMBER 27, 2009, CBC(Canadian Brocasting Corporation) aired a documentary "The Unofficial Story" on its popular "Fifth Estate" program, exploring the alternative 9/11 viewd with a balanced and unbiased coverage.

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/

    2. TruTV's "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" has an episode about 9/11. I find Mr. Ventura is an honest, straight-talking former politician, intelligent person. He might be an outliner on the US political scene, but he certainly has his influence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uw5B...eature=related

    3. Heise Online (a German publishing house) carried an interview with German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth (judge of the Federal Administrative Court and an expert on international law, administrative and constitutional law). Here is what he said about 9/11:

    Original,and google translation:

    "Since 11 September, as reported in a loop again and again, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks. Interestingly, Osama bin Laden is still wanted by the FBI not because of 9 / 11. Why? Because we, we present statements from officials of the FBI, has against him in terms of 9 / 11 no evidence in court. And yet, even though law enforcement has the supreme authority of the United States does not have such evidence in court against OBL, you have started the war, first in Afghanistan, then against Iraq, possibly soon in Pakistan."

    "When you make the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorist from 9 / 11, then you're in the burden of proof. One would certainly strive earnestly for his extradition and he will have to face before an independent court."

    "It is alleged that the Bush administration's alleged or actual evidence of their official 9/11-Version, has been as I said, have never been audited by an independent court. If someone is with the official version of a "Surprise Conspiracy" (Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network controlled assassin deals) will find that you are dealing with a lot of unproven allegations, some more than others plausible. Why are there because of 9 / 11 is no arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden? It should therefore be promptly reviewed in each case strictly on the basis of law, whether the official conspiracy version, as they will spend 8 years to the public as truth, is also in fact the truth."

    More details: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=17624

    At this stage, anyone still think the "Truthers" are a bunch of nutcase "Conspiracy Theorist", will you please open your eyes and mind, and rethink?

  • #2
    Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

    Please answer this one question for me on the "truther" conspiracy theory.

    Was crashing an airliner into the World Trade center not spectacular enough that they had to also bring it down with "nano-thermite" ??? Why a double hit? And don't say planes didn't hit the towers, thousands witnessed this.:rolleyes: Why risk being discovered planting explosives when a fully loaded jet liner would do devastating damage? What was to be gained by a merely burned out World Trade center and potentially killing thousands vs a fully destroyed one? Would America ignore it otherwise? I never see that question answered.

    You truthers need to try pulling back and looking at this from the big picture instead of concentrating on all the pieces that supposedly prove a conspiracy. Think about it. What "master of the universe" who could supposedly pull this off is going to risk everything he has, power, money, etc? And for what gain? Money? The Banksters showed us you don't have to blow up buildings in order to steal a fortune. Power? Anyone with the power to pull off this conspiracy would already have all the power he needed to do whatever he wanted.

    I tried looking into this subject with an open mind, but I can't get past the first page before my BS meter is going off the hook. I watched a show last night on it as a matter of fact. Not the best show, but the parade of "crazy eyed" leaders of the movement was all I needed to see. David Ray Griffin? And some teenaged looking kid with a soul patch. All SELLING their version of the "truth".

    Is our government capable of lies and deceit? Certainly. I just don't think they pulled this one off like the truther movement claims. Never underestimate how incompetent our government is. The men who flew those planes into the buildings were allowed to because of incompetence and political correctness, not a conspiracy.

    Don't bother posting 100 pages of "evidence". I won't read it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

      Originally posted by flintlock View Post
      Please answer this one question for me on the "truther" conspiracy theory.

      Was crashing an airliner into the World Trade center not spectacular enough that they had to also bring it down with "nano-thermite" ??? Why a double hit? And don't say planes didn't hit the towers, thousands witnessed this.:rolleyes: Why risk being discovered planting explosives when a fully loaded jet liner would do devastating damage? What was to be gained by a merely burned out World Trade center and potentially killing thousands vs a fully destroyed one? Would America ignore it otherwise? I never see that question answered.

      You truthers need to try pulling back and looking at this from the big picture instead of concentrating on all the pieces that supposedly prove a conspiracy. Think about it. What "master of the universe" who could supposedly pull this off is going to risk everything he has, power, money, etc? And for what gain? Money? The Banksters showed us you don't have to blow up buildings in order to steal a fortune. Power? Anyone with the power to pull off this conspiracy would already have all the power he needed to do whatever he wanted.

      I tried looking into this subject with an open mind, but I can't get past the first page before my BS meter is going off the hook. I watched a show last night on it as a matter of fact. Not the best show, but the parade of "crazy eyed" leaders of the movement was all I needed to see. David Ray Griffin? And some teenaged looking kid with a soul patch. All SELLING their version of the "truth".

      Is our government capable of lies and deceit? Certainly. I just don't think they pulled this one off like the truther movement claims. Never underestimate how incompetent our government is. The men who flew those planes into the buildings were allowed to because of incompetence and political correctness, not a conspiracy.

      Don't bother posting 100 pages of "evidence". I won't read it.
      You just don't get it, do you? :p

      The nano thermite was delivered by the planes. Once they hit, advanced autonomous robots carried secretly in the cargo holds of the planes then emerged and clambered (a la Matrix Revolutions) quickly to the key structural areas, whereupon their payloads were delivered. This took several minutes (which explains why the buildings didn't fall immediately).

      I suggest you triple up on your tinfoil head covering - the added bonus is that is helps to more evenly cook one's brain cells . . .

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

        Originally posted by flintlock View Post
        Please answer this one question for me on the "truther" conspiracy theory.

        Was crashing an airliner into the World Trade center not spectacular enough that they had to also bring it down with "nano-thermite" ??? Why a double hit? And don't say planes didn't hit the towers, thousands witnessed this.:rolleyes: Why risk being discovered planting explosives when a fully loaded jet liner would do devastating damage? What was to be gained by a merely burned out World Trade center and potentially killing thousands vs a fully destroyed one? Would America ignore it otherwise? I never see that question answered.

        You truthers need to try pulling back and looking at this from the big picture instead of concentrating on all the pieces that supposedly prove a conspiracy. Think about it. What "master of the universe" who could supposedly pull this off is going to risk everything he has, power, money, etc? And for what gain? Money? The Banksters showed us you don't have to blow up buildings in order to steal a fortune. Power? Anyone with the power to pull off this conspiracy would already have all the power he needed to do whatever he wanted.

        I tried looking into this subject with an open mind, but I can't get past the first page before my BS meter is going off the hook. I watched a show last night on it as a matter of fact. Not the best show, but the parade of "crazy eyed" leaders of the movement was all I needed to see. David Ray Griffin? And some teenaged looking kid with a soul patch. All SELLING their version of the "truth".
        I have a friend who believes in the conspiracy theory, so I did take a look at a lot of the "evidence" in order to discuss it with him. In every instance, I found plausible, non-conspiratorial alternative explanations for what occurred. As a result, I'm not a truther, and I don't think there was a conspiracy. However . . . .

        My truther friend would probably answer your argument by saying that the goal of the attack was to destroy the towers entirely, leaving a gaping hole and permanently marring the skyline . . . the idea being that the greater the damage, the bigger the effect. Also, he claims that it was an attempt to strike a devastating blow to the financial system, so it was necessary to destroy the records and the financial workers in the process. Wiping out a few floors with airplanes would not have been sufficient.
        raja
        Boycott Big Banks • Vote Out Incumbents

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

          Originally posted by flintlock View Post
          Please answer this one question for me on the "truther" conspiracy theory.

          Was crashing an airliner into the World Trade center not spectacular enough that they had to also bring it down with "nano-thermite" ??? Why a double hit? And don't say planes didn't hit the towers, thousands witnessed this.:rolleyes: Why risk being discovered planting explosives when a fully loaded jet liner would do devastating damage? What was to be gained by a merely burned out World Trade center and potentially killing thousands vs a fully destroyed one? Would America ignore it otherwise? I never see that question answered.

          note that the following does NOT necessarily reflects my beliefs, it's just a hypothetical argument:

          what if, for contingency planning, these towers were already fitted with thermite? There had been a previous failed bombing attempt on one of these exact towers. If such an bombing would cause these towers to eventually flip over onto neighbouring building, the damage would be much greater than if they'd implode on themselves. You'd need to show significant chances of this happening to strengthen this hypothesis though.

          If this hypothesis is true, the next question should be to look whether the thermite was ignited in the 9-11 attacks, and if so, whether the ignition occurred controlled or uncontrolled (e.g. by indirect result of the planes crashing into the towers). If controlled, what would the motives be? etc.
          engineer with little (or even no) economic insight

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

            :rolleyes:
            I find it odd how people just can't grasp the plain truth that the impact of a giant airliner and subsequent fire brought down the towers (and the hours of rampant fire and damage to tower 7 eventually made it succumb). If you refuse to accept engineering principles, then you have no business talking about cause and effect of structural failures.

            I love how only part of the post is in regards to the British Institute of Nanotechnology, which appears to be just a web forum with only one (1) poster. The rest of skyson's post is in relation to pseudo-legal BS and the like. Sigh...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

              Originally posted by FrankL View Post
              note that the following does NOT necessarily reflects my beliefs, it's just a hypothetical argument:

              what if, for contingency planning, these towers were already fitted with thermite?
              Thermite is not an explosive. It's used for things like welding railroad tracks. Why use it at all?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

                Originally posted by Scot View Post
                Thermite is not an explosive. It's used for things like welding railroad tracks. Why use it at all?
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapons

                I wasn't aware of nano-thermite prior to this, but it would seem to be perfect for this scenario.

                Thermite is great for a secret demolition like this as the primary components, iron oxide and aluminum, are found in great abundance in a modern office tower.

                Oh also - it seems the benefit of nano-thermite is a lower initial reaction temperature. Standard thermite you make at home requires a very hot source, like a magnesium ribbon ignited with a torch.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

                  Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
                  I love how only part of the post is in regards to the British Institute of Nanotechnology, which appears to be just a web forum with only one (1) poster.
                  ????

                  With this criticism, you are embarking up the wrong tree.

                  http://www.nano.org.uk/aboutus/ukboard.htm
                  Last edited by Slimprofits; 02-18-10, 12:55 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

                    Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
                    :rolleyes:
                    I find it odd how people just can't grasp the plain truth that the impact of a giant airliner and subsequent fire brought down the towers (and the hours of rampant fire and damage to tower 7 eventually made it succumb). If you refuse to accept engineering principles, then you have no business talking about cause and effect of structural failures.

                    I love how only part of the post is in regards to the British Institute of Nanotechnology, which appears to be just a web forum with only one (1) poster. The rest of skyson's post is in relation to pseudo-legal BS and the like. Sigh...
                    I'm no engineer, and in general haven't studied this issue much, but I live in NYC. Every time I walk by the WTC site, I am always amazed at how little collateral damage there is.

                    I mean, the British dumped huge amounts of jet fuel on German cities and the destruction was simply enormous. The fire was burning so hot from jet fuel it melted solid steel but didn't ignite a firestorm? In a canyon of high rises? Surrounding buildings - with two notable exceptions, WTC7 and the DB building - didn't sustain much damage at all?

                    Whatever else can be said, the demolition just seemed to perfect, far too perfect.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

                      Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

                      OK, assuming the buildings fell after fire for natural structure failure. The real problem remains that the allegation of 19 hijackers/Bin Laden commiting the crime is not a proven case in court. FBI, the investigating branch of US government publicly admitted that they did not have the evidence to charge Bin Laden on the crime of 9/11. Again these are not my words. It is the FBI saying "no hard evidence".

                      Bin Laden is not charged, let alone prosecuted for the crime of 9/11. A person is innocent until proven guilty byond reasonable doubts. Yet two wars have been waged. If you think the US being the number one super power does not need to abide by the rule of law, then it is fine with me. If that is the case, you are a nation of thugs, and don't pretend otherwise.


                      Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
                      :rolleyes:
                      I love how only part of the post is in regards to the British Institute of Nanotechnology, which appears to be just a web forum with only one (1) poster.
                      This is their contact info: http://www.nano.org.uk/contacts.htm

                      It is a big organization. I have no knowledge about them, and assume that they would have a reviewing policy before posting any news items. How did you reach that conclusion?

                      Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
                      The rest of skyson's post is in relation to pseudo-legal BS and the like. Sigh...
                      Again, that were not my words.

                      I am not a legal professional, and don't have the qualifications to judge if the German federal judge's words as "pseudolegal BS" or not. Do you?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

                        Originally posted by Serge_Tomiko View Post
                        I'm no engineer, and in general haven't studied this issue much, but I live in NYC. Every time I walk by the WTC site, I am always amazed at how little collateral damage there is.

                        I mean, the British dumped huge amounts of jet fuel on German cities and the destruction was simply enormous. The fire was burning so hot from jet fuel it melted solid steel but didn't ignite a firestorm? In a canyon of high rises? Surrounding buildings - with two notable exceptions, WTC7 and the DB building - didn't sustain much damage at all?

                        Whatever else can be said, the demolition just seemed to perfect, far too perfect.
                        What exactly are you talking about?

                        WWII? Jet fuel??

                        Do you have a reference as I have never heard of such a thing...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

                          Originally posted by Scot View Post
                          Thermite is not an explosive. It's used for things like welding railroad tracks. Why use it at all?
                          I thought thermite was an incendiary bomb component, not an explosive.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

                            Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                            I thought thermite was an incendiary bomb component, not an explosive.
                            This is a video showing the test to compare the effects of a normal thermite and nano thermite:
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxMjqskh3ec

                            Apparently, normal thermite is an incendiary material, but the nano thermite is an explosive. It is suggested that merely a layer of paint of nano thermite is enough to melt a steel column.

                            I assume the nano material used in the youtube video is not as powerful as the one "used in WTC". Notice the statement of British Institute of Nanotechnology:"...This advanced explosive incorporating nanotechnology is only available to sophisticated military labs."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

                              Originally posted by flintlock View Post
                              Was crashing an airliner into the World Trade center not spectacular enough that they had to also bring it down with "nano-thermite" ??? Why a double hit? And don't say planes didn't hit the towers, thousands witnessed this.:rolleyes: Why risk being discovered planting explosives when a fully loaded jet liner would do devastating damage? What was to be gained by a merely burned out World Trade center and potentially killing thousands vs a fully destroyed one? Would America ignore it otherwise? I never see that question answered.
                              I would call myself more of a skeptic than a truther, but I think I can answer this question.

                              The supposed goal of the attack was not to damage the buildings. Rather, it was to instill such a horrific, demoralizing and lasting image into the minds of the American public that they would be willing to accept fascist legislation, such as the Patriot Act, along with a never-ending, never-winnable "war on terror". Simply hitting the buildings with a plane wouldn't have been enough: the buildings had to fully (and dramatically) collapse to guarantee the intended effect. If they had been left standing, the effect may have in fact been reversed: they could have easily become a symbol of strength and courage, rather than a symbol of defeat and fear.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X