Comment: Uhh....

(See in situ)

In post: .
In reply to comment: RESPONSE I to Eric Hoffer (see in situ)


Oh, OK so you are going to on the one hand acknowledge that there is some unknown technology that brought down the towers...

No, I'm laughing over that point. Maybe it was energy beams from space? Dustification for all! Actually, may want to get this covered: Do you believe it was thermite or that it was energy weapons or something else?

yet on the other hand you are going to take on one of the finest physicists in this country

If you can't even get this fact right, I really don't know what to say to you. Harrit isn't in this country. He teaches in Copenhagen. You can look up where that is on Google sometime in the future.

and one of the leading experts on nanotechnology in the word...

No he isn't. Why in the world would you think he was?

trying to discredit them?

Uh... I'm not trying, I don't really have to. The editor of the journal that published Harrit RESIGNED the paper was so bad.


Yeah science is rough and gory...but you are not making a scientific point here, just a psychological operations point....and that is the truth.

What? I've made the scientific point. Harrit failed to run an FTIR, which would've easily identified the constituent components. When the FTIR was run, it was found that the substances were obviously primer paint. The presence of Kaolin and an epoxy matrix confirms this. Did you not read the paper posted?

Trying to go in order here btw, could've made this easier on us both if you'd have consolidated your posts into one big one. I would've addressed each point :-/ This has the potential for going all over the place in the current format.

Eric Hoffer