Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs)

Schrödinger’s Cat is a television program about scientific research, technology and popular science that runs on channel NRK1 every Thursday at 7:30 PM. It is one of the NRK’s longest running programs. The program was launched in 1989, and was named after a thought experiment by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger.

Read more and see the excellent video at:



This program is part of the factual programing on NRK Television. It’s crew has in this instance, bravely defied the dominating zero-9/11Truth-tolerance culture which still permeate everything under the TV-broadcasters news-programming umbrella. For this I am very greateful. If you read this – Thank you.
Lars Ole Skjønberg, Schrödinger's Cat, NRK

Even though the segment is introduced by the show’s presenter, Hanne Kari Fossum, she only covers one (Harrit) of the four experts featured. The rest is covered by Lars O. Skjønberg and my remarks will focus on his contributions to the segment.

There is two proponents of 9/11 Truth (Harrit and Griffin), one proponent of the Buch/Cheney conspiracy theory (Sandmæl) and one neutral party (Mikkelsen) featured in the segment.

Although I suspect someone wanted Mikkelsen portrayed as endorsing the Bush/Cheney conspiracy theory, this is not the actual result as keen viewers surely already have picked up on. Mikkelsen encourage people to read the paper, when he describes it as interesting. Some of you might remember Steven Jones asking Ola Nilsen if he could conseed that the findings are interesting in my last post. Mikkelsen leaves no doubt about his position in that regard, nor does he doubt nano-thermites explosive role in this case. So far so good.

However, when it comes to Griffin the subtitler and the editor curiously manage to slip on the exact same banana-peel. Audio of Griffins voice is present underneath the voiceover at the beginning of this installment. This creates an illution of continous speech when in fact the audio changes track just before the correct video joins the new audio at 13:35. This allows for quoting Griffin out of context, omitting the fact that Griffin is speaking ironically about the “unique fire event”, which of course never really took place, something Griffin covers thoroughly in his ‘9/11: Time for a Second Look’ lecture, from which the clip is taken. This is so far like any other unfortunate mistake made by the mainstream media with regards to 9/11 Truth. What makes these first few seconds which are vital to establishing / disestablishing Griffin’s credibility so special, is like I just mentioned the tandem-mistake made by the subtitler in this very narrow corner of time in the world. When Griffin says “9/11 is seen as unique, on this day…” the subtitler translates it to “9/11 is ‘unique’, on this day…” further covering up the fact that Griffin is speaking ironically. This opens for the possible impression that Griffin agrees with Sandmæl and contradicts Harrit. Now; there are several oppotunities after this confusing intro, for acute and attentative viewers to understand Griffin’s position correctly. The reason I’m making a fuss about this is that first-impressions are often strongly guiding for how a following message is perceived and interpreted – a lesson learned the hard way by the youth of the countries invaded, because Osama bin Laden was and remains the boogie-man.

Still, I’ve been involved with 9/11 Truth long enough to realize that even accidental odds might yield bounty – in other words – it might actually be an honest mistake. Maybe everything will be perfect next time. :)

The ‘two-man banana-peel’-speculations aside, this is definately one of the most balanced mainstream stories on 9/11 Truth I have ever seen. Now let’s just hope an architect or an engineer decides to inform Finn Sandmæl publically on the many issues he seems to have with reality.

Øyvind Mikkelsen from NTNU

At first you may think he is neutral.

But than he repeats claims already made by "debunkers" or better truth obfuscators.

In the Schrödingers Cat episode he basicially makes three points.
provenance of dust samples - that the traces are no conclusive evidence for a demolition, as the Harrit paper does not go this far, and the amount of nanothermite that has to be used.

First point is that he somehow questioned the dust samples provenance.
When in science it is indeed a basic rule to question the provenance of a sample, here it's mere doubts seeding, like the "debunkers" tune.
He says, so far the translation is correct:
"Methodically, in analytical chemistry, one would normally have more control over the samples. Here there are four samples that are sent from people who have randomly collected dust at different times after the towers fell."
So what does he try to imply? Because he doesn't qualify his remarks, we are left speculating.
On a request to elaborate further from a german "debunker" he answered:
"My opinion from an analytical perspective is also that the sampling and storing of these is unacceptable for any scientific use."
So we should ask why he does think that? Does he imply the probes are inaccurate and contaminated? How could the probes could get contamintated? All of them?
Is in fact the finding that ALL probes does show the chip a sign that it could be no contamination at all?
Why is it possible, that professor Thomas A . Cahill did a examination on a bag for testing the WTC dust? Wasn't that unacceptable storing as well?
What about the storing from the Janette MacKinlay probe in a dust bag? Why is that inaccurate?
He should do what a scientist needs to do: Search for own probes with "accectable" storage and known provenance and probe them his own, instead of his unacceptable doubt seeding by his words.


Thank you

My sentiments exactly. Could you elaborate on Cahill though? I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to there. Does Cahill work with the Jones/Harrit team? I don't know much about the man, unfortunately.

And thank you Justin, I had already seen this, but apparently you had too and so you posted it. These are great little extra nuggets of wisdom about the nano-thermite issue.

I had a polite email exchange

with Professor Thomas A. Cahill. I just ask him questions regarding the aerosols. He was on scene in Kuwait with the burning oil drills and China with the burning coal as well.

He did published some studies on the WTC dust. He did provide me these studies.

Very fine aerosols from the World Trade Center collapse piles: Anaerobic incineration?
Thomas A. Cahill1, Steven S. Cliff1, James Shackelford1, Michael Meier1, Michael Dunlap1, Kevin D. Perry2, Graham Bench3, and Robert Leifer4

Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001
Thomas A. Cahill; Steven S. Cliff; Kevin D. Perry; Michael Jimenez-Cruz; Graham Bench; Patrick Grant; Dawn Ueda; James F. Shackelford; Michael Dunlap; Michael Meier; Peter B. Kelly; Sarah Riddle; Jodye Selco; Robert Leifer

A more public piece on his work was published here:

So I ask him if he did ever observe the red/grey chips, too. But I got no answer. So far.
If this bag was considered useful for an examination, so should be Jeanette MacKinlays plastic bag.

Good points raised by Sitting Bull...

"So I ask him if he did ever observe the red/grey chips, too. But I got no answer. So far.
If this bag was considered useful for an examination, so should be Jeanette MacKinlays plastic bag."

I asked a scientist on the RJ Lee investigative team the same question -- she declined to answer (on the phone). We have also asked NIST and USGS if they have seen the red/gray chips -- no response.

Further with respect to the provenance question -- the "official investigators" have "official" samples of the WTC dust. Why will they not look at those samples and tell us what they find (or don't find)? It is fair to say that NIST refuses to look for explosive residues -- because they have announced this refusal (but without a cogent reason for this refusal).

It is also fair to say that fragments of unexploded highly-active thermitic material should not be present in the WTC dust and therefore that an in-depth investigation of where this came from is in order. We are NOT claiming in the paper this discovery as "proof" that controlled demolition took place -- but rather that this is not right to have this material in the World Trade Center so that a forensic investigation is needed.

Thanks Prof. Jones

Did you saw this in the Esquire article:

"When Esquire called, told him I had kept it in my closet for the last five years, and asked him to test it for toxins, Cahill was stunned. Thousands of tons of debris blew through downtown Manhattan as each of the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11, but no one--not the city, not a lab at nearby NYU, not the EPA--seems to have any primary evidence from inside the plume itself."

Read more:

"On the Hornings' first visit to Fresh Kills, during the 10 months of sifting and sorting material from Ground Zero, the couple saw the ashes and asked to have some to bury. They say they were told the ashes, or "fines," were being kept separate from the building debris. The family would be able to bury some after the sorting process ended.

But when the sorting operation closed down in June 2002, the Hornings discovered that the fines and larger debris were put together into the landfill — separated by a layer of dirt from the last of the city's trash hauled there before Fresh Kills closed in March 2001.

Horrified and angry, the Hornings and a small group of other families formed the World Trade Center Families for Proper Burial. They have gathered nearly 46,000 signatures on a petition on their Internet site. By Diane Horning's count, relatives of more than 1,000 victims of the terrorist attack have signed it."

So I wonder if "the "official investigators" have "official" samples of the WTC dust" is really a given, as the perpetrators maybe made sure that they got rid off all incriminating dust. Is there any chance via FOAI to get these probes, or at least infos if they still have dust probes? At least from EPA/OSHA/USGS, FEMA/ASCE/NIST? Maybe the probes collected by civilians are the only ones left- which may look suspicious, but the authorities can claim they away like the way Mikkelsen invented.

Steven, did you noticed that Sibel Edmonds named Sandia, Los Alamos for possible nuclear technology theft?
That would be two of the only four institutes in the US who worked on nanothermites as well.
Sandia is mentioned briefly in Kevins "Top Ten connections".
Just another coincidence?

Enjoyed parts of the video. Exposure to the subject is key.

Repeating exposure to the subject of 9/11 Truth is key. No matter how many 'mistakes' (see Joe's post above), eventually as the public are repeatedly exposed to 9/11 Truth they will recognize that major aspects about the official story are wrong.