Search This Blog

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Danish TV = 9/11 truth! MUST SEE - Sensational!

First the Mohammed Cartoons, now this!


The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English and loaded onto youtube (direct link), and should appear (embedded) below

The clip is also available on our server ( with links to various alternative (higher quality) formats and the full text of the English subtitles. Some readers may want to download a high quality version and mirror it on other servers (put the URL in a comment to this blog entry), in case our server struggles with demand and/or youtube lets us down.

We are working on subtitles for the second 6 min. interview (covers similar material) and will post this later. The journal article has also received reasonably fair coverage in a number of mainstream Danish newspapers (these articles are in Danish, the headlines are translated below):

JyllandsPosten: Researchers: Explosives in dust from WTC Danish researcher: Explosive nano-material found in dust from WTC Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence for old knowledge about 9/11

Politiken: 9/11 conspiracy theories revitalised

EkstraBladet: WTC mystery: Nano-thermite in the towers

Ingeniøren: Research team claims to have found nano-explosive in the World Trade Center

Kristeligt Dagblad: Dane resurrects September 11 conspiracy theory

We hope this precedent may serve to encourage journalists in other countries to take the article's findings seriously, and start looking more critically at 9/11. Do what you can to make them aware of this coveraage in your country.

The Danish tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet has posted on their web site this 46 minute video with other prominent danes who question the official 911 story (all in Danish, hopefully someone will rise to the task and repost this with subtitles!)

The first author on this recent paper,[1] Niels H. Harrit, Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and expert in nano-chemistry, has given the below interview at approximately 10:30 p.m. April 6, 2009 on TV 2 News in Denmark ( ), one of the two most respected Danish television channels:

"A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles )," Enderlein79, April 10, 2009

The following is an English-translation transcript of the aforementioned interview:

Interviewer: International researchers have found traces of explosives among the World Trade Center rubble. A new scientific article concludes that impacts from the two hijacked aircraft did not cause the collapses in 2001.

We turn our attention to 9/11: the major attack in New York. Apparently the two airplane impacts did not cause the towers to collapse, according to a newly published scientific article. Researchers found nano-thermite explosive in the rubble, that cannot have come from the planes. They believe several tonnes of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance.

Niels Harrit, you and eight other researchers conclude in this article, that it was nano-thermite that caused these buildings to collapse. What is nano-thermite?

Niels Harrit: We found nano-thermite in the rubble. We are not saying only nano-thermite was used. Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 °C. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. Nanotechnology makes things smaller. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

Interviewer: I Googled nano-thermite, and not much has been written about it. Is it a widely known scientific substance? Or is it so new that other scientists are hardly aware of it?

Harrit: It is a collective name for substances with high levels of energy. If civilian researchers (like myself) are not familiar with it, it is probably because they do not do much work with explosives. As for military scientists, you would have to ask them. I do not know how familiar they are with nanotechnology.

Interviewer: So you found this substance in the WTC, why do you think it caused the collapses?

Harrit: Well, it's an explosive. Why else would it be there?

Interviewer: You believe the intense heat melted the building's steel support structure, and caused the building to collapse like a house of cards?

Harrit: I cannot say precisely, as this substance can serve both purposes. It can explode and break things apart, and it can melt things. Both effects were probably used, as I see it. Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance. Then the regular explosives come into play. The actual collapse sequence had to be perfectly timed, all the way down.

Interviewer: What quantities are we talking about?

Harrit: A lot. There were only two planes, but three skyscrapers collapsed. We know roughly how much dust was created. The pictures show huge quantities, everything but the steel was pulverized. And we know roughly how much unreacted thermite we have found. This is the "loaded gun": material that did not ignite for some reason. We are talking about tonnes. Over 10 tonnes, possibly 100 tonnes.

Interviewer: Ten tonnes, possibly 100 tonnes, in three buildings? And these substances are not normally found in such buildings?

Harrit: No. These materials are extremely advanced.

Interviewer: How do you place such material in a skyscraper, on all the floors?

Harrit: How you would get it in?

Interviewer: Yes.

Harrit: If I had to transport it in those quantities I would use pallets: get a truck and move it in on pallets.

Interviewer: Why hasn't this been discovered earlier?

Harrit: By whom?

Interviewer: The caretakers, for example. If you are moving 10 to 100 tonnes of nano-thermite around, and placing it on all the floors. I am just surprised no one noticed.

Harrit: As a journalist, you should address that question to the company responsible for security at the WTC.

Interviewer: So you are in no doubt the material was present?

Harrit: You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite.

Interviewer: What responses has your article received around the world? It is completely new knowledge for me.

Harrit: It was only published last Friday. So it is too early to say. But the article may not be as groundbreaking as you think. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, have long known that the three buildings were demolished. This has been crystal clear. Our research is just the last nail in the coffin. This is not the "smoking gun"--it is the "loaded gun." Each day, thousands of people realize that the WTC was demolished. That is something unstoppable.

Interviewer: Why has no one discovered earlier that there was nano-thermite in the buildings? Almost ten years have passed.

Harrit: You mean in the dust?

Interviewer: Yes.

Harrit: It was by chance that someone looked at the dust with a microscope. They are tiny red chips. The biggest are 1 mm in size, and can be seen with the naked eye. But you need a microscope to see the vast majority. It was by chance that someone discovered them two years ago. It has taken 18 months to prepare the scientific article you refer to. It is a very comprehensive article based on thorough research.

Interviewer: You have been working on this for several years, because it didn't make sense to you.

Harrit: Yes, over two years actually. It all started when I saw the collapse of Building 7, the third skyscraper. It collapsed seven hours after the twin towers. And there were only two airplanes. When you see a 47-storey building, 186 m tall, collapse in 6.5 seconds, and you are a scientist, you think "What?!" I had to watch it again and again. I hit the button 10 times, and my jaw dropped lower and lower. Firstly, I had never heard of that building before. And there was no visible reason why it should collapse in that way, straight down, in 6.5 seconds. I have had no rest since that day.

Interviewer: Ever since 9/11 there has been speculation, and conspiracy theories. What do you say to viewers who hear about your research and say, "We've heard it all before, there are lots of conspiracy theories." What would you say to convince them that this is different?

Harrit: I think there is only one conspiracy theory worth mentioning, the one involving 19 hijackers. I think viewers should ask themselves what evidence they have seen to support the official conspiracy theory. If anyone has seen evidence, I would like to hear about it. No one has been formally charged. No one is "wanted." Our work should lead to demands for a proper criminal investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Because it never happened. We are still waiting for it. We hope our results will be used as technical evidence when that day comes.

Interviewer: Niels Harrit, fascinating. Thanks for coming in.

Harrit: My pleasure.



1. Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (2009), pp. 7-31



"Active Thermitic Material Discovered In Dust From The 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

brief info:

download paper:

Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice:

Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth:

Image Hosted by

(Via the Citizens for Legitimate Government email newslist. Those who wish to be added to the list can go here: and add your name.)

'Devil's Advocate' jury finds no proof he was behind Sept. 11

By Scott Roxborough - April 9, 2009, 12:37 PM ET

BERLIN -- A Dutch TV jury has found Osama bin Laden not guilty of the Sept. 11 attacks.

In the conclusion Wednesday night to the show "Devil's Advocate" on Dutch public broadcaster Nederland 2, the jury of two men and three women, along with the studio audience, ruled there was no proof bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.

The Netherlands, home to "Big Brother" creator Endemol, is known for being on the cutting edge of format-based television. But even for Dutch standards, "Devil's Advocate," from Amsterdam production house AVRO, pushes the envelope.

The show features star defense attorney Gerard Spong standing up for some of the world's worst criminals.

In the latest show, Spong was able to convince the jury that bin Laden's connection to Sept. 11 was a product of "Western propaganda." The jury also ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove bin Laden was the real head of terrorist network al-Qaida. However, the jury did rule that bin Laden is a "terrorist who has misused Islam."

The show is certain to provide further ammunition in the already heated Dutch debate over immigration and the country's large Muslim minority. The Netherlands saw a sharp rise in anti-immigration and anti-Islamic sentiment after the 2004 murder of Dutch director Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist.

Spong has been at the center of the debate, supporting legal action against anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders.

The attorny Spong is one of Hollands top 5 attornies and is well respected by most. I saw the show and thought it was ok, Spong does proof/debates innocense on 2 of 3 counts. first he's innocent for planning 911 (no proof/video proof fake) 2nd he's innocent for leading AlQaida he's just a poster boy for the US. He was guilty of being a terrorist , the jury rulled he did (uss cole, US ambasades) spreads terror around the world and isn't a freedom fighter like Nelson Mandela as Spong claimed. But was it ground breaking did it push the envelope? you'd be the judge. Interesting was the argument on who's the terrorist.. Bin Laden or the USA? Going back to the start of the rusia/afgan war and the sponsorship/creation of Al-CIAda by the US. Spong said "alqaida doesn't excist" and he was right on that! He also mostly used the material shown in the BBC "power of nightmares" documentary.


(It's been over 10 years since Annie Machon and David Shayler resigned from MI5, to blow the whistle on an act of False Flag terror by British intelligence in Libya, and other deceptive practices by intelligence agencies in the UK and abroad. In 2006, Machon gave a Keynote speech at the landmark Chicago 9/11 Truth Conference, introducing her story to a wider audience. In 2006-7, Machon organised three UK and European tours for William Rodriguez. She traveled and spoke with him at over 40 engagements, last year she spoke in California. She has also organised European speaking tours for Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, and shared a platform with Cynthia McKinney in Amsterdam in 2007. Starting in May, Machon will be speaking at a number of places in Canada. To learn more about this speaking tour, and to possibly add your city to the itinerary, please contact Elizabeth Woodworth: elizwood(at) or Patrick Borden: omtrayumbakam(at) -rep.)

911blogger: Ms. Machon, what is your current relationship with David Shayler? Do you still believe that Shayler had a genuine breakdown, or was his breakdown perhaps premediated, with the intent of making 9/11 Truth advocates look batty?

Machon: David and I separated almost three years ago, and I'm now living in Germany with my partner and Molly the cat.

I have very little contact with David now, which is strange after the intensity of our years together, when we blew the whistle, had to go on the run around Europe, watch as our friends, family, supporters and journalists were arrested, live in France for 3 years and survive two high-profile court cases.

It's a shame it all happened just before the internet, electronic media archives, and youtube were endemic - otherwise people would be able to see, at the click of a mouse, just how big a scandal it was, what we went through, and how vicious the response was from the government and intelligence agencies. The story has been largely forgotten and spun by the media, and my book (which described the full case) was buried.

Our involvement with the 9/11 movement started in 2005 at a journalism conference where we were trying to publicise the book, when a leading UK 9/11 activist approached us. We were actively "head hunted" by the nascent UK movement, and for the first year Shayler's name and profile really helped build it - media interviews, speaking tours etc.

Then he started to get more and more erratic, and increasingly intractable in his views, until he started talking about speculative fringe theories such as "no planes" in public, and the whole campaign was ridiculed by the media in the UK.

During 2006 I was working flat out on building the movement with interviews and speaking tours. David and I argued about his approach constantly towards the end of our relationship and it was a factor in our split, as I felt angry that he was jeopardising all this work from so many people with his views.

That said, in my view it was a genuine breakdown - I think the hero-worship for the whistleblowing from certain sectors of society and the vilification by others, plus the constant isolation and struggle to survive, led inevitably to this victim (sacrificial/Messiah) mentality. I think it was just a traumatised mind's survival mechanism.

I feel desperately sad about that a man who acted with the bravest and best of intentions should have been treated this way and brought to this state. And angry that the supine mainstream media did not hold the spies and government to account, but colluded in destroying a good man's reputation.

That said, it's difficult enough to get the general public to even ask the basic questions about 9/11. I think that going in at the deep end with subjects like NPT/space beams, let alone announcing that you're the Messiah, is inevitably going to damage the movement.

911blogger: You don't have to name names, but have you encountered MI5 operatives involved with infiltration of the 9/11 Truth movement in the UK?

Machon: I doubt if even MI5 would be incompetent enough to send in someone I'd recognise!

There is a very British muddle in how surveillance is done in the UK. It's not just MI5 we have to worry about, there are also police Special Branch sections (ie secret police - every force has one), as well as a massive growth in the private security companies that are also being used to watch activists - all utterly deniable of course. There was a good article about this in The New Statesman Magazine.

Also, work is strictly delineated within MI5. Intelligence officers (which is what I was) tend to co-ordinate operations; agents are people specifically recruited to infiltrate groups, and their identities are a closely guarded secret even within the service, so it would be highly unlikely that I would bump into anyone I would recognise.

That said, I did a speaking event in London last year and a former counter-terrorism officer from the Metropolitan Police, who has been battling the Met for the last few years and whom I'd met on a couple of TV projects, did tell me that he recognised one of his former colleagues in the audience. Perhaps he was just there out of interest....

911blogger: Does MI5 in the UK, and MI6 abroad, actively recruit Muslims, who then in turn recruit other Muslims for "al Qaeda" -- but really just wind up as Patsies to be blamed for False Flag terror? And is this really what "al Qaeda" is? A Western intelligence operation? Or do you think it is more complex than that?

Machon: The illegal MI6 plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi of Libya in 1996 was was a classic case of such false flag terrorism, and was the primary reason Shayler and I blew the whistle.

In this, MI6 funded a Libyan military intelligence officer, codenamed Tunworth, to organise this attack using a group of Islamic extremists with links to "Al Qaeda". The attack occurred when Gaddafi was returning from Sirte in a cavalcade of cars and an explosion occurred beneath the wrong car. Gaddafi obviously survived, but innocent people were killed in the ensuing security shoot-out.

As well as being unethical and highly reckless in a volatile part of the world, the operation was also illegal under UK law. MI6 is supposed to be governed by by the 1994 Intelligence Services Act. Under this law, MI6 officers can have immunity for illegal acts carried out abroad (the real "James Bond" license to kill), but only if they have prior written permission from their political master - the Foreign Secretary. In this case, they had no such permission.

We repeatedly tried to give evidence about the Gadaffi plot to the government; to this day they have refused to accept it, even though an MI6 document was leaked in 2000 proving the plot, and sources in French and US intelligence were aware of it. When Shayler exposed this crime in 1998, he was thrown in prison in Paris because the British government tried (and failed) to extradite him. There was huge pressure for an enquiry, but the government managed to spin its way out of one.

Of course, it's generally accepted that "Al Qaeda" began with the CIA's support for the mujahadin in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Also, that the links continue to this day. But "Al Qaeda" has also become an ideology, a franchise that genuinely angry Muslims will sign up to. So it's a mixed bag.

911blogger: Is there a political party in the UK that offers a real alternative for 9/11 Truth advocates? For example, is there a political party that demands a dismantling or serious overhaul of MI5/MI6?

Machon: Unfortunately not. The UK Green Party expressed some interest in the issue of 9/11 a while ago, but that went nowhere. The mainstream political parties won't touch it. The issue was getting a lot of coverage in the UK a couple of years ago, but since then the campaign has been fragmented by arguments about whether we should focus on a credible political campaign, a la David Ray Griffin or Richard Gage, or focus on the "bigger picture". Many people chose the latter, and this made it ridiculously easy for the media and political classes to dismiss the subject as pure conspiracy theory.

Ditto with the reform of the intelligence community. Whistleblowers are always dismissed as "Walter Mitty" fantasists who are disgruntled or too junior to know what they're talking about (think Shayler, Dr David Kelly, Katherine Gunn, Richard Tomlinson). By attacking and dismissing the whistleblower, the government and spooks thereby manage to avoid enquiries into the very grave disclosures. The only time that MPs were roused to ire was when one of their own was arrested by Special Branch last year: Conservative MP Damien Green.

MI5 holds information on many senior politicians in the UK, which might explain their reluctance to rein in the spooks. This is a real problem for a democracy - very much a case of the tail wagging the dog.

I have been arguing for years now that we need a radical overhaul of the intelligence agencies. They are completely unaccountable and above criticism and, as such, become self-perpetuating oligarchies. By throwing more power, money and resources at them to counter the "war on terror", we just make the existing problems bigger, not better.

So, the best thing that the politicians could do would be to step back and ask: what are the REAL threats to our national security and, based on that, how can we best protect ourselves from them? I would argue we should dismantle MI5. MI6 and GCHQ, with all their attendant historical baggage, and establish a new agency that has to work within strictly defined parameters, obey the law, and work under real democratic oversight.

Much more information about this can be found at

911blogger: In Yuri Felshtinsky's new book, he shows that the KGB/FSB have engaged in False Flag terror to demonize Muslims in Chechnya. Recently, it was revealed in the New York Times, and elsewhere, that the Mossad recruited and ran a cousin of one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers as an asset. Can you cite some other examples of other nation's intelligence agencies engaging in this practice?

Machon: Certainly. The classic example is the Israeli Embassy bombing in London in 1994. In this case, two innocent Palestinians studying in London, Samar Alami and Jawed Botmeh, were befriended by someone called Reda Moghrabi, who then asked for help in buying a second-hand car. That car subsequently exploded outside the embassy, and Alami and Botmeh were convicted of conspiring to cause a terrorist attack and sentenced to 20 years each. Moghrabi was never traced.

MI5's official assessment of this attack, after reviewing all the evidence and all the intelligence, was that Mossad had attacked their own embassy in a controlled explosion. They did this for two reasons: first to gain enhanced security around Israeli interests in London, and secondly to shatter a fast-growing Palestinian support network in which Alami and Botmeh happened to be active.

This was one of the cases we blew the whistle on. You would think that there would have been an immediate retrial, but the government managed to avoid this as it would have justified the whistleblowing, and two innocent people continue to languish in prison.

Additionally, there was a similar attack in Buenos Aires in 1994. A few years ago, the government there DID order a judicial enquiry, and this revealed that Mossad had carried out that attack too.

(Source: Please, please, view THIS speech by Mrs Machon and form an opinions as to her sanity!

911blogger: Are there any good books out there that tell a realistic version of how MI5/MI6 operates?

Machon: Glad you asked! My book is called "Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers". It was banned for 15 months by MI5, buried by the national media in the UK and is now, I believe, rather difficult to get hold of.

Also, Mark Urban, formerly of military intelligence and currently at the BBC, wrote a good book called "UK Eyes Alpha: Inside British Intelligence", which gets the tone right, and Stephen Dorril writes well-researched books, although he has no insider knowledge of the agencies.

911blogger: Thanks to the internet, we know much more about how "intelligence agencies" operate, and a growing realization of elite control that just didn't exist on any significant level 20 years ago. Faced with the Orwellian power of the mainstream media, do you think we even have a chance of waking enough people up to change Western society sufficiently to put an end to False Flag terrorism?

Machon: The internet could be our salvation - we need to be our own media. We increasingly see citizen journalists recording and reporting facts that the MSM choses to ignore - only last week during the G20 demonstrations in London, a man was assaulted by a police officer and died. The MSM and the police claimed that he just collapsed, but a bystander had captured what really happened on film.

Of course, the MSM is part of the establishment, no longer the Fourth Estate. In the UK, is easily manipulated and controlled by secrecy laws, as well as patronage and spin from the spies and government. There's a very good book out called "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies that charts the demise of real investigative journalism.

So, yes, it's difficult to spread the word about 9/11 quickly and effectively. We need urgently to reach out beyond the choir. Many people around the world are appalled by the deaths of innocent millions in the illegal Middle East wars; and many are also appalled that the "war on terror" is used as an excuse to shred our freedoms and constitutional rights.

We need to place 9/11 at the heart of these discussions, but we will only have a chance of doing this if we are disciplined in our campaigning, no matter what our personal beliefs or interests are. The stakes are just too high.


video 2

Annie Machon, California presentation 2008 TALK - (1 of 2) - 59:04 - Jan 9, 2008

Annie Machon tells the tale of her experience working for the British intelligence services, getting out as a whistleblower and the relevanc...all » Annie Machon tells the tale of her experience working for the British intelligence services, getting out as a whistleblower and the relevance of to these in the context of the war on terror and civil rights worldwide


video 3

Annie Machon, California presentation 2008 Q&A - (2 of 2) - 34:10 - Jan 9, 2008

Annie Machon tells the tale of her experience working for the British intelligence services, getting out as a whistleblower and the relevanc...all » Annie Machon tells the tale of her experience working for the British intelligence services, getting out as a whistleblower and the relevance of to these in the context of the war on terror and civil rights worldwide

video 4

Annie Machon at the Chicago 9/11 Conference 2006 - 1:07:33 - Sep 2, 2006

Annie Machon talks about 9/11 at the ‘9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future’ event which took place at the Chicago Embassy Suites on the 3rd June 2006.

video 5

Ian Crane and Annie Machon in Chicago - State Sponsored Terrorism - 35:35 - Aug 1, 2006
Mind Deprogramming -

(4 Ratings) Rate:

Ian Crane and Annie Machon giving a good presentation called "State Sponsored Terrorism" at the "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" in Chicago June 2006.

Ian Crane and Annie Machon in Chicago - State Sponsored Terrorism


video 6

The 9/11 – 7/7 Connection

On Friday 22nd July 2005, Ian Crane opened the Glastonbury Symposium with an analysis of the sinister geopolitical webs that have been spun, resulting in the tragic events of 9/11 and 7/7. Just two weeks after 7/7, Ian's research already indicated that the official version of the supposed 'terror' attacks in London cannot stand up to the scrutiny of research. The subsequent failed attacks on 21/7, the assassination of Jean-Charles Menezes the folowing day and the bombing at Sharm-El-Sheik in Egypt on July 23rd raise even more painful and very disturbing questions. This compilation of two live recordings (Glastonbury - 22nd July & Totnes - 30th August 2005) raises some very important and disturbing questions and is a 'must see' for anyone who still holds the view that the events of 9/11 and 7/7 were perpetrated by 'Muslim fanatics'. Ian does not offer specifi answers .......... but for those who truly value the concept of democracy, it is imperative that they are aware of these extremely important but as yet unanswered questions.«

Seems the attack dogs have been loosed on this comments page! Ian Crane has apparently hit a nerve, witrh this outstanding summary of 9/11 & 7/7. He doesn't jump to any conclusions, he simply points out that that there are concerns which need to be properly investigated. To dismiss these concerns would demonstrate a serious lack of intellectual curiosity.

Mar 22, 2007
Peter Power did not ''look after the events of 7/7''. He was running an on PAPER exercise in a room full of crisis managers and they went through the drills associated with this type of ON PAPER training exercise. That's his job - he trains people to prepare their companies for events such as terror attacks. Anyone training for a crisis such as a terror attack would look at simulataneous bombings after Madrid! You'd probabaly pick - Kings Cross, Liverpool St and another station... *Dur* again.

No comments: