WACLA facilitates scientific discourse w/ Gregg Roberts and Priya Vashishta

[MrAbrahamPais]

see 07:50 Let me respond instead of Vashishta.

Harrit already said on Danish television in early 2002 that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. At the time he had not a shred of evidence. This was picked up by Steven Jones and this was EXACTLY the reason why Steven send a sample to Harrit and no one else. Harrit set up his experiments with the intent to confirm what he already believed. His research IS flawed and his paper was NEVER peer-reviewed.

Epic fail.

[DanUuNoel]

Bill keeps the faith alive...how come the videos of the falling twin towers come with no sound? Good question to ask the people who took them. In the meantime, the videos speak "demolition" much louder than the sound track would.

Love,

[wearechangela]

"how come the videos of the falling twin towers come with no sound?"

are you deaf?

[wearechangela]

looks like BillB is deleting his own comments again

[doremi9]

It makes no sense that it would just suddenly fail catastrophically so quickly and symmetrically. The official story just stinks. See 911 Revisited online and see Graeme MacQueen's youtube on explosive evidence (above and beyond what videos and photos show)

[doremi9]

Fires don't create pyroclastic dusts clouds as seen in all the videos and it makes no sense to have a symmetrical debris field when the plane on the second tower hit near the corner of the building. The symmetry of the collapse itself is uncanny, the building just peels itself down, ejecting beams and materials in all four directions. Although the planes did cause some local damage near the top of the buildings, what about the structure below it? It is still intact, not damaged by anything.

[BillBJJ78]

Who said fires create pyroclastic clouds? The problem with the truther assumption that the cloud is concrete is that it ignores other components of the building including the gypsum board. The debris field is not symmetrical. If that was the case there would have been no damage to surrounding buildings. The collapse was not symmetrical. Numerous videos show structural components still standing after the debris field clears. The collapse began and continued due to floor by floor additions.

[DanUuNoel]

Debris field, not symmetrical? Bill has not read FEMA's report on the quasi-circular perimeter of WTC 1 & 2's debris field. Not to mention the rare symmetry of WTC7's debris.

But again, faithkeeping and accepting reality are often incompatible.

Love,

[DanUuNoel]

We can keep the nanothermite thing simple. However it was done, it is much easier to apply nanothermite to the twin towers' infrastructure under the nose of their occupants, their security company, their owners (old and new), and in a fashion that would demolish them as shown on video, than to deviate from the fundamental laws of kinetics, thermodynamics and chemistry.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Immediately? The last pieces were removed in May of 2002.

[bobbygnosis]

I like the music.

:*(

[DanUuNoel]

Prof. Vashishta is obviously embarassed...WACLA's Jeremy is just so much smarter than he looks...

Good job again to WACLA.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Embarrassed? Jeremy's intelligence not withstanding, the honest admission would be that it wasn't really peer reviewed as Bentham's practices are at the very least questionable, more likely deceptive, as has been known for some time. Hence, why the academic community doesn't bother with it.

While Roberts can speculate why he thinks this or that, his BA in psych puts him in no position to speak with any authority on such subjects, let alone co author a paper on it as were other contributors.

[DanUuNoel]

How about expanding on Bills point? There are so many missing honest admissions regarding the World Trade Center demolitions...If the abundance of nanothermite was the only anomaly, the official story would hold water.

The real question here is what prevents scientists for coming out on the WTC demolitions?

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Honesty & accuracy are different. Nothing stops them aside from knowing that as soon as you disagree with the Truth Movement you are immediately labeled a government shill & hounded at public speaking events which are disrupted by "truth" seekers. Could it be that they don't want to be subjected to such harassment? We know this happens. What evidence do you have for whatever you are contending? It could be like Dawkins who won't give creationists the time of day because they don't deserve it.

[DanUuNoel]

What evidence do I have for whatever I am contending? What a loaded question! What am I contending anyway? That the nanothermite finding is a detail? All right...

It is evident that the twin towers' structural failure is technically independent from the plane impacts--or whatever these events were. The videos alone screamed "demolition."

Later, the abundance of liquid steel at Ground Zero was evidence of thermite.

Later, the official technical reports shouted "cover-up."

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

I am just wondering what you think stops them from speaking out & if you have evidence for it. NT isn't a detail until its validated.

The failure is independent of the impacts? Is that why the collapses initiate at the point of impact & follows the angle which the planes hit? The videos would scream demolition if you heard the detonations like CD's, but you don't.

No one tested the molten material to determine its composition. Pure speculation.

[Time2GetReal]

Steven Jones tested the molten material in 2006.

[BillBJJ78]

Not really...He found iron, not steel, microspheres, and concluded that they were the result of thermitic reaction, which he believed was the reason people reported seeing pools of molten steel, while ignoring any other possible sources.

He also, took photos of dripping metal and claimed its color was indicative of steel though he ignored that the color was also possibly aluminum. Plus he ignored that as the metal cooled in air it blended in with the backdrop of the WTC aluminum cover.

[DanUuNoel]

The evidence of molten steel at Ground Zero is overwhelming: pictures, testimonies, or satellite photos.

And let's not forget NIST's official reports ignoring--i.e. not just denying--the presence of molten steel, even after receiving multiple communications on this subject.

Bill resorts to a classical 9/11 faithkeeping trick: the molten steel did not exist, even though TV scared us with it for weeks. To his credit, it would work if VCRs did not exist.

Love

[BillBJJ78]

Also, he looked at photos & claimed the molten material was steel, though never tested its composition. He took photos which he claimed were steel yet the photos themselves show they're not. Examples: The excavator arm one would have caused the surrounding material to turn molten or burn & heat up the excavator while bursting the hydraulic lines. The firefighters hunched over the glowing pit picture would have made the fire fighters to burn as it illuminates their faces. It was a light.

[DanUuNoel]

Bill raised a highly pertinent question: why did the 9/11 engineers initiate the demolitions of the twin towers at or close to the levels of the alleged plane impacts? Indeed, this is one of a several deviations.

May we have the answer when the 9/11 shit hits the fan. In the meantime, one can only speculate that the 9/11 conspirators figured that we the people were too smart to fall for demolitions initiating in the basements. We are not that dumb after all.

Love,

[DanUuNoel]

From Bill, earlier comment that made it to my Email but cant be found here:

"Cover up? Hence why no one of the so-called "scholars" can pass peer review to explain how. I love when people attack the technical papers but can't explain how; more likely never read them."

Let us thank Bill for writing in a spirit of love. But what is his question, statement or concern?

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Hmmm...now I can post. Youtube glitch or NWO?

Oh well, you can reply to my posts here if you want Dan, or in private.

[BillBJJ78]

OK Dan, so it seems I can indeed post again. So I await your response to my points in full Including the the collapse locations. Occam's Razor says planes, not explosives.

- how one sight analyzes steel.

- explosives in the basement.

- et al

[DanUuNoel]

Occam's Razor says planes? Yet the videos scream "demolition."

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Funny considering screaming is a sound & we have no sounds of detonations anywhere near the collapse like in other CD's; or even confirmed detonations to begin with. What we have is loud noises & anecdotal evidence; the weakest form. Yes, OR suggests planes. Planes at locations of collapse. No recorded sounds or seismographs of detonations at those locations. We know other things explode in fires. Therefore to conclude explosives you are "needlessly multiplying entities". Occam's Razor.

[DanUuNoel]

The twin towers videos scream "demolition" all right. The top sections pulverize with no warning, the destruction progresses floor by floor with an excellent symmetry, the concrete explodes into huge dust clouds, etc.

Occam's Razor all right. The twin tower videos put the burden of proof on anybody who would claim that fires around the alleged airplane impact initiated this catastrophic failure.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Ignoring my arguments isn't helping. OR doesn't work if you omit evidence to the contrary. The South tower collapsed at a 40 degree angle. It was visible for 2-3 seconds. So your claim is inaccurate in the least. The only reason A&E & SFTJ say so is because the debris cloud obstructs visibility. So it's a claim w/o evidence. Also your claim presumes that the only thing capable of destroying concrete is explosives (silent ones no less). The BoP doesn't change because you say so.

[wearechangela]

The explosions were not silent. Every video proves explosives were used.

[DanUuNoel]

So according to Bill the South tower "collapsed at at 40 degree angle." One can only wonder where he got his information. As a faithkeeper, why doesn't he stick to the official technical story, lest he expose himself to the label of conspiracy theorist?

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Plus it wasn't destroyed w/ "excellent symmetry" as the collapse of the south tower tilt shows. Video shows remnants still standing after collapse. How you could know such a thing when the debris field obstructs your vision is beyond me.

watch?v=Hmb6_YzHEJA (@ :55)

The BoP still lies in the truth camp as the collapse initiation has been established in legitimate peer reviewed sources. Just saying "it looks like a controlled demolition", which it looks & sounds nothing like, isn't science.

[DanUuNoel]

According to Bill, the symmetry of the collapse of the South tower was less than excellent. He has a point: the demolition of the top tilted significantly. This is common in demolitions; it is done on purpose or by accident. Which was the case here? The engineers have not disclosed it yet.

But the main part of the demolition of the South tower was very symmetrical. Very professional job indeed!

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

(Please see my response below WACLA, posted it in the wrong place)

"Alleged impacts"? So are you saying planes didn't crash there? If this is the case it explains a lot.

I'm sorry Dan but you really aren't helping your position by simply repeating yourself and making more unestablished claims.

[DanUuNoel]

"Alleged impacts?" What is Bill's problem here? After all, the official story alleges that the twin towers were hit with 767's, doesn't it?

At any rate, whether the initial terror attacks were carried out with planes or otherwise is of secondary importance, since these initial attacks are technically independent of the real terrorist acts, namely the actual demolitions.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

My problem is to claim that they are "alleged". I think it's pretty obvious to see for anyone not thorazine that planes crashed into the buildings. Bug I guess when you skirt my posts, as well as contradictory evidence, and just repeat yourself, that might make sense. I guess you missed the part where I asked you to deal with my posts in full.

[DanUuNoel]

Oh, my...Bill is now deviating into the likelihood of the 9/11 planes.

How do "we the people" "know" that the initial WTC terrorist attacks were made with hijacked 767's? Because politicians and anchors told us so. Since the same people lied to their teeth at the same time about the 9/11 demolitions, trusting them on the hijacks story is very risky.

Besides, this is a point of detail. The major 9/11 terror attack was the twin towers demolition.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Actually no, you were the one who brought up the "alleged" planes. I know the planes hit because I saw it live on TV, well the second one and have family and friends who live there. I live in the tristate area so it was all over the place. Not to mention we have over 40 views of the second impact. watch?v=cq_ko5jVMBo

Yet again, first you need to establish a lie. Sadly in the world rational ppl live in you have to demonstrate someone is lying. You can't just accuse them and claim it as fact.

[DanUuNoel]

Bill is getting harder to follow. Is he denying that politicians and anchors alleged that the twin towers were hit by hijacked 767s, which is what I stated? If not, why won't he stick to his problem, namely that the videos show demolitions but he sees fires gone bad? Of course, the same politicians and anchors told him fires gone bad. There could be a pattern here.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Trusting ppl like Gage, and Jones is very risky. What they want us to believe is that a controlled demolition occurred yet it somehow produced no recordable detonations & demonstrates numerous characteristics not indicative of CD that you guys skirt without consideration.

All you guys have is: they were in on it, they are lying, it was planted, and well trust us. Sorry but your entire argument has been one load of fail If you're an official presenter for A&E they are in bad shape. Keep dancing

[DanUuNoel]

So according to Bill, trusting Gage & Jones is very risky. How about trusting the scientific method?

Of course, Bill may prefer to trust the government and the media. After all, who cares for Newton's laws if Bush, Clinton and Obama assure us that the spectacular structural failures of the twin towers were perfectly natural?

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Love the scientific method. Let me know when Jones sends his research to a real journal rather than a self made peer review process or a vanity journal whose editors jump ship when it turns put to be a sham.

The difference is "the govt" & "the media" are collections of ppl w/ individual credibility. Jones & Gage are not. There are dozens of examples of Jones & Gage dropping the ball. So they're credibility is shot. But thanks, it wouldn't be an argument from you if it wasn't fallacious.

[BillBJJ78]

So Dan, there are quite a few points you have danced around here. Care to address them or are you going to keep up the truther stereotype?

[BillBJJ78]

I would also like to add a thank you for parading another few examples of association fallacies. In case you hadn't driven home the point that your arguments are totally irrational just yet, that just about did it.

But I guess it's true because you say so.

[DanUuNoel]

True because I say so? That's preposterous. The twin towers were demolished because the videos show that unambiguously and because abundant data confirmed it later on.

Love,

[TheRetiredtrucker]

So now your claiming the cia snuck in over the weekend and painted thermite on the wtc over a weekend? Take another hit from the bong

[evajames]

They didn't have to sneak in, they have offices there! It could have been done months or years before by a few bad apples with inside knowledge and contacts. Even the painters might not have known what was in their paint. Americans are so brainwashed by the lies of the media they've lost their ability to think. This was done by people on the forefront of this technology. Why is it so hard to believe the "world's police" might have some dirty cops near the top? False flag ops aren't new.

[TheRetiredtrucker]

Dude,,,,you honestly believe that every night a team of operatives went from office to office removing walls cielings and floors to plant thermite. then flawlessely put it back in place before ppl started showing up at 6 in the morning? Im staggered by either your imagination or complete lack of understanding of construction. Tell me after ripping out drywall and replacing how do you make joint compound and paint dry in 6 hours? how do you cover up the work without anyone seeing you?

[Time2GetReal]

"the cia snuck in over the weekend and painted thermite on the wtc over a weekend" Wow where did you come up with that one, trucker?

The question is, who put the nano-thermite in the WTC 1, 2 & 7? If you can show me that nano-thermite was made in a cave in Afghanistan, I'll shut up.

[BillBJJ78]

The real question is whether or not it actually exists in the first place.

[Time2GetReal]

Okay Trucker, show me your peer reviewed published counter theory of what the red and grey chips are, and I'll think about shutting up.

[BillBJJ78]

Why should he? No one has peer reviewed one that shows that's the case.

[TheRetiredtrucker]

Not my responsability to show a peer review for a theory that the red and grey chips aere manmade thermite. Im asking a for a very simple theory on how the thermite was applied. It should be easier to explain how the alleged thermite was applied (either paint or blocks) then the chemical composition.  Just awnser one simple qquestion HOW WAS THE ALLEGED THERMITE APPLIED TO THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT THE WORKERS NOTICING ?? You make claims on a demolition but HOW were they placed on structure?

[Jjinn1]

Uhm... there are several interviews with "workers" in the building. They mention renovation of the building leading up to 9/11...

My question to you.. imagine yourself working at a place with thousands of people... would you question any renovation taking place? would you ask them if they were rigging your building with explosives??

I do find your question valid though. Try look up the renovations taking place leading up to 9/11.

[TheRetiredtrucker]

Ok time question to you. How do you apply thermite "paint" to already errected girders? Give me a viable sceniaro how you sneek in,,,,rip down walls...apply thermite ,,,put walls back up...replace everyones property in the offices so they dont see everything was moved? Explaine that to me sparky

[BillBJJ78]

Richard Gage even admitted they have no idea what technology even exists to detonate it.

[DanUuNoel]

Another good point by Bill...Even countless professionals know that the twin towers were demolished, they have many questions as to how it happened. There find telltale signs of thermite, nanothermite, concussion charges. But there are countless technical questions begging for answers.

Absent a criminal investigation, it could be very difficult to find them.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Well, a small fraction of the relevant community believes so. BU the sad fact is none of them can actually demonstrate anything. A small fraction of the scientific community also believes the earth is 6000 years old. Must be true.

But I guess its too bad your "tell tale signs" were presented in sham publications. I wonder why they wouldn't present such ground breaking science in reputable ones? Hmmm...so how you going to dodge that this time?

[DanUuNoel]

Bill: "a small fraction of the relevant community believes [the demolitions]." Not quite true; rather, "a small fraction of the relevant community affirms the demolitions, and a smaller fraction still affirms the official story, while the remaining majority avoids the controversy like the plague."

Back to a fundamental question: what or who convinced the majority to stay silent on the largest and most spectacular structural failures ever?

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

OK Dan, notice you first start off saying countless professionals now you're saying it's a fraction.Could it be that twoof is blustering numbers to make a point that is irrelevant to begin with? The reason you can assume that a smaller fraction believes the OS over your mojo is because intelligent ppl don't try to substitute science with a list of names. It's a classic appeal to popularity/authority. Fallacy wins again! ROFL!

[BillBJJ78]

"what or who convinced..."

Is that even relevant? Again, in many conspiracy theories, the bulk of academia stays silent. In fact the twoof movement has been uniquely incompetent to present a list of opinions as evidence in a science based argument. As usual you are bringing red herrings to the table. But lets think about what we can prove.

Govt intimidating academia? I've seen no such evidence.

Twoofers intimidating, harassing, & slandering? You betcha.

[BillBJJ78]

watch?v=FTk58sO6S24

"The firefighters are paid off" (J. Bermas)

"Like I have stated before people such as yourselves are revealed to be one of two things, government agents on a payroll or brainwashed morons who refuse to accept the truth" (J. Bermas)

"Mark Roberts is CIA" (D. Avery)

"Zdenek P. Bazant: Alpha Shill for the Official WTC Collapse Story"(covertoperations. blogspot. com)

[Time2GetReal]

We don't know that it was in paint.

[BillBJJ78]

Actually they know very little about nano thermite, hence why its so easy to just assume it could work...science in reverse. A major issue is that they found out regular thermite could not work; so their reasoning as it why explosions were absent had to be scratched, so they still have to explain why we cant hear them. They have to explain  the "molten steel". NT allegedly explodes. Its not a long reaction like regular thermite. There should be no molten material as nothing's keeping it hot.

[wearechangela]

You can hear the massive consecutive explosions that take out 10 floors per second when you watch video of the demolition of the twin towers. A skyscraper can't turn itself into powder in 10 seconds no matter what they try to tell you. There is no need to discuss Building 7, because everybody can see that's an obvious classic controlled demolition.

[BillBJJ78]

Oh really?

watch?v=d-WvQbFMIWU

watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA

No comparison, plus there were seismographs which detected no such detonations.

They didn't turn to powder. The "meteorites" show the compression of concrete which occurred, plus there is evidence of steel beams, and oth3r debris. Steven Jones even admitted he saw chunks of concrete. It's pretty disingenuous to claim they "turned to powder".

[DanUuNoel]

Bill has a point: not all the WTC concrete turned into dust. Some of it stayed in chunks.

Still, TV clearly showed huge expanding clouds of dust at the onsets of the demolitions. Analyses of the powder that covered downtown Manhattan confirmed the presence of extremely finely ground concrete.

Assuming the twin towers' structural failure would not have been explosive, the concrete would have fallen in huge pieces and the immediate neighborhood.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Building 7 collapsed over 18 secs w/ a 5 second pause, no recording of explosions, damaged other buildings & debris across the street. Not so classic.

[DanUuNoel]

Well, after some high-school physics teacher pointed out an anomaly in their report, NIST concluded that the top part of WTC7 fell in free fall for 2 seconds.

Interestingly, their report does not explain which phenomenon made this possible.

Love,

[BillBJJ78]

Chandler likes to pretend he got hem to admit something when the fact is that they just needed to discuss it in further detail. Another twoof claim w/o evidence.

They actually do explain this, but you like most twoofers don't bother to read. See NCSTAR 1-9 p. 606. they do admit that there are uncertain elements. But as yo are obviously unaware on many accounts, that's how science is.

[DanUuNoel]

NIST, uncertain? Their reports on the twin towers and WTC7, indeed, contain many statements professing uncertainty, ignorance and conjecture.

Would Bill have read some of them? Wow...

Let him keep reading. But let him be warned that the more he reads them, the more he'll understand that they were little more than farcical coverups.

Love,

[ENJOYOURMATRIXX]

wow good job once again

[LipsMalloy]

LOVE IT!!! What nonsense Vashishta spews. Hope he responds to Gregg Roberts' points, and to the evidence in the nanothermite paper.

WACLA ROCKS!!!

[lonchecaliente]

I will also follow up with Priya Vashita AS WELL.

he had no idea what he was getting into and about and the new form of media in this country..

This video here is HUGE!!

btw, did you hear about the rockefeller suicide..?

the news didn't focus much on that one did they.. hmm I wonder why..

google rockefeller ceo suicide

it's game over for them.. any more tricks they try to pull with only end up backfiring and helping the good side!!

Thanks again

[wearechangela]

His name has been misspelled in a couple of places. Correct spelling:

Vashishta

[lonchecaliente]

Amazing job.. I will upload this video to a few other sites as always!!

Thanks Jeremy, the scientists, and all of We Are Change!!!

It's over for these guys..

[BudhistPanda]

This is big, I will post this to Niels Harrit - he sounded very open, and the great thing was that he admitted, there are many unanswered questions.

Thumbs up boys - another great job well done :)

[summergiles]

wow thanks.

[yayashua1]

Keep up the good work. WACLA

[DickGhostmoon]

Brilliant research. I'm so pleased you put this video out because for a moment I thought the critics of nano thermitic material had a quasi realistic sounding counter argument, until you brought a fellow expert on to counter the madness.

[NsaneSk8er007]

it is still a realistic argument, never close your mind.

[DickGhostmoon]

Heard you on AJ a while back, well spoken, top marks if you are the same guy? I don't think nano thermitic counter argument is realistic because of building 7,

[MiahLFC]

Great work again guys....

UK

[RenegadeTimes]

LOLOL ohhh man ...lame answer ~