Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Elmar

    Elmar New Member

    I am very interested- did you receive a copy in the meantime? Tried to search for it but couldn't find it on metabunk, so sorry if I missed it.
    And what about this "parliament report" mentioned here (http://theiranproject.com/blog/2017/08/30/parl-report-finds-7-guilty-plasco-collapse/) - or is this the 1700 page report you refered to?

    Basically, I am looking for any official objective material out there on the Plasco collapse (official reports, papers, etc.).
    This is what I found thus far- sorry if redundant:
    Has anyone seen this talk, are the slides available? Sounds interesting...
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
  2. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    No, I did not receive a copy of the report. After not receiving a response for a few weeks, I returned to the page I had linked and tried running it through different translators to see if I was missing something, and, as it turns out, I now believe my interpretation of the original translation was in error: the page was not asking for requests for a copy of the report; rather, the page was asking for witness statements for consideration in the finalization of the governmental investigation. I haven't actively searched in a while, but I have not actually found a copy of the report anywhere in the searching that I did do. Of course, such searching has been greatly limited, in any event, by my inability to read/write Farsi. I do think that the engineering report and parliamentary report are two different reports, but I'm not completely sure about that, either.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The Farsi/Persian Wikipedia page on the incident does not indicate there's the finished report available


    Some translated excerpts:
    It would seem if there was a report available, then it would show up on that page. But then this (Google-translated) EcoNews article seems to suggest they are done:

  4. Elmar

    Elmar New Member

    Thanks to both of you for your replies.
    Despite the difference in spelling, it seems the Prof. that gave the talk in Berkeley (AliAkbar Aghakouchak; http://www.modares.ac.ir/?&fkeyid=&siteid=95&pageid=7012#) is the same guy that is/was on the expert panel the Iranian government installed (Ali Akbar Aqakuchak).
    I thought why not ask him about sharing the report and/or his Berkeley slides, so I wrote him an e-mail.
    Let's see what happens.
    Btw, Mick, being just a 2h drive from Sacramento- how come you missed that talk?
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2017
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    AE911 continues to double down on Plasco:

    The Gizmodo article is a good read.
  6. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    AE is definitely trapped. It's hard to imagine that they would change their beliefs and simply sign off the air. It's harder to imagine that they would do a mea culpa and admit the errors and deceptions they perpetrated for more than 10 years. Pride and ego will not allow them to admit they were wrong. The only option is to continue along with their fantasy based on no evidence. I guess the deep state is trying to make waves in Tehran. And the political purpose for Plasco? Where next? The absurdity of the motive... makes their Plasco claim undercut their former conception of whodunnit...

    It's hard to have sympathy and patience for people who are naive and simply don't understand technology who fall in line behind the AE nonsense considering there are many sources to de mystify the collapses/events of 9/11.... no need to swallow official sources.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. John85

    John85 Member

    Are the explosions and molten metal best explained by fire? Nothing else matters.
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  8. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    What explosions?
  9. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    There were "reports" of explosions and "reports" of molten metal around the WTC on and after 9/11.

    Either are not uncommon: In large (and sometimes small) fires that have many witnesses, you very often have reports of "explosions", and you sometimes get reports of "molten metal", including "molten steel", although there was no demolition, only fire. So "reports" of such are not conclusive evidence for a demolition job.

    What's missing is corroboration of such reports:
    1. There are many sound recordings of the 9/11 collapses - none exhibit the sounds of explosions consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition.
    2. Also, all of the material removed from GZ was extensively inspected by various specialized teams - no unexpected amounts of previously or presently molten metal of any kind were noted.

    John85, I have very often asked Truthers to debunk these two claims I just numbered - by (1.) presenting me with a sound recording of such explosions that was consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition, or by (2.) presenting me with a documentation of previously or presently molten steel.

    Please present only your best evidence for either! Do not bother us with "explosions" that happened long before or after any collapse, do not bother us with corroded steel, do not bother us with "meteorite" floor slabs, do not bother us incandescent but clearly solid steel that's still beam-shaped and thus never was molten at all.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    This is a thread about the Pasco fire and collapse. Not WTC or building 7.
  11. John85

    John85 Member

  12. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Explained in the very first post of this thread.

    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. John85

    John85 Member

    Simply not true. Explosions progress too quickly, in too focused a strip, and at different times in the same floor. You can see it even in the photo you quoted, where the explosions are running quicker down the front face than the side. The only reason you don't see it is that you are committed to taking the opposite stance to ae911. Do you think members of the Iranian public believe it was demolished because they're persuaded by ae911, or because they can see so for themselves?
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  14. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Can you quantify (a) the limit on how quickly the expulsions could have progressed if from floor collapses and (b) how quickly they actually did progress? Seems like that is a necessary part of your argument.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The expulsion of material out the window openings seen in the video appear to be coming from JUST below the collapse front... as the floor above collapse and forced all the contents mostly pulverized out the windows which were shattered to bits by the over pressure. The rate of the collapse has been measured I believe and it was accelerating but reached a "terminal" velocity of something like 60+mph if I recalled correctly... about 100' / second
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    What does that prove? Unless the building fell absolutely symmetrically then the pressure build-up would not be the same on all four faces.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. no, they are best explained by the progressive collaps of the building. the fires only lead to the collaps.
    by the progressive collaps; floors crashing onto another inside the building. as explained multiple times here.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    Pretty silent "explosions" in that video. Aren't explosions usually a little more "explosive"?

    I do not believe that to be true. I feel that many of us see "puffs of air" ejecting materials, not quick, sudden explosions. That is why we disagree with A&E. Why is it that those that support A&E can't see this as anything BUT explosives? Could it be that THEY are committed to going against anything that debunkers have to say? Looks like a stalemate to me, unless more evidence can be show from the Explosives camp. I mean evidence other than something "looks like" something.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  19. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    None of this is actually evidence that these are explosions in the sense of a rapid deflagration.

    Different times might be due to open and closed doors inside the building, different volumes, different internal wall strengths - unless you can show some positive evidence of explosions you are just making assumptions without supporting evidence.
  20. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    From observing the video,

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=56&v=S4enzRooqVk
    , - The ejections are not from explosives, they lack the dynamics of an explosive. Where are the supersonic shockwave noises? The speed of ejection does not match an ejection due to an explosive, the dynamics match ejections from a building collapsing. The air was ejected because the building fell. Watch some real building demolitions for the dynamics of an explosive, if you can find some not created by the CD building not due to the gravity collapse of the building. In CD the building is used to destroy the structure with small amounts of explosives; E=mgh is released to do the work of CD. The video is proof it was not explosives. Explosives would cook off, burn up, not explode in a fire, and the blasting caps if used, would explode when the fire first ravaged the building, not later in the fires event. There is no evidence for explosives, the speed of ejections matches the dynamics of the falling building. That is what I see in the video. A building totaled by fire, collapsed. The video shows structural collapse due to fire. In the CD version supported by speculation, who had the motive, means and opportunity? Fire was the suspect, and investigation found the same.

    ae911t use speculation and opinions to claim CD. ae911t Director of Strategy and Development at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth claims to have "overwhelming scientific evidence", but ae911t have never produced any evidence. Opinions and speculation are not evidence. Being an engineer is not required to see there is no evidence from ae911t. Skills in reading comprehension expose ae911t have no scientific evidence.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. John85

    John85 Member

    AE911 have already identified that not only do the explosions run down the building too quickly to be related to any progressive floor failure, they also occur at different times on the same floor, and a few progress up the building, not down.

    See this chart on p12 of their Plasco report


    The link provided takes you to this video.

    I have taken some screenshots from that video, from about 0:08 to 0:12, and numbered the floors relative to the lowest floor easily visible. Explosions are then circled or arrowed, and the floor number the explosion occurs on given to the left. As you can see, the explosions do progress generally top to bottom, but they do so irregularly when seen close up.

    6th floor explosion at around 0:08:


    4th floor explosion at around 0:09


    5th floor explosion also around 0:09


    4th floor explosion also around 0:10


    I then began to notice the side explosions coming out of floors 6 and 5. A further explosion out of floor 4, and one from floor 3, all around 0:10


    In the final distinct close-up, there is a side explosion at floor 4, and an explosion at floor 1, around 0:11


    This does not strike me as being:
    It seems a lot more complicated. Supposing that these were the result of floor collapses, what is going on inside the building? Are floors falling down twice in the same place? Are floors falling faster on this side, and slower on the left? Does floor 1 collapse before it is impacted by floors 2 and 3, or does the progressive collapse skip floor 2?

    Does anyone have any analysis to support the assertion that what we observe is the result of a progressive collapse?
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Why on earth would you expect a building collapsing to do so perfectly uniformly and symmetrically? I would have thought that a perfect sequence of explosions would be the hallmark of a controlled demolition, not a chaotic collapse due to fire.

    My question to them would be why, if this was a rigged demolition job, did they fire the explosives out of sequence?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. John85

    John85 Member

    The question you should actually be asking is what could be going on inside the building to account for the location and timing of the explosions seen above. If it is a progressive collapse, why is it not progressive? Why do explosions go down, up and sideways, sometimes in two locations separated by a window-length. Given that you have already concluded that it was progressive floor failure, you should be able to answer these questions.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  24. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Even the most cursory watch of the video shows that the floors didn't fall straight down in one piece, one by one, as you seem to imagine.



    It's so asymmetrical that the whole thing eventually topples over at an angle:


    Can you really not see how pieces of floors falling at different times in different parts of the building can produce chaotic variations in pressure within the structure?
  25. John85

    John85 Member

    As you can see from my screenshots and the video linked, the explosions occurred before the building fell apart. Your screenshots are from after the explosions took place, and when the collapse is about halfway through.

    Even if they weren't, what kind of asymmetry would produce two explosions next to each other a second apart? Or 'progressive' collapse that skips floors, before returning to fill the gap?
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  26. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Watch again, paying attention to the timing of the collpase from different angles. The puffs from the windows are clearly after the roof has started falling downwards, indicating that the internal collapse has begun. The angle from 1:41 is the clearest at showing this.

    I don't know, maybe a chaotically collapsing building with big slabs of masonry tumbling into each other squeezing air in different directions as they fall? :)

    "Progressive" doesn't mean "neat and orderly". If it was a controlled demolition then I would expect to see a neat and orderly progression of explosions. Now apparently the fact that they are chaotic, like an uncontrolled collapse, is evidence that it was a controlled demolition?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  27. John85

    John85 Member

    Then apply that hypothesis to the observations and see if it fits. How do you account for the nature, location and timing of the explosions caught on video? What causes the explosion on the 6th floor at 0:08, followed by the explosion on the 4th floor at 0:09? Why is there no explosion coming from in between?


  28. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    First--thanks for the high effort post. It's much easier to see where you are coming from when you take the time to put together information in this way.

    The most likely answer as to why the collapse was so chaotic is because the damage to the building was asymmetrical and floor sections failed in chunks as the columns shifted in asymmetrical ways and as falling floor sections cascaded downwards in asymmetrical ways. As others have pointed out, you seem to assume the floors would be pancaking together as a whole and not failing in smaller sections. I'm not sure why you believe that would necessarily be the case.

    There's clearly a small expulsion on the 5th floor roughly simultaneously with the larger explusion on the 4th floor. The difference in the size of the explusions could easily be explained by differences in sizes of the area of the floors that collapsed, differences in the layouts of the spaces on those floors, differences in the number of items blocking the windows, etc., etc., etc.

    Meanwhile, can you please tell us why there are no sounds of explosives that sync up with these expulsions?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. John85

    John85 Member

    Ah, so it's now chaotically collapsing pieces of masonry.What is causing the masonry to come apart in pieces by the windows?
  30. John85

    John85 Member

    That is easier to answer straight away. There are sounds, but evidently there aren't any really loud bangs. I would suggest that the absence of loud bangs points to the absence of any large volume of high explosives.
  31. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    You're almost there. People were recording the plasco collapse from very, very close by. The absence of any detectable explosive sounds in fact indicates the absence of any high explosives. You need to find another explanation for the expulsions, such as floors collapsing variously in a fire-induced progressive collapse.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. John85

    John85 Member

    I'm struggling to imagine how a concrete floor would fail 1) only in pieces across numerous floors, and 2) in such a way that sufficient air pressure would be created to blow out windows.
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I find it's helpful to draw a diagram in such situations. Maybe you should give that a go?
  34. John85

    John85 Member

    Perhaps there were no high explosives at all. There could have been incendiaries with additives that cause an expansion of gas, but not loud.
  35. John85

    John85 Member

    I doubt it would be helpful to draw a picture of something I don't believe would happen. Suppose the floors were made of reinforced concrete, with rebar or something similar. They would not then fall in chunks. Suppose they were not reinforced. Would they crack and fail as one?
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well then, draw a diagram of what you DO think happened.
  37. John85

    John85 Member

    Can we honestly imagine the floor above us falling down and blowing out a window by air pressure alone?
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes. Where's the air going to go? What's the path of least resistance?
    Try compressing a cubic meter of air to 1/20th of it's volume very rapidly. See what happens.
  39. John85

    John85 Member

    If we are to get at what really happened, we have to include the hypothesis that explosives or incendiaries might have been involved. There is no evidence to rule it out, and the explosions noted above don't reconcile well with falling pieces of floor. The eyewitness testimony and pictorial evidence of molten metal also suggests that incendiaries could have been used.
  40. John85

    John85 Member

    Except that the main hypotheses above are chaotic falling pieces of masonry. If a chunk falls out of the ceiling, it is not going to squash the air in the room. The pressure will be relieved by the hole in the ceiling too.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.