AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

[deirdre]

From the molten iron they got from producing iron by carbothermal reduction of iron ore. Iron and steel can be softend at temperatures lower than 1500 degrees C, but melting it requires 1538 degrees C.

really softened according to bladesmithing historical sites. and if your safe in above video was melted melted (Like Frosty the Snowman when he was just a puddle and a hat) they wouldnt be able to pick it up with a claw excavator.

There are other threads on MB about 'molten steel' or 'red hot steel' and how it is formed in furnace like conditions of a downed building. (9/11 Forum) not much use repeating it all here.

 

[Thomas Green]

Good to see that you got wiser on the issue of molten iron. It's very easy to see molten metal at 0:02 and at 0:15. If you don't wish to see it, thats up to you
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNVDVT-z8-8&feature=youtu.be

 

[deirdre]

thats up to you

i dont see it. i see crazy red hot pieces that are breaking apart as the claw pushes it around. i dont see liquid anywhere.

But i think the difference between red hot and 'molten' is kinda moot anyway as a week in a furnace can reach those temperatures and well.. we dont even know what kind of safe it was.

 

[Thomas Green]

i dont see it. i see crazy red hot pieces that are breaking apart as the claw pushes it around. i dont see liquid anywhere.

But i think the difference between red hot and 'molten' is kinda moot anyway as a week in a furnace can reach those temperatures and well.. we dont even know what kind of safe it was.

"If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine"

Just excellent. Goodbye

 

[Whitebeard]

Iron was never melted until the blast furnace was invented. Please don't make up things like that. You don't get temperatures above 1500 degrees celsius from office fires. Thermite could explain it. What else?

Not really true is it. Pig iron (rough cast ingots of cast iron) was being produced by the bloomery process from around the tenth century, and the bloomery process WAS capable of melting iron at 1200c, just. It just took a long time and a lot of fuel.

(A medieval bloomery - reproduction)

The next stage in the evolution of the iron furnace, The Catalan Forge, a bloomery with improved chimney and bellows for pumping air into the system, developed in Northern Spain around 1490 WAS certainly able to melt iron, and was the for runner of the blast furnace of the industrial revolution. Infact the Catalan Forge was so successful it was still being used for local small scale iron and steel production in various parts of the world, including the USA right up until the 1850's

 

[Thomas Green]

"a bloomery with improved chimney and bellows for pumping air into the system, developed in Northern Spain around 1490 WAS certainly able to melt iron"

Not really true is it. Pig iron (rough cast ingots of cast iron) was being produced by the bloomery process from around the tenth century, and the bloomery process WAS capable of melting iron at 1200c, just. It just took a long time and a lot of fuel.

(A medieval bloomery - reproduction)

The next stage in the evolution of the iron furnace, The Catalan Forge, a bloomery with improved chimney and bellows for pumping air into the system, developed in Northern Spain around 1490 WAS certainly able to melt iron, and was the for runner of the blast furnace of the industrial revolution. Infact the Catalan Forge was so successful it was still being used for local small scale iron and steel production in various parts of the world, including the USA right up until the 1850's

Please back up your claim with some kind of documentation. And not with pig iron. Stick to what is being discussed her. The melting of iron and steel. Not the production of it.

 

[Bfahome]

But i think the difference between red hot and 'molten' is kinda moot anyway as a week in a furnace can reach those temperatures

I disagree. When you have people claiming that 1) there's molten metal, 2) said metal can only reach that state when it's above a certain temperature, and 3) that those temperatures can only be reached by deliberately sabotaging the structure of the building, I think pointing out that, no, there isn't actually any molten metal is extremely relevant.

 

[deirdre]

The melting of iron and steel

first of all the iron in your video is not really melted. it is hot.

and ingots have to be 'melted'/highly heated into a shape you want them to be.

in·got
ˈiNGɡət/
noun

1. a block of steel, gold, silver, or other metal, typically oblong in shape.

Source steel could sometimes be obtained in pre-forged ingots produced by others specialized in the task, saving the bladesmith the trouble and leaving him free to concentrate on shaping and tempering. http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm#.WI97DNcrK01

 

[deirdre]

I think pointing out that, no, there isn't actually any molten metal is extremely relevant

well i did point that out, and molten means liquid.. and obviously that video isnt liquid metal, -you catn move pieces of liquid around with a claw...so i kinda thought he is just misusing the term.

 

[Whitebeard]

Please back up your claim with some kind of documentation. And not with pig iron.

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/articles/steel_collector/early_progress.html
and as pointed out, you need to melt iron to make the pigs.

BUT ok, lets suppose just for a minute, your right and the temperature never got high enough to fully melt the steel. Did it in fact melt? rewatching the vid you posted doesn't show molten steel, it shows very hot plasticated steel / iron, looking very much like what you get from a bloomery

 

[Thomas Green]

It's very easy to see molten metal flow at 0:02 and at 0:15. I have no idea why you repeat your iron ore, bloomery argument. We are not talking about iron ore here. We are talking about iron and steel. We aren't even talking about a bloomery but the ruins of a building collapse. I guess there is no point to this discussion, especially if you don't see the orange/yellow flow at 0:02 and at 0:15.

 

[Trailspotter]

I guess there is no point to this discussion, especially if you don't see the orange/yellow flow at 0:02 and at 0:15.

This is not a flow. The claw scraps a bit of a colder (red) crust, revealing a hotter orange/yellow core. It does not flow as a liquid metal would do.

 

[Keith Beachy]

It's very easy to see molten metal flow at 0:02 and at 0:15. I have no idea why you repeat your iron ore, bloomery argument. We are not talking about iron ore here. We are talking about iron and steel. We aren't even talking about a bloomery but the ruins of a building collapse. I guess there is no point to this discussion, especially if you don't see the orange/yellow flow at 0:02 and at 0:15.

What kind of metal is flowing? It looks like ashes and stuff that is hot. It is not hot enough to be steel. There are many metals which would melt in a office/home fire, depending on the fire and duration metal is exposed to heat. The steel frame would fail before it would melt, and an office fire does not usually melt steel. Did not see metal flowing in the video. There was no metal dripping from the shovel, nor metal fused to the shovel. The video is low resolution and not balanced for light or color.

Melted metals are expected in a fire. What is the point with respect to ae911t using this fire as support for the inside job CD story ae911t spreads?

 

[Hierophant]

It's very easy to see molten metal at 0:02 and at 0:15.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNVDVT-z8-8&feature=youtu.be

I see two things:
-a large grey/red chunk which looks very hot glowing and looks soft enough to be deformed by the shovel, but its definitely not liquid.
-then there are bright yellow/white smaller bits. I believe these are non metallic rubble pieces which are ignited when they come in contact with the hot chunk, because they appear to be light enough to bounce and "fly" or "flow" around. This is what looks like it could be considered "flowing" when the big chunk is moved in the times you mentioned. I believe they light up and move at that moment because as the chunk is moved, it ignites new material. Right now I cant see a reason for liquid metal to become brighter when it flows or is detached from a larger chunk. The only thing I can think of to cause that is combustion. If anything, smaller bits of molten metal should cool down faster and become dimmer than the larger chunk.

Which one of these do you think are molten metal? Or do you see something else that I don't? The rubble is obviously a mixture of several things, some more flammable and heavy than others.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Iron was never melted until the blast furnace was invented. Please don't make up things like that. You don't get temperatures above 1500 degrees celsius from office fires. Thermite could explain it. What else?

And how old is the blast furnace?

http://donwagner.dk/KoreanFe/KoreanFe.html

In China actual blast furnaces and fineries have been excavated from as early as the first century B.C. (e.g. Gongxian 1962; Zhao Qingyun et al. 1985; WW 1978.2: 28ff), but these are the earliest iron-production furnaces so far known in China, and we have no direct evidence concerning what processes may have been used for iron production in China before this time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=LrHACQAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=earliest+blast+furnace&source=bl&ots=vQ3kddNymE&sig=fKiy32lkvCXaDEnzni3qhcOduk4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUwtT5l-zRAhXLhlQKHRx1DQ84ChDoAQgmMAI#v=onepage&q=earliest blast furnace&f=false^

The earliest blast furnaces almost certainly developed from bronze casting technology and by the fifth century B.C.E., good quality cast-iron farm tools and weapons were being produced. However, the earliest blast furnaces for which there is direct evidence date from the first century B.C.E. during the Han Dynasty, and it was at this time that the technology improved too.

 

[Nada Truther]

This video shows molten metal in the clean up of the Plasco Building collapse. Normal office fires can't produce that. Any ideas how it got there? http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/683877/فیلم-گاو-صندوق-مذاب-
زیر-آوار-پلاسکو

View attachment 24245

Ok, this truther argument is getting old. The distinction between "melt" and "soften and lose enough strength to do it's job" seems to be blurry with you guys. Apparently, melt means to turn to a liquid. When most people would say that something is melting if it is heated to a point where can no longer hold it's shape under any load. It has been demonstrated all over this site that Steel weakens at a much lower temp than it takes to turn to molten metal, and will not support the weight that it is supposed to. It will also expand and contract having a tremendous effect on connections and joints that are supposed to remain in place, thus possibly weakening the entire structure in one part, if it is, in fact, weak due to fire, in another. Maybe someone who is better at searching this site or linking things within this site can find this stuff better than me, but it is here.

Here is one: https://www.metabunk.org/video-of-hot-steel-bending.t7111/
Maybe it is not the best example, or not without some argument of controversy, but it is there.

Then there is the "normal office Fires" go-to that they use. What part of a high rise totally engulfed in flames is a "Normal" office fire? A normal office fire is when someone overheats a hot pocket in the break room microwave, throws the flaming ingot of peperoni into the garbage can and starts the break room on fire. Once it starts to get out of control and consume the whole building, it ceases to be an office fire. it is now a building fire. This is evident in this case by the building being on fire.

 

[marcom]

Tehran Fire Department Spokesman Jalal Maleki said there were 2 or 3 major explosions in the building so they had to evacuate it


Source: https://youtu.be/MEN8z7wQ8lQ

 

[deirdre]

Tehran Fire Department Spokesman Jalal Maleki said there were 2 or 3 major explosions in the building so they had to evacuate it

the diesel fuel used in the building was reported the day after the collapse. hasnt this already been covered (unfortunately we have 2 Plasco threads.. so not sure which that info is in)

Jalel Maleki: from ae video "

upper floors, at intervals of 2 or 3 minutes, [we had to evacuate] because we found that this place had substances and materials that were prone to explosion.

 

[Whitebeard]

And how old is the blast furnace?

http://donwagner.dk/KoreanFe/KoreanFe.html

In China actual blast furnaces and fineries have been excavated from as early as the first century B.C. (e.g. Gongxian 1962; Zhao Qingyun et al. 1985; WW 1978.2: 28ff), but these are the earliest iron-production furnaces so far known in China, and we have no direct evidence concerning what processes may have been used for iron production in China before this time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=LrHACQAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=earliest+blast+furnace&source=bl&ots=vQ3kddNymE&sig=fKiy32lkvCXaDEnzni3qhcOduk4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUwtT5l-zRAhXLhlQKHRx1DQ84ChDoAQgmMAI#v=onepage&q=earliest blast furnace&f=false

The earliest blast furnaces almost certainly developed from bronze casting technology and by the fifth century B.C.E., good quality cast-iron farm tools and weapons were being produced. However, the earliest blast furnaces for which there is direct evidence date from the first century B.C.E. during the Han Dynasty, and it was at this time that the technology improved too.

I really should try to be less euro-centric in my history studies, thanks for the info

 

[SR1419]

upper floors, at intervals of 2 or 3 minutes, [we had to evacuate] because we found that this place had substances and materials that were prone to explosion.

Indeed. They also used kerosene heaters and apparently were also cooking in the building.

The fire appeared to be the most intense on the upper floors, the site of workshops where tailors cooked for themselves and used old kerosene heaters for warmth.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...v-high-rise-tower-on-fire-in-tehran-collapses

 

[Mick West]

The AE911 thermite conspiracy theory has shown up on some Persian languague sites:
https://www.mojahedin.org/news/192731/شواهد-اولیه-استفاده-از-ترمایت-برای-تخریب-ساختمان-پلاسکو

در پلاسکو، شواهد اولیه استفاده از ترمایت Thermite (مخلوطی از پودر آلومینیم و اکسید آهن) را نشان می‌دهد که. برای تخریب فنی و اصولی ساختمانهای بزرگ، استفاده می‌شود.

 

[Oystein]

Tehran Fire Department Spokesman Jalal Maleki said there were 2 or 3 major explosions in the building so they had to evacuate it
...

It bears pointing out that these explosions did not initiate the building's collapse.
The report corroborates an old experience: Hearing explosions is common in large fires. They practically never indicate explosives.

 

[marcom]

It bears pointing out that these explosions did not initiate the building's collapse.

But perhaps they weakened the structure?

 

[Nada Truther]

But perhaps they weakened the structure?

I am sure that they did. Doesn't mean that they were explosives put in there to do so by someone. I would assume that any explosion inside of a building that was not intended to house explosions would not be good for the structural integrity of the building.

 

[Mick West]

I really don't think an accidental "blast furnace" is necessary to explain what we see here. It's just a large fire, it will melt some things, it will burn many things, and it will make other things red hot. We see a combination of these things.

Excavators digging up burning rubble at night is an unusual sight, it's unrealistic to look at low at it and infer the nature of the material we see. We just don't have much in the way of reference. However you can be pretty confident that it's not molten metal, simply because it does not stick to the excavator.

Here's a few pics for reference.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ecycling-facility-destroyed-by-fire-1.3090619

 

[Oystein]

But perhaps they weakened the structure?

Explosive devices designed to weaken steel structures are essentially the same as explosive devices designed to initiate the collapse of a steel structure: Supersonic blasts large enough to cut steel. There is little use in not cutting the steel.

In actual CDs, you commonly hear a series of explosions seconds before more explosions start the actual collapse. These first explosions do weaken the structure - by cutting some redundant members and reducing the total capacity.
These first explosions are typically as loud as the final ones.

 

[Redwood]

FYI: "Preliminary Report from AE911 Truth". Haven't had a chance to read it myself yet.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/349-news-media-events-plasco-report.html
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

FYI: "Preliminary Report from AE911 Truth". Haven't had a chance to read it myself yet.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/349-news-media-events-plasco-report.html

They'll give you a hard copy for ten bucks, so they can afford to send them to the Iranian commission and anyone else they can think of.

 

[Mick West]

FYI: "Preliminary Report from AE911 Truth". Haven't had a chance to read it myself yet.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/349-news-media-events-plasco-report.html

It's bizarre. They keep going on about how there's no explanation for the explosion when it was widely reported that there were propane gas canisters in there. Their won report says:

The building was occupied primarily by garment businesses.
Large amounts of fabric were stored on the premises. Reportedly,
the building's owners were warned on numerous
occasions that the building was unsafe due to the storage of
flammable materials throughout the building and the lack of
fire safety measures.6 There was no central heating system
in the building and each tenant had its own heating system,
reportedly fueled with gas or propane.

It's basically taking all their mistakes regarding building 7, and doubling down on them. As I noted at the start they are essentially forced to do this, and will be forced to do the same for any fire-related collapse in the future.

 

[deirdre]

Haven't had a chance to read it myself yet.

youre not missing much. They basically said they dont know anything about the scene, the building or what was in the building (except a bunch of gas canisters), but

Based on the data we have collected and analyzed over the past month, we can now recommend with a high degree of confidence that investigators should consider controlled demolition involving a combination of explosives and incendiaries as the most likely hypothesis for the Plasco Building's destruction

 

[Marvin Sannes]

It's bizarre. They keep going on about how there's no explanation for the explosion when it was widely reported that there were propane gas canisters in there. Their won report says:

The building was occupied primarily by garment businesses.
Large amounts of fabric were stored on the premises. Reportedly,
the building's owners were warned on numerous
occasions that the building was unsafe due to the storage ofDoulbing
flammable materials throughout the building and the lack of
fire safety measures.6 There was no central heating system
in the building and each tenant had its own heating system,
reportedly fueled with gas or propane.

It's basically taking all their mistakes regarding building 7, and doubling down on them. As I noted at the start they are essentially forced to do this, and will be forced to do the same for any fire-related collapse in the future.

An excellent bet to double down on: 110 fires in steel framed buildings over 13 stories every yr. for over 150 yrs of steel framed construction and 4 have collapsed from office fires. Yea. A really good bet, this is a CD

 

[deirdre]

An excellent bet to double down on: 110 fires in steel framed buildings over 13 stories every yr. for over 150 yrs of steel framed construction and 4 have collapsed from office fires. Yea. A really good bet, this is a CD

126 years.

In the United States, the first steel framed building was the Rand McNally Building in Chicago, erected in 1890.

The Royal Insurance Building in Liverpool designed by James Francis Doyle in 1895 (erected 1896-1903) was the first to use a steel frame in the United Kingdom.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_frame

The Twin Towers did not collapse from "office fires".

Can you give me an example of a similar building, with no sprinkler system, that burned as long as the Plasco that did not collapse? Just curious.

 

[Nada Truther]

It's bizarre. They keep going on about how there's no explanation for the explosion when it was widely reported that there were propane gas canisters in there.

That's because the explanation doesn't fit the result that they want.

 

[Marvin Sannes]

126 years.

In the United States, the first steel framed building was the Rand McNally Building in Chicago, erected in 1890.

The Royal Insurance Building in Liverpool designed by James Francis Doyle in 1895 (erected 1896-1903) was the first to use a steel frame in the United Kingdom.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_frame

The Twin Towers did not collapse from "office fires".

Can you give me an example of a similar building, with no sprinkler system, that burned as long as the Plasco that did not collapse? Just curious.

Excellent. I stand corrected - 126 yrs. of steel framed contruction, and of those over 13 stories, only 4 have collapsed from fire - office fires, or diesel fires, or kerosene fires, or jet fuel fires, or propane fires, or garment fires, = steel buildings do not collapse when they catch on fire - unless there is something in the building like "exotic accelerants??

I wish I could give you an e.g. of any steel framed building over 13 stories that collapsed from fire - no matter how long it burned. Steel buildings do not collapse from fire - it's an axiom in the fire fighting industry.

 

[Mick West]

Excellent. I stand corrected - 126 yrs. of steel framed contruction, and of those over 13 stories, only 4 have collapsed from fire - office fires, or diesel fires, or kerosene fires, or jet fuel fires, or propane fires, or garment fires, = steel buildings do not collapse when they catch on fire - unless there is something in the building like "exotic accelerants??

I wish I could give you an e.g. of any steel framed building over 13 stories that collapsed from fire - no matter how long it burned. Steel buildings do not collapse from fire - it's an axiom in the fire fighting industry.

You just gave four examples, then said it does not happen. Isn't that rather circular reasoning?

 

[Marvin Sannes]

You just gave four examples, then said it does not happen. Isn't that rather circular reasoning?

The "hidden axiom" trick. We do not know how those 4 buildings were destroyed. Well, I'll take that back, some of you know how those 4 buildings were destroyed. Some of us do not know and continue to ask questions about the only 4 steel framed buildings to collapse from fire, a fact which is not a hidden axiom. 4 buildings in 126 yrs. and I think that's a good place to ask the question: Are there some common features about these 4 buildings? Good questions?

 

[Keith Beachy]

Excellent. I stand corrected - 126 yrs. of steel framed contruction, and of those over 13 stories, only 4 have collapsed from fire - office fires, or diesel fires, or kerosene fires, or jet fuel fires, or propane fires, or garment fires, = steel buildings do not collapse when they catch on fire - unless there is something in the building like "exotic accelerants??

I wish I could give you an e.g. of any steel framed building over 13 stories that collapsed from fire - no matter how long it burned. Steel buildings do not collapse from fire - it's an axiom in the fire fighting industry.

Steel does not fail in fire?

False, steel fails in fire, quickly; a known fact in the fire fighting science.
http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...-strategies-for-steel-frame-construction.html
http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...angers-of-lightweight-steel-construction.html
http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...tructural-collapse-under-fire-conditions.html
"between 1979 and 2002, there were more than 180 firefighter structural collapse fatalities" You said steel can't collapse, but it does. Where did you get your false claim from? Source it...

Steel buildings do not collapse from fire - it's an axiom in the fire fighting industry

Got a source?

Before presenting a fantasy of CD, we should check the fuel loading of the building. For instance, NIST studied the fuel loading of the WTC towers and found the heat energy of the the office fires prior to the towers collapsing to be more heat energy than 2,700 tons of TNT, or thermite. This does not include the heat energy of the jet fuel which has more heat energy (equal in energy to) than 315 tons of TNT delivered to both towers. Looking at Plasco clean up, the burning debris looked dense, like the building was stuffed with stuff that burns.

Fire fighters feared collapse fighting this fire. Only a 3 foot sag, we can move back in. Wait, this building was totaled by fire, a fire fought.
Steel fails in fire, and fire science knows.
"Steel buildings do not collapse from fire", is nonsense.
Making up CD claims about Plasco to support CD at the WTC is not logical, since fire caused the collapses. It does not matter if Plasco was destroyed by Judy's DEW, it is not evidence for the conspiracy CD fantasy at the WTC.
There was no melted steel or iron at Plasco, it would fuse to the shovel; there are a lot of glowing ashes falling out of the bucket/shovel, but no melted iron. Why does ae911t make up stuff to support nonsense about 9/11. It does not make sense.

 

[Mick West]

Are there some common features about these 4 buildings? Good questions?

The point here is that the Plasco building was obviously destroyed by a fire. During this process it exhibited many features that AE911 have claimed was evidence of controlled demolition. So AE911 were forced to either remove that evidence from their arguments, or claim that Plasco was a controlled demolition.

Frankly, the idea that Plasco was brought down with nano-thermite is ridiculous, AE911 has basically jumped the shark with this. Of course they will keep pushing it because they have to, it's their reason for existence, they have devoted their lives to it. But a good portion of their members are going to wake up. The rest will double down, harden their mental positions, and continue down the rabbit hole.

 

[deirdre]

I wish I could give you an e.g. of any steel framed building over 13 stories that collapsed from fire - no matter how long it burned. .

that's not what i asked you for.

I asked you for one example of a similar building, situation and fire that did NOT collapse. If the answer is 'i cant give you one' then just say so.

 

[econ41]

...4 buildings in 126 yrs. and I think that's a good place to ask the question: Are there some common features about these 4 buildings?

Yes - for three of them we know:
A) Why they collpased; AND
B) There is not and never has been a viable hypothesis to counter the accepted narratives.
(AKA no one has demonstrated CD)

The fourth looks to be much the same - and with this one there is also no valid pro-CD hypothesis.

Good questions?

Not really - the answers already known so the explicit questions are pointless.

If you are implying something - then make an explicit claim and be prepared to support it.