AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

econ41

Senior Member
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.
Good and concise analysis Mick.

It put AE911 between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". Which is obvious [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
well i looked up the first one. the construction was not the same. the layout.
and the parts with unprotected steel did collapse.
hh.JPG

upload_2017-2-22_2-41-14.png
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm



@Cube Radio instead of making me debunk each one individually. How about you present me with one building... you give me the building floor plan, construction, and all the data i need to see that it is the same as the wtc buildings or Plasco. Thanks.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
I wonder how Cube's post would have appeared if he had used a different WTC 7 image.

Here is one....

It gives the impression that it is a little more "on fire" than the images that the AE911 sheep like to show. Most of the time they make it look like a hot pocket burst into flames in the microwave, but the reality is a lot more than they want you to believe.

Insert the above image into your comparison. Also, you should compare images of all of the buildings that were fully engulfed in flames after being severely damaged by a building falling on it. I will start the list:

1. WTC 7
2. ??????
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@Cube Radio is well aware of the differences with those buildings and should have been able to explain them all himself - at the very least the Chechnya building where only the cladding was on fire. This image is essentially spam.

I'm removing @Cube Radio from this thread for two weeks, as he should know better than to waste time with old bunk like this.
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
Good and concise analysis Mick.

It put AE911 between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". Which is obvious [...]
I can't seem to post anything about the Placo Building's destruction that does not violate guidelines. This is a response to a comment that the Tehran building was "obviously destroyed by fire". Can we make such determination from viewing the video record? Shouldn't the authorities in Terhran investigate the fire? Isn't there enough evidence of an unusual destruction that conclusion should await the engineering report ordered within 60 days. We will have that report in another 26 days. Most of the panel are engineers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I can't seem to post anything about the Placo Building's destruction that does not violate guidelines. This is a response to a comment that the Tehran building was "obviously destroyed by fire". Can we make such determination from viewing the video record? Shouldn't the authorities in Terhran investigate the fire? Isn't there enough evidence of an unusual destruction that conclusion should await the engineering report ordered within 60 days. We will have that report in another 26 days. Most of the panel are engineers.

Of course they should investigate the fire. All large building fires are investigated in most developed countries. But we already know it's a fire in a building that was flagged as a fire danger, and where there were lots of propane tanks. Only 9/11 truthers think it was a controlled demolition - and they think this because they have become convinced that things like squibs, and black smoke, and burning debris have some kind of special significance. The Plasco fire and collapse should have demonstrated that they don't have any significance, and in fact are just part of what you see when a large building collapses due to fire.

It's a defining moment for the 9/11 truth movement. Ether double down and start asserting that random building collapses in Iran are nanothermite conspiracies, or wake up and realize that fire can actually make a building collapse like that.

I'm quite hopeful that a large number of AE911's membership will look at the Plasco building collapse with an open mind, and see it for what it actually is.

It's fine if you wait for the report though, check back in when you've read it.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
This is a response to a comment that the Tehran building was "obviously destroyed by fire". Can we make such determination from viewing the video record? Shouldn't the authorities in Terhran investigate the fire?
You are certainly aware that AE911Truth did not wait for the results of such an investigation and went ahead claiming that fire could NOT have been the cause of the Plasco collapse, and that explosive CD it is.
Did you raise your same concerns with Richard Gage, Tony Szamboti or Ted Walter before they made fools of themselves?

Isn't there enough evidence of an unusual destruction that conclusion should await the engineering report ordered within 60 days.
A rhetoric question - can you be specific and point exactly to the evidence you have in mind here? What is unusual about the Plasco collapse, and why? What would be usual?

Are you worried that AE911Truth released a shiny and suggestive brochure and spread it widely without waiting for the official report?

We will have that report in another 26 days. Most of the panel are engineers.
What panel? The Iranian official investigative panel? How do you know its makeup? Got a URL?
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
You are certainly aware that AE911Truth did not wait for the results of such an investigation and went ahead claiming that fire could NOT have been the cause of the Plasco collapse, and that explosive CD it is.
Did you raise your same concerns with Richard Gage, Tony Szamboti or Ted Walter before they made fools of themselves?


A rhetoric question - can you be specific and point exactly to the evidence you have in mind here? What is unusual about the Plasco collapse, and why? What would be usual?

Are you worried that AE911Truth released a shiny and suggestive brochure and spread it widely without waiting for the official report?


What panel? The Iranian official investigative panel? How do you know its makeup? Got a URL?


The AE report released a few days ago specifies the panel: How many, what the background of each is to be, ordered by the government that's demanding the report - I don't recall the exact #'s - 20 total, I think, most are building engineers, couple of lawyers, couple of government people, etc. We will have something to look over in another 24 days.
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
The AE report released a few days ago specifies the panel: How many, what the background of each is to be, ordered by the government that's demanding the report - I don't recall the exact #'s - 20 total, I think, most are building engineers, couple of lawyers, couple of government people, etc. We will have something to look over in another 24 days.

"Usual" - unusual, etc. Explosions - same snag we had in 2001, when you have witnesses or recording, or video, or evidence of accelerants you test for accelerants. [unsourced bunk removed] Maybe the Iranians will adhere to the their fire investigation code.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I don't recall the exact #'s - 20 total
AE911 pdf says:
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
10 commissioners. 7 are engineers, 1 pol. sci. 1 lawyer, 1 insurance. Sounds promising. What struck me immediately was: Why? If it was an intentional CD, who would gain? And, the 1st set of questions is the timing of Trump's swearing in, the tension between US, Israel, Iran, and the media hype surrounding the Netanyahu visit and that nuke development treaty signed by all those EU countries.

So very many factors: If it's an intentional act perpetrated to affect geo-politics it is one deep, deep, very deep, and long range set of plans. How to fathom such an activity? I think it's impossible. But, looking back, in a decade or three, it will seem obvious. That is: If it was a planned orchestrated CD with the attending murders and the outrage that must be causing in Iran among the fire industry people.

Had my annual Dr. visit a couple days ago, my Dr. is from Iran. I ask him about the building - he'd been in it many times. He told me that during the Shah's reign Israel and Iran we the best of friends. Curious. I did not know that.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
10 commissioners. 7 are engineers, 1 pol. sci. 1 lawyer, 1 insurance.
except for the life of me.. and now im reading articles in Persian, i cant find that information. everytime i add the word 'engineer' in (english or persian) i get nada. Perhaps you can ask ae911 where they got that info.



i see:
Then:




and from AE911's pdf (very very bottom link last page)

explosions not suspicous.png




add: ok that university does have high level Engineer professors
but i'm still curious where AE911 got their info since they didnt source it.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
10 commissioners. 7 are engineers, 1 pol. sci. 1 lawyer, 1 insurance. Sounds promising.
Will you, and will AE911Truth accept the findings of this commission?
Or can you tell us already which findings you will NOT accept?

What struck me immediately was: Why? If it was an intentional CD, who would gain?
Shouldn't those questions wait until after the commission releases its findings?

Alternatively, if you feel that speculating now is appropriate, have you asked yourself what the implications will be for you, AE911Truth and others in the Truth Movement if the commission finds that all these perceived "anomalies" are really just by-products of a normal, accidental, fire-induced progressive collapse? You know - the alleged sounds of "explosions", the reports of allegedly "molten metal", the alleged "energetic plumes", the debris field allegedly "contained mostly inside its footprint", etc.?

If it's an intentional act perpetrated to affect geo-politics...
It hardly made the news in most countries in the world, and certainly didn't register with even just a few relevant world-leaders, so no, this building collapse cannot have any impact on geo-politics. It's just this tiny, tiny fringe of the US society that believes in the cult of "9/11 Truth" (and the even smaller fringe of "debunkers" who still care enough that some folks are wrong on the internet) who assign this accident any meaning beyond local Teheran implications.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The AE911Truth brochure - Linky here: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf

It says on page 13:
These "Calculations" are neither shown nor linked to, nor do they even state who has calculated this. We have to take it on faith alone.
However, since Tony Szamboti is credited as one of only 6 contributors to this pamphlet, it is safe to assume that he is the source of these calculations, for he did such calculations. How do I know? Because I was one of the first to whom he emailed his calculations.

Here is the calculation in full, as he emailed it to me, dated January 31st (according to my time zone, central Europe, anyway) - some minor formatting improvements from my side:
There are numerous things terribly wrong with this calculation.
  1. The "average thermal conductivity for gypsum and concrete" has been calculated erroneously from the individual conductivity values - an error in Tony's favour
  2. The value for specfic heat of iron is wrong - it's the value for solid and cool iron, but he is discussing molten iron. True value would be about 825 J/kg-C - an error against Tony's desired result
  3. The assumption that molten iron "created during the Plasco Building incident" would not disperse and mix with debris, and instead would pool in amounts of 100 kg (or more), unmixed, under the rubble is crazy
  4. The assumption that this molten iron would assemble after the collapse - and after it was, so we are led to believe, used to soften or melt or otherwise compromise the building's structure - at a temperature of 2,482 °C is extremely crazy: This is near the maximum temperature that a thermite reaction could heat its products to, but if it stayed at that temperature, it could not have done any work at all on the structure.
  5. The assumption that the pool of molten iron would have the shape of a cube, or any other shape with the surface area (and surface:volume ratio) of a cube, is bizarre. Tony took his belief that there was molten iron in the rubble from an Iranian news report, translated by the news outlet to English, that the pamphlet quotes also: "...excavators and mechanical equipment pull out a layer of molten iron from the rubble...". A "layer" would be a shape rather different from a cube, so I consider this assumption potentially fraudulent.
  6. The assumption that heat would be conducted away from the molten iron "cube" on only one of its six sides is bizarre. Of course, the molten iron would face material that is colder by an extreme margin on all sides, and would thus lose heat on all sides. Unreal!
  7. The conduction equation is not justified. It resembles a simple (one-dimensional) equation for heat flux, but without the operators that denote a differential equation! You cannot calculate heat flux without differential calculus - Tony fails at math.
  8. Tony's model only considers heat transfer between the molten iron and the exterior surface of an insulation layer. It does NOT consider heat transfer between the iron and the insulator itself! Now it is immediately obvious that it would make a HUGE difference if the insulating material (assumed to be gypsum and concrete at 50:50 mass ratio) is very cold or very hot - same as pouring hot coffee into either a cold or a hot mug. By ignoring the heat that goes into the insulation, Tony's model implicitly assumes that the insulation is either as hot as the molten iron (2,482 °C initially), or has a zero heat capacity. Either assumption would be bizarrely far removed from reality. In reality, both concrete and gypsum have specific heat capacities around and slightly above that of molten iron (concrete: 750-960 J/kg/°C; gypsum: 1,090 J/kg/°C; molten iron: 825 J/kg/°C). This means that, when 100 kg of molten iron - even at the crazy 2,482 °C initially - meet 100 kg of gypsum or concrete (insulation), both attain a temperature of under 1500 °C, i.e. below the melting point of iron.
I have had a discussion with Tony about all these gross errors, and so did several folks over at the ISF. No avail! He only admitted to one error - the wrong value for molten iron's heat capacity (because correcting for that error he'd move even further toward his preconceived, desired result). Obvious dishonesty.

The next day, he sent me a spreadsheet calculation, where he does incremental calculations (making up in part for his failure to do differential calculus), which included yet another astonishing assumption: That the debris to which the heat flux goes is initially at 500 °C already - apparently on account of the building fires!? This is the first time I have seen a truther admit that the ordinary combustible building contents can be expected to significantly heat the debris - although even I consider 500 °C to be exaggerated, if that's supposed to be an average.


I hope this lengthy analysis of just one unsourced paragraph of the AE911T pamphlet sheds a valuable light on the sort of quality that went into their work.
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
The AE911Truth brochure - Linky here: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf

It says on page 13:
These "Calculations" are neither shown nor linked to, nor do they even state who has calculated this. We have to take it on faith alone.
However, since Tony Szamboti is credited as one of only 6 contributors to this pamphlet, it is safe to assume that he is the source of these calculations, for he did such calculations. How do I know? Because I was one of the first to whom he emailed his calculations.

Here is the calculation in full, as he emailed it to me, dated January 31st (according to my time zone, central Europe, anyway) - some minor formatting improvements from my side:
There are numerous things terribly wrong with this calculation.
  1. The "average thermal conductivity for gypsum and concrete" has been calculated erroneously from the individual conductivity values - an error in Tony's favour
  2. The value for specfic heat of iron is wrong - it's the value for solid and cool iron, but he is discussing molten iron. True value would be about 825 J/kg-C - an error against Tony's desired result
  3. The assumption that molten iron "created during the Plasco Building incident" would not disperse and mix with debris, and instead would pool in amounts of 100 kg (or more), unmixed, under the rubble is crazy
  4. The assumption that this molten iron would assemble after the collapse - and after it was, so we are led to believe, used to soften or melt or otherwise compromise the building's structure - at a temperature of 2,482 °C is extremely crazy: This is near the maximum temperature that a thermite reaction could heat its products to, but if it stayed at that temperature, it could not have done any work at all on the structure.
  5. The assumption that the pool of molten iron would have the shape of a cube, or any other shape with the surface area (and surface:volume ratio) of a cube, is bizarre. Tony took his belief that there was molten iron in the rubble from an Iranian news report, translated by the news outlet to English, that the pamphlet quotes also: "...excavators and mechanical equipment pull out a layer of molten iron from the rubble...". A "layer" would be a shape rather different from a cube, so I consider this assumption potentially fraudulent.
  6. The assumption that heat would be conducted away from the molten iron "cube" on only one of its six sides is bizarre. Of course, the molten iron would face material that is colder by an extreme margin on all sides, and would thus lose heat on all sides. Unreal!
  7. The conduction equation is not justified. It resembles a simple (one-dimensional) equation for heat flux, but without the operators that denote a differential equation! You cannot calculate heat flux without differential calculus - Tony fails at math.
  8. Tony's model only considers heat transfer between the molten iron and the exterior surface of an insulation layer. It does NOT consider heat transfer between the iron and the insulator itself! Now it is immediately obvious that it would make a HUGE difference if the insulating material (assumed to be gypsum and concrete at 50:50 mass ratio) is very cold or very hot - same as pouring hot coffee into either a cold or a hot mug. By ignoring the heat that goes into the insulation, Tony's model implicitly assumes that the insulation is either as hot as the molten iron (2,482 °C initially), or has a zero heat capacity. Either assumption would be bizarrely far removed from reality. In reality, both concrete and gypsum have specific heat capacities around and slightly above that of molten iron (concrete: 750-960 J/kg/°C; gypsum: 1,090 J/kg/°C; molten iron: 825 J/kg/°C). This means that, when 100 kg of molten iron - even at the crazy 2,482 °C initially - meet 100 kg of gypsum or concrete (insulation), both attain a temperature of under 1500 °C, i.e. below the melting point of iron.
I have had a discussion with Tony about all these gross errors, and so did several folks over at the ISF. No avail! He only admitted to one error - the wrong value for molten iron's heat capacity (because correcting for that error he'd move even further toward his preconceived, desired result). Obvious dishonesty.

The next day, he sent me a spreadsheet calculation, where he does incremental calculations (making up in part for his failure to do differential calculus), which included yet another astonishing assumption: That the debris to which the heat flux goes is initially at 500 °C already - apparently on account of the building fires!? This is the first time I have seen a truther admit that the ordinary combustible building contents can be expected to significantly heat the debris - although even I consider 500 °C to be exaggerated, if that's supposed to be an average.


I hope this lengthy analysis of just one unsourced paragraph of the AE911T pamphlet sheds a valuable light on the sort of quality that went into their work.
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
I don't seem to be able to meet the guidelines. I'm in-appropriate, off-topic, weak conclusions, assumptions, etc. discussing the event or our behaviors appear to be "off topic". The post about the AE brochure is interesting but I guess I can't participate, here. Try Marv Sannes on FB.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I don't seem to be able to meet the guidelines. I'm in-appropriate, off-topic, weak conclusions, assumptions, etc. discussing the event or our behaviors appear to be "off topic". The post about the AE brochure is interesting but I guess I can't participate, here. Try Marv Sannes on FB.
I am surprised and slightly annoyed to see so many of your posts removed or edited by a moderator. I can't judge whether these actions were appropriate, or whether your posts were appropriate, as I came too late to see for myself.

I'd be happy if you stayed and tried to adhere to the rules as they are set here. Mick West has defined the rule of "stay on topic" more tightly than most discussion boards do - like "one claim only per thread". I think you are smart enough to get the hang of it here.

The original claim that the opening post(er) raises is, per thread title, that AE911Truth is "forced" to claim the Plasco is an intentional demolition, in order to maintain several of their arguments about the WTC collapses.
I think discussing the brochure and how it supports or refutes the claim made by the OP is well on-topic. Please give it a try! Discussing this on Facebook very nearly guarantees that no one will ever find it again if and when searching for the debate sometime later.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I don't seem to be able to meet the guidelines. I'm in-appropriate, off-topic, weak conclusions, assumptions, etc. discussing the event or our behaviors appear to be "off topic". The post about the AE brochure is interesting but I guess I can't participate, here. Try Marv Sannes on FB.
Nice try. there's nothing in the moderation queue for you since last week. the descriptions of removal are fair and honest. Your only "off topic post" is you complaining because someone was rude in their post, but i deleted the rudeness part. The repetitive arguement was just you trying to avoid a question by moving goalposts.

I am surprised and slightly annoyed to see so many of your posts removed or edited by a moderator.
happy?
upload_2017-2-26_16-11-55.png


and your first two was just you reposting the same link that others have already posted in the thread. You know this because i told you why in PM

1.JPG
2.JPG
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Sorta.
There was no need to make me happy though.
I was merely trying to encourage Marv to stick to the board rules, disuss the topic amd present and explain evidence - preferably new one.


I have a couple of simple questions for Marv.

Question 1: Look at Figure 13 in the AE911Truth brochure - "An excavator scooping up molten metal from the scene of the Plasco Building incident". In your opinion, does it actually show an excavator scooping up molten, liquid iron? You might want to consider the amount of glowing material in that scoop, and what it might do to the equipment if it were in fact molten iron at >1500 °C. Also, how this much molten iron would radiate heat, and how it might affect the workers looking on.
This is a yes/no question.

Question 2: Page 12/13 contains the news quote: "As the ruins removal process reaches final steps, excavators and mechanical equipment pull out a layer of molten iron from the rubble. The volume of molten metal underneath goes beyond imagination…." Is it at all possible to literally "pull out" a layer of literally "molten" (liquid) iron from rubble?
This, too, is a yes/no question.

If you feel the questions are loaded or otherwise unfair, please explain why. I think they are fair - I doubt that the photo and the news quote can be considered reliable evidence for an actual presence of actually molten actual iron. I think the photo very clearly shows fiery but solid debris far colder than molten iron; and the news quote cannot be interpreted literally - you have to consider the very real possibility that, by "molten", they don't actually mean "liquid" but red-hot and deformed; which is a valid meaning of the word "molten". A hint is that, in my opinion, it would be nonsense to say that you "pull out" a liquid - the word "pull" implies tensile strength.
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
My interest here was the properties of steel and behavior in fire. I posted the graph of the thicknesses on WTC1 in an effort to generate some discussion. But, the site and the participants seems to be long on argument and short on info. or knowledge of steel. I did digest the Oy's post with all the numbers - thinking there may be something there, and there may be, at least it seems authentic. However, when I see (J) used as a measure of energy when discussing these forces I begin to wonder if there's info or argument.

About the Plasco: Israel and Iran were the best of friends during the Shah's rule. The questions raised by whatever happened to that building, the methods, the timing, the deaths, are profound and deserve a far deeper discussion than argument about the characteristics of "truthers" and "debunkers". I don't think this is the forum for that discussion. And, the animosity is not comfortable. Thx.
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
Incidentally, the videos of the Plasco building are videos on a screen and must have corroboration from at least one other source to have any value. And question #2 is a discussion of semantics and seems argumentative - which is the nature of almost all these discussions here.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
...videos of the Plasco building are videos on a screen and must have corroboration from at least one other source to have any value.
Hi. Can you please just flesh this statement out a bit?
They don't have "any value" unless corroborated by what? I have not heard of this "screen" rule.
 

Marvin Sannes

New Member
Not only is film very powerful as a tool to influence what we will believe there are two opportunities to manipulated what is projected: 1) When the film is produced and 2) when it is shown via this screen. How many time will be accept being lied to, before we accept the medium is lying?
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Not only is film very powerful as a tool to influence what we will believe there are two opportunities to manipulated what is projected: 1) When the film is produced and 2) when it is shown via this screen. How many time will be accept being lied to, before we accept the medium is lying?
So you weren't citing a rule or something...you were just kind of saying stuff...?

Well, everyone knows that eyewitness testimony is horribly unreliable...even well-intentioned witnesses
get things entirely wrong. Would you rather trust someone's word, re. what they saw, or multiple videos?
Would the addition of a questionable witness give the videos "value" in your mind?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Not only is film very powerful as a tool to influence what we will believe there are two opportunities to manipulated what is projected: 1) When the film is produced and 2) when it is shown via this screen. How many time will be accept being lied to, before we accept the medium is lying?
Please stay on topic. Theories about film manipulation, Iran/Israel issues etc are off topic.

Rediscussing 9/11 information that has already been extensively debunked in the 9/11 forum is also off topic. Perhaps you can check out the 9/11 forum (Plasco threads included there) and find threads more appropriate to topics you wish to discuss.
https://www.metabunk.org/9-11.f28/
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Quick question. IF the whole Plasco fire WAS some kind of horridly nefarious black opp by Mosad / CIA / MI5 / KGB / The Womens Institute / (insert bad guy here).....

...Why attack an unimportant and rather elderly building that had its better days far behind it? OK back in the 1960's the Plasco tower was the tallest in the country with important offices contained there in, but for the past 30 years it had declined into a rather elderly smallish high rise that contained just a few small businesses, a couple of local industrial concerns and small shopping mall. Nothing of real value to to the Iranian economy, political or religious structures, it was just an old tower block. Tehran has a LOT of better targets to attack and thus sow terror and strike at Irans economy and psyche by attacking. The Sepehr Tower, the Saman complex, the Kar Bank Tower, Pejman Tower, Negar building... If fact Tehran has around 40 high rise buildings (with another 12 under construction) that are bigger, and in many cases far more important in terms of economy, national pride and political importance than Plasco. A strike at one of them, say the Kar Bank building, which contains the Iranian stock exchange and offices for most of the countries most important financial institutions, would do far more damage than taking out a run down building with nothing of note inside.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
My interest here was the properties of steel and behavior in fire. I posted the graph of the thicknesses on WTC1 in an effort to generate some discussion.
You are more than welcome to discuss this in its appropriate thread (search first; if you can't find an appropriate thread, create your own. Just make sure you have focus on one specific claim that can be either debunked or upheld).

This is NOT the thread to discuss thickness of WTC1 steel, or steel in general. If you were to discuss the Plasco steel (you'd need to have actionable info on it for that matter), that might be okay. But remember that this is not an "all things Plasco" thread, but more specifically a thread on AE911Truth's response to the Plasco incident.

But, the site and the participants seems to be long on argument and short on info. or knowledge of steel.
A rather empty accusation in the context of the thread topic - AE911Truth's response to the Plasco incident. Therefore inappropriate.

I did digest the Oy's post with all the numbers - thinking there may be something there, and there may be, at least it seems authentic.
I am sure you know how to contact Tony Szamboti to verify the authenticity. Tony is a member of this forum, by the way.

However, when I see (J) used as a measure of energy when discussing these forces I begin to wonder if there's info or argument.
Tony wasn't discussing forces.
The AE911Truth brochure isn't disussing forces in the part from which I quoted.
I wasn't discussing forces.
If you feel that anything relevant to the topic (in case you forgot: AE911Truth's response to the Plasco incident) must discuss forces, take it up with Tony Szamboti and AE911Truth - it is their argument, their calculation that I addressed.

About the Plasco: Israel and Iran were the best of friends during the Shah's rule.
I don't see what Israel or the Shah have to do with the Plasco building, the Plasco incident, or AE911Truth's response to the Plasco incident. You are off topic.

The questions raised by whatever happened to that building, the methods, the timing, the deaths, are profound and deserve a far deeper discussion than argument about the characteristics of "truthers" and "debunkers".
I am more than happy to discuss AE911Truth's technical response to the Plasco incident in any depth you wish. I have a feeling though that you are avoiding that discussion!

I don't think this is the forum for that discussion. And, the animosity is not comfortable. Thx.
Yes indeed, you are avoiding this discussion. Your post totally failed to answer a technical question on AE911Truth's response to the Plasco incident, or make an own point.

Don't blame it on us when you can't stay within the topic and contribute reasonable technical arguments to it.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...
And question #2 is a discussion of semantics and seems argumentative - which is the nature of almost all these discussions here.
Yes, exactly, this is about semantics. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. The AE911Truth brochure quotes an Iranian news source as evidence - they parse meaning from it. It is, in my opinion, justifiable to question the meaning they draw from the source.
To refresh your memory, my question was:

Question 2: Page 12/13 contains the news quote: "As the ruins removal process reaches final steps, excavators and mechanical equipment pull out a layer of molten iron from the rubble. The volume of molten metal underneath goes beyond imagination…." Is it at all possible to literally "pull out" a layer of literally "molten" (liquid) iron from rubble?
This is a yes/no question.

What do they mean by "pull out", and what do they mean by "molten"? It seems obvious to me that both words must not both be taken literally at the same time: "To pull out" means "to remove by means of tension", and the first meaning of "molten" is "made liquid through heating". It seems perfectly impossible that you can't literally "pull out" any literally "molten" (i.e. liquid) metal.
Therefore my question: Do you agree with me? Is it at all possible to literally "pull out" a layer of literally "molten" (liquid) iron from rubble? Do you agree that NO, this is NOT possible at all?

AE911Truth made a semantic choice that "pull out" be interpreted loosely, not literally, while they chose that "molten" can only be understood as, liteally, "liquid". This appears arbitary, especially when you consider that various dictionaries know of another meaning of the word molten. For example
  • Merriam-Webster: "3: having warmth or brilliance : glowing <the molten sunlight of warm skies — T. B. Costain>"
  • Wiktionary: "3. Glowing red-hot."
AE911truth did not consider the possibility that the correct meaning of the quoted news item might parse the "pull out" as literally true (removing steel by making use of its tensile strength), while the intended meaning of "molten" was NOT literally "liquid" but merely "red-hot, glowing". Steel that's glowing red hot is solid and very far below its melting point, as you surely know, if you are really so advanced in your knowledge of steel properties.


I notice that you ignored my first question. This is not about semantics. This is looking at AE911Truth's brochure, a photo they disseminate, and telling what you actually see. Let me repeat:

Question 1: Look at Figure 13 in the AE911Truth brochure - "An excavator scooping up molten metal from the scene of the Plasco Building incident". In your opinion, does it actually show an excavator scooping up molten, liquid iron? You might want to consider the amount of glowing material in that scoop, and what it might do to the equipment if it were in fact molten iron at >1500 °C. Also, how this much molten iron would radiate heat, and how it might affect the workers looking on.
This is a yes/no question.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
There are more questions that Marvin Sannes hasn't begun to answer. The most pertinent is perhaps this:

Marvin Sannes said:
10 commissioners. 7 are engineers, 1 pol. sci. 1 lawyer, 1 insurance. Sounds promising.
Will you, and will AE911Truth accept the findings of this commission?
Or can you tell us already which findings you will NOT accept?
...

I'd also be curious: How likely is it, in your estimate, that the Iranian commission will find that the Plasco was demolished, vs. the likelihood it collapsed accidentally due to fire and perhaps secondary explosions of building contents such as gas containers?
I'll go ahead: I'd put the likelihood that they conclude "accidental collapse, caused by fire" at 98%.
I put the likelihood that AE911Truth will reject this finding at precisely 100% - i.e. rejection will not be based on the content, scope and quality of the investigation at all, only on the result.

I wonder if you disagree significantly with either of my estimates.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
The Iranian government has reportedly released the investigation report. The headline is that the Iranian experts concluded that fire was the sole cause of the collapse, though a lack of proper inspections may have lead to unsafe conditions that exacerbated the effects of the fires. Here are the key excerpts from the linked article:

(Emphasis added.)

As of the time of my posting of this update, AE911Truth has not publicly commented on the release of this report.
 

Polly Math

Member
The Iranian government has reportedly released the investigation report. The headline is that the Iranian experts concluded that fire was the sole cause of the collapse, though a lack of proper inspections may have lead to unsafe conditions that exacerbated the effects of the fires. Here are the key excerpts from the linked article:

(Emphasis added.)

As of the time of my posting of this update, AE911Truth has not publicly commented on the release of this report.

The article you quote, also states...
"The report however should not be seen as definitive and the government ministries and other organizations named in the report would contribute to the report by possible responses and or proposals to improve the report,"
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
The article you quote, also states...
"The report however should not be seen as definitive and the government ministries and other organizations named in the report would contribute to the report by possible responses and or proposals to improve the report,"

The original report states that certain governmental agencies failed the Iranian public in various ways through insufficient inspections and enforcement of regulations at Plasco. Those agencies will have a chance to respond to those allegations, which chance they will doubtlessly use to say they did their job and the owner was to blame. If you are expecting this process to somehow rewrite the stated conclusion re fire induced collapse, then you are waiting to be dissappointed. The seven engineers and three others that Iran publicly retained for that aspect of the investigation have finished their work and their is no reason to think the next step in the process will revisit their conclusions.
 

Cube Radio

Member
Interesting. What evidence do we have that the possibility of accelerants was forensically investigated and eliminated through the analysis of physical evidence? This is mandated by US fire investigation protocols in cases like this, but perhaps Iranian authorities do not apply the scientific method in such a manner before drawing their conclusions.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Interesting. What evidence do we have that the possibility of accelerants was forensically investigated and eliminated through the analysis of physical evidence? This is mandated by US fire investigation protocols in cases like this, but perhaps Iranian authorities do not apply the scientific method in such a manner before drawing their conclusions.
To answer that you will need to see the full text of the inquires final report, had a quick look for it, but couldn't find it at the mo, but I'm pushed for time now, so will do a detailed search later today. (Hope I can find an English translation as I can't read Persian)

However I can't see why a search for, as you say acclerants, would show any results. It is known that before the disaster the place was a fire trap, parts of the building was given over to small industrial concerns, so highly flammable materials could well have been there anyway - it is known for example (from news reports at the time) that propane and other gas cylinders were in the building. What's more would a search for accelerants even be of use? The are normally determined by studying fire pattens and residues in pacific locations, mainly at the seat of the fire, not something you can really do when the whole building has collapsed into a pile of twisted rubble.

Yes it could have been arson, but an accidental cause is just as likely, if not more so given the state the building was in; and if it WAS arson, it could have just as well been a disgruntled employee or kids playing with matches, not part of some mad global conspiracy.
 
Last edited:

Polly Math

Member
The original report states that certain governmental agencies failed the Iranian public in various ways through insufficient inspections and enforcement of regulations at Plasco. Those agencies will have a chance to respond to those allegations, which chance they will doubtlessly use to say they did their job and the owner was to blame. If you are expecting this process to somehow rewrite the stated conclusion re fire induced collapse, then you are waiting to be dissappointed. The seven engineers and three others that Iran publicly retained for that aspect of the investigation have finished their work and their is no reason to think the next step in the process will revisit their conclusions.
You're talking as if you have viewed the actual report - I don't believe that you have, but you should be clear whether you have or not.
BTW I should probably say - I am "Old Coarse Guy" who you spoke with elsewhere, shortly after this "collapse" happened.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Interesting. What evidence do we have that the possibility of accelerants was forensically investigated and eliminated through the analysis of physical evidence? This is mandated by US fire investigation protocols in cases like this, but perhaps Iranian authorities do not apply the scientific method in such a manner before drawing their conclusions.

I think accelerants are a bit different thing than CD explosives, aren't them?

Like @Whitebeard mentioned, such a investigations would (or did) almost certainly find them, and still it wouldn't mean a thing to the topic. Being a inside job, an arson, or whatever, would only add to the origin of the fire, and it wouldn't change a thing about the way the building collapsed, as in no explosives, no demolition, nothing like that.

Iranian authorities are saying that there was a huge fire and it got even bigger because of unknown substances inside that building, and as a result the building collapsed.

AE911 truth is saying that the only way it could collapse like that, no matter the size of the fire, is if a CD took place, as in explosives placed at core columns bringing the whole thing down.

It has nothing to do with accelerants or no accelerants.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
econ41 AE911's Response to Mick West's Iron Microspheres Talk. 9/11 17
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West Why Didn't the WTC Fires Ignite AE911's Supposed "Nanothermite"? 9/11 28
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
qed Where are the AE911 models? 9/11 79
Oxymoron Discussion: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 16
Mick West Paraody of AE911: Free-fall descent proves giant hole, not explosives used! 9/11 62
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 10
Oystein Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 174
Mick West TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Nada Truther How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 33
Mick West Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated? 9/11 129
Mick West Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 16
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
SR1419 NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
TWCobra Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Joe Kerr Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 67
C 9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
M 9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
SpaceCowboy Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
TWCobra EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
TWCobra Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
Tony Szamboti Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds 9/11 245
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
Mick West Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
David Fraser The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
T Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rroval Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
N Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
HappyMonday Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Mick West Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
Mick West Explained: Viral Video of 787 Leaving Thick Contrails with Forced Perspective Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West Debunked: US Reported In Panic After Chemtrail Planes Forced Down In India and Nigeria Contrails and Chemtrails 1
BlueCollarCritic Just Like Gun Bans, Forced Smart Meters Is Just Bunk Right? Conspiracy Theories 19
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top