AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

John85

Member
Seriously? Are you asking me why there were explosions in a building full of propane tanks? Even in a building with zero propane tanks there are scores of thing that explode in fires.

I don't see any liquid steel.

I'm asking whether you think that gas tanks explode in such a way as to cause 7 similar impulses within 0.5s, and whether that accounts for the sequence of explosions that runs down the face of the building. What do you think is going on during the collapse? Is one exploding propane tank causing others to explode? If so, why does it occur when the fire has nearly died down, on different floors, and on lower floors not engulfed in flames? If you think they are dust puffs, the same questions, but also explain the point-like sources.


TP3 22.png

You'll see the molten metal on p14-15, under section 2.4

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf

TP2.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
These are exactly the same types of things that are brought up in the 9/11 claims, and have the same answers you've ignored for over a decade.
 

John85

Member
So the question here is how confident are you. How much money would I have to put up for you to wager $20 of your own money that in five years conclusive evidence of use of explosives in Plasco will be revealed.

Do we need further evidence to reach the conclusion that explosives were probably used? I am about 85% confident. But whether it is true is not determined by whether there is any further evidence revealed in the next 5 years.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If it is all very obvious, break it down for me and for others who disagree.
It's been broken down. That's the point. You've just ignored the breakdowns.

I don't want to flog a dead horse. I'm trying here to figure out what's the best way of communicating with people who have somehow been convinced by the claims of evidence that AE911 list. Take the expulsions of dust for example. What exactly is it that previous explanations have failed to convey?

Have you read any (non-explosive) explanation of the "squibs" in the past that you can reference now as being incorrect?

Or conversely have you read a technical analysis that you think proves they could only be from explosives?
 

John85

Member
Please make and post a screenshot of "what you can see with your own eyes" and point out (with a red arrow or pink box or somesuch) whatever you think you "see with your own eyes" that is in conflict with the press release about the task group's report! Also, quote the item with which that what you "see with your own eyes" conflicts!

I am sure you agree that you see fires, that you see smoke, and that you see the building collapsing. Anything more?

(I do not expect you to actually present evidence that you actually "see" a demolition job - there is none. You provided a picture-perfect example of the conspiracist mindset that rejects a-priori any and all evidence that challenges your preconceived, quasi-religious belief, yet have no evidence in favour of an alternative account, and really not even an alternative account.)

There's nothing wrong with skepticism. I'm not asking you to subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory either. Do you have a better explanation of the explosions that run down the building than demolition charges? Do you have a better explanation of the molten metal found in the rubble than 'exotic accelerants'? See post #161 for the evidence.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's nothing wrong with skepticism. I'm not asking you to subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory either. Do you have a better explanation of the explosions that run down the building than demolition charges? Do you have a better explanation of the molten metal found in the rubble than 'exotic accelerants'?

Surely you know what the conventional explanations are? Can you explain why you discount those explanations?

Or are you actually genuinely unaware of the prosaic explanations?
 

John85

Member
It's been broken down. That's the point. You've just ignored the breakdowns.

I don't want to flog a dead horse. I'm trying here to figure out what's the best way of communicating with people who have somehow been convinced by the claims of evidence that AE911 list. Take the expulsions of dust for example. What exactly is it that previous explanations have failed to convey?

Have you read any (non-explosive) explanation of the "squibs" in the past that you can reference now as being incorrect?

Or conversely have you read a technical analysis that you think proves they could only be from explosives?

Yes, I believe there is one view of squibs/dust puffs which is under-considered. I tried to get at this in my first thread on Metabunk. It relates to WTC 1, the north tower, but there are similarities here. I used to understand the so-called squibs as actually just air being forced out of the building by falling floors during the collapse. Now, however, I do not believe that falling floor slabs would cause a point-like expulsion. Falling floor pieces can be witnessed in the course of standard demolitions, and they eject a lot of fine dust - but they do so in a large, swirling, indistinct fashion, not a points. I think it is even more difficult for multiple identical point-like expulsions to be caused (referring here to WTC 1). I then consider it impossible for multiple, identical, point-like expulsions to come out of a floor which has already had its windows blown open (again referring to WTC 1). The similarity with Plasco is that there is a line of point-like expulsions that runs down the building. The other argument that AE911 makes, with their zig-zag graph, is that some expulsions happen on floors where there has already been an expulsion.
 

John85

Member
Surely you know what the conventional explanations are? Can you explain why you discount those explanations?

Or are you actually genuinely unaware of the prosaic explanations?

Yes - I believe that gas tanks and propane heaters fueled by kerosene will not burn hot enough to melt steel, unless they burn in a furnace.

In any other building fire, as AE911 quotes, regulations say that molten metal or concrete indicates the possible presence of exotic accelerants. Here there was just that, so it needs to be considered.
 

John85

Member
for example? Pink Unicorns? or industry standard fire protection for demo charges? or some other random thing that you want to make up?

You know as well as I do that steel can be fire protected by several different means - spray on, gypsum board, etc. If you had to come up with a way (hypothetically) to protect an explosive charge from an office fire, would you be able to do it?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I'm asking whether you think that gas tanks explode in such a way as to cause 7 similar impulses within 0.5s, and whether that accounts for the sequence of explosions that runs down the face of the building. What do you think is going on during the collapse? Is one exploding propane tank causing others to explode? If so, why does it occur when the fire has nearly died down, on different floors, and on lower floors not engulfed in flames? If you think they are dust puffs, the same questions, but also explain the point-like sources.

TP3 22.png
These are not explosions. You can tell from the video by cranking up the volume to max and noticing there is no extremely loud and sharp !PENG! sound there.

If you think differently, and believe that explosive CD charges can go unnoticed when videotaped this close, I challenge you to find a video of an actual, acknowledged explosive demolition that has dust ejections as massive of these AND also explosion sounds as soft/nonexistent as these.

You'll see the molten metal on p14-15, under section 2.4

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf

TP2.png
This is not molten steel. You don't pick up molten steel with an excavator unless you want to risk your equipment. You can tell by the color of this scrap metal that it is far far far below the melting point of steel - many many hundreds of degrees lower.
 

John85

Member
These are not explosions. You can tell from the video by cranking up the volume to max and noticing there is no extremely loud and sharp !PENG! sound there.

If you think differently, and believe that explosive CD charges can go unnoticed when videotaped this close, I challenge you to find a video of an actual, acknowledged explosive demolition that has dust ejections as massive of these AND also explosion sounds as soft/nonexistent as these.

So there is noise of explosions, but obviously not loud enough for you. But what are they then? There are 7 explosions within 0.5s. As AE911 has pointed out, that is too fast to be floors falling onto each other.


This is not molten steel. You don't pick up molten steel with an excavator unless you want to risk your equipment. You can tell by the color of this scrap metal that it is far far far below the melting point of steel - many many hundreds of degrees lower.

Maybe they were risking their equipment. What metal is it there, if you know all the answers?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
You know as well as I do that steel can be fire protected by several different means - spray on, gypsum board, etc. If you had to come up with a way (hypothetically) to protect an explosive charge from an office fire, would you be able to do it?

Strawman argument- protecting steel from fire has nothing to do with protecting explosive demolition charges from fire. You are suggesting something for which you can provide no precedent. Its a leap of faith on your part.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The point-like expulsion is because there is only one central window. Still pretty wispy, too.

So if only one window broke due to overpressure, there would be only one expulsion?

And if the force behind the expulsion was larger, then there would be a more powerful expulsion?

And if one window were to break due to overpressure then that would reduce the pressure, making other windows less likely to break?

So what about that does not explain WTC1 and Plasco?
 

John85

Member
Strawman argument- protecting steel from fire has nothing to do with protecting explosive demolition charges from fire. You are suggesting something for which you can provide no precedent. Its a leap of faith on your part.

Protecting steel from fire is done with spray-on material. It can also be done with gypsum board. The spray-on material ignites and chars up forming a thicker, unconductive layer which protects the steel beneath. These kinds of materials are certified to adhere to regulations requiring protection for a defined number of minutes at defined temperatures. This whole area of fire protection is the precedent for any person who wished to protect an explosive charge from heat. Evidently, you are not criminally mined enough for this idea to occur to you, which is no bad thing.
 

John85

Member
So if only one window broke due to overpressure, there would be only one expulsion?

And if the force behind the expulsion was larger, then there would be a more powerful expulsion?

And if one window were to break due to overpressure then that would reduce the pressure, making other windows less likely to break?

So what about that does not explain WTC1 and Plasco?

Then we have to ask why only one window breaks, instead of several. And why on multiple floors the windows which happen to be the weakest form a vertical line. Is it coincidence? If we acknowledge that a broken window relieves the pressure, of course that takes us onto how another identical overpressure could develop in same floor twice.
 

John85

Member
You'll also notice there is a lot of destruction going on in the image with the point-like expulsion you identified. The whole building is coming down. But in the Plasco case, the explosions occur before the building collapse gets going.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Then we have to ask why only one window breaks, instead of several. And why on multiple floors the windows which happen to be the weakest form a vertical line. Is it coincidence? If we acknowledge that a broken window relieves the pressure, of course that takes us onto how another identical overpressure could develop in same floor twice.

And have you attempted to answer those questions?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You'll also notice there is a lot of destruction going on in the image with the point-like expulsion you identified. The whole building is coming down. But in the Plasco case, the explosions occur before the building collapse gets going.
Really? What point exactly are you referring to with the Plasco collapse?
 

John85

Member
And have you attempted to answer those questions?

Yes, so in the case of WTC 1, is there an air duct that runs down the building, directing air towards only certain windows? Research on that turned up the unrelated answer that floors were actually not airtight, they had communication holes in them for cables (which separately makes air overpressures as claimed impossible on one floor at a time). And any such ducts would burst apart at a lower pressure than that required to blow out a WTC window . Was there defective installation that would account for a strip of windows being especially vulnerable? Maybe. Could the strains within the building cause certain windows to lose their seal first, causing the overpressure to find the easiest way out? Possibly, but WTC was meant to withstand hurricanes, and we're only talking a falling floor. But would lightning strike twice? Would a floor whose windows had already been blown out to the right experience identical overpressure-driven expulsions seconds later to the left? No, don't think so. That was fatal to my previous beliefs, in the case of WTC 1. A relevant image from the other thread below:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/op-jpg.27866/

And a video showing the expulsions:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc


I wouldn't usually share a David Chandler video because it looks like a slap in the face to a debunker, given his AE911 links, but for speed it is the easiest video to find
 

Oystein

Senior Member
So there is noise of explosions, but obviously not loud enough for you. But what are they then? There are 7 explosions within 0.5s.
Rule of So says: No.
There is no noise of explosions. Not at all. That's why I challenged you to find a video of an actual, acknowledged explosive demolition that has dust ejections as massive of these AND also explosion sounds as soft/nonexistent as these. You have not met that challenge, wich is really a request for evidence that explosion sounds can in fact be as unnoticable/nonexistent as in the Plasco building and still bring down a steel-frame highrise and eject prodigious amounts of dust, since you necessarily imply that it is the explosions that eject the dust (hint: actual exposive charges eject only minimal amounts of dust).


As AE911 has pointed out, that is too fast to be floors falling onto each other.
AE911Truth MUST make false claims like this to protect their salaries.

Maybe they were risking their equipment. What metal is it there, if you know all the answers?
I do not know all the answers, particularly not to all the irrelevant questins like this.
 

John85

Member
Really? What point exactly are you referring to with the Plasco collapse?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY


In the first 15s of this video, you can see the expulsions first, and the building facade comes down next. I am not aware of any building demolition in which a floor falls behind an intact facade and bursts a window open. There are many examples of dust being blown out during collapses, but these show an awful lot of visible destruction around the expulsion zone. Not so here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In the first 15s of this video, you can see the expulsions first, and the building facade comes down next. I am not aware of any building demolition in which a floor falls behind an intact facade and bursts a window open.

And yet that is what appears to be happening here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Given that I accept the AE911 view, I mean an example from another demolition or collapse. Anything other than 9/11, I hasten to add.

The funny thing here is that THIS is the example that AE911 have been asking for for so long. That's the point of this thread. A building collapses from fire in Iran. It shares some aspects of the AE911's claimed "evidence", so they and you are forced to think it's probably controlled demolition.

But you are the only people in the entire world who think this.

Not only that, but a large number of truthers don't even think this was controlled demolition.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY


In the first 15s of this video, you can see the expulsions first, and the building facade comes down next. I am not aware of any building demolition in which a floor falls behind an intact facade and bursts a window open. There are many examples of dust being blown out during collapses, but these show an awful lot of visible destruction around the expulsion zone. Not so here.
The clip in the first 15 s has the sun shining from the left. Since the collapse occurred at 11:20 local time, we are looking at the East face there, and the South-East corner of the building is the one to the left.

The next clip shows mostly the West side (dark) and also the south side (on the right; lit). So the South-East corner of the building is the one to the far right there. Here is a GIF from 20 s onward:

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/50bd92a3416715a119191a115020293a.gif https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/50bd92a3416715a119191a115020293a.gif

(I made an error with the label - should be "SE-corner"; my first attempt at GIPHY)

What you can see there is that the center of the south face, and at least part of the center of the building, collapses well before the SE-corner starts coming down. This explains why you see air ejected in the video of the East face before the East face itself collapses.
 

NobleOne

Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY


In the first 15s of this video, you can see the expulsions first, and the building facade comes down next. I am not aware of any building demolition in which a floor falls behind an intact facade and bursts a window open. There are many examples of dust being blown out during collapses, but these show an awful lot of visible destruction around the expulsion zone. Not so here.

In the first 15s, you see one side of the building, side that came down last. If you look at 1:25 up to 1:35 you'll see that not complete building is falling. The top of the building is still there up to 1:32 where it finally collapse. This explains the untouched facade on the other side. It also explains how expulsions where made by collapsing floors on the other side. Also, I see no signs of explosions here.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
A AE911 New Collapse Hypothesis 9/11 245
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
Mendel The 10 tactics of fascism - Truth General Discussion 53
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 24
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top