AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

[John85]

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.

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

 

[Mick West]

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]

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.

 

[John85]

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.

If it is all very obvious, break it down for me and for others who disagree.

 

[Mick West]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[SR1419]

Fire protection.

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

 

[John85]

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]

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.

View attachment 29875

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

View attachment 29874

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.

 

[Mick West]

a line of point-like expulsions

Can you define "point like"? How big is a point? The size of a window opening?

 

[deirdre]

Yes - I believe that gas tanks and propane heaters fueled by kerosene will not burn hot enough to melt steel,

what does melted steel (which I proved was not melted steel) have to do with the squibs?

 

[John85]

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?

 

[John85]

Can you define "point like"? How big is a point? The size of a window opening?

I am thinking, like a jet that comes from a single location, rather than a swathe of dust 10 or 20 feet across

 

[John85]

what does melted steel (which I proved was not melted steel) have to do with the squibs?

Nothing at all, on the official view - they are unrelated.

 

[deirdre]

Nothing at all, on the official view - they are unrelated.

I wasn't referring to the 'official view' , I was referring to Mick's question to you.

 

[Mick West]

I am thinking, like a jet that comes from a single location, rather than a swathe of dust 10 or 20 feet across

So what do you think explains the presence of both "point like" and "swathes" here:

Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/3o7aD0HYDUfKFtFXDW


Source: https://youtu.be/NwFHEoiUZ7o?t=1m50s

 

[Mick West]

 

[SR1419]

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.

 

[John85]

To add to Mick's question regarding squibs/dust puffs, see the below.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o


1.15 to 1.25 shows a good slow-mo of dust being expelled during an explosive-free demolition

These are the swirls of dust I expect or falling floors. Obviously, the whole floor is falling in once piece because it's a professional job.

 

[John85]

View attachment 29877

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

 

[Mick West]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[John85]

And yet that is what appears to be happening here.

It won't be enough to say that this is the case. A comparison to a non-controversial example would be more persuasive.

 

[Mick West]

It won't be enough to say that this is the case. A comparison to a non-controversial example would be more persuasive.

Plasco isn't actually controversial. The only people who think that are AE911

 

[John85]

This is a better video for post #190, instead of the Chandler commentary, particularly from 1.10


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYW89xEYg0

 

[John85]

Plasco isn't actually controversial. The only people who think that are AE911

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.

 

[Mick West]

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]

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]

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.