AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

John85

Member
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.

Well, I have explained the reasons I see the expulsions as explosions rather than innocent dust puffs. I'm about 85% on Plasco, but over 95% on WTC 1, 2 & 7.

The expulsions on the right hand side of WTC 1 are what decides whether the US was the victim of an unexpected al Qaeda terror attack, or the perpetrator of an attack on its own citizens. I advise that you study them very, very closely. I can't emphasize that enough. I would ask all interested to hold their noses over the idea of 'conspiracy theories', jump out their silos, forget whether I've offended you, or you've offended me, or I've said something ridiculous, or you have. Take a look at these images. They depict the single event that has defined the 21st century. Are these expulsions down the right face just falling floors, running down the building almost as fast as falling debris, or are they detonating charges?

Source: https://youtu.be/lKYW89xEYg0


@benthamitemetric @deirdre @Keith Beachy @Oystein @NoParty @Whitebeard @SR1419
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Just found this article which, among other things, talked about the Teheran fire department's expectation that the building might collapse:
http://www.irna.ir/fa/News/82411792
This is Persion - try Google translate here.
The Mayor of Tehran added that one of the most important issues during the operation of the fire brigade's forces in the ploskovo incident is that 32 minutes before the collapse of the building, an order to evacuate the relief forces is issued.
He said the management of the operation of the relief and firefighting of the Plasco building, according to a thorough examination and experience, has timely identified the possibility of falling buildings and ordered the withdrawal of forces 32 minutes before the collapse of the Plasco building.
According to the mayor of Tehran, more than 100 firefighters were present at the inside of the Plasco building, which is worthy of due recognition and timely management of operations to evacuate the building.
Content from External Source
This is of course reminiscent of Truthers's bewilderment that FDNY professionals were able to communicate well ahead of the collapse of WTC7 that it would likely collapse. Again, the Plasco incident shows that fire fighting professionals all over the world recognize that fire creates collapse risk.

And the article draws comparisons to the WTC incidents - not the ones AE draws, of course,
 

DJC

Member
.
Just found this article which, among other things, talked about the Teheran fire department's expectation that the building might collapse:
http://www.irna.ir/fa/News/82411792
This is Persion - try Google translate here.
The Mayor of Tehran added that one of the most important issues during the operation of the fire brigade's forces in the ploskovo incident is that 32 minutes before the collapse of the building, an order to evacuate the relief forces is issued.
He said the management of the operation of the relief and firefighting of the Plasco building, according to a thorough examination and experience, has timely identified the possibility of falling buildings and ordered the withdrawal of forces 32 minutes before the collapse of the Plasco building.
According to the mayor of Tehran, more than 100 firefighters were present at the inside of the Plasco building, which is worthy of due recognition and timely management of operations to evacuate the building.
Content from External Source
This is of course reminiscent of Truthers's bewilderment that FDNY professionals were able to communicate well ahead of the collapse of WTC7 that it would likely collapse. Again, the Plasco incident shows that fire fighting professionals all over the world recognize that fire creates collapse risk.

And the article draws comparisons to the WTC incidents - not the ones AE draws, of course,

"the Plasco incident shows that fire fighting professionals all over the world recognize that fire creates collapse risk."

yet only 4 buildings now have ever collapsed .

what reasons did they think it would collapse what firefighter said this ? or is this just what the mayor says ? which means absolutely nothing
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The expulsions on the right hand side of WTC 1 are what decides whether the US was the victim of an unexpected al Qaeda terror attack, or the perpetrator of an attack on its own citizens. I advise that you study them very, very closely. I can't emphasize that enough.
we already discussed that in depth in another thread.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
what reasons did they think it would collapse what firefighter said this ? or is this just what the mayor says ? which means absolutely nothing
firefighters are generally not engineers. they probably don't pull up the blueprints of every building they encounter to see and study it's construction details.

Common sense would tell me that when I firefighter talks about collapse risk, he most probably isn't talking about the ENTIRE building collapsing fully to the ground. He is talking about enough of the building (or whats inside the building ie floors, roof etc) to endanger the lives of firefighters within the building.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
"the Plasco incident shows that fire fighting professionals all over the world recognize that fire creates collapse risk."

yet only 4 buildings now have ever collapsed .
This is wrong by a factor probably of tens of thousands, or even more: Buildings collapse from fire all the time everywhere. Here are pictures I took less than a year ago in my little home town - chocolate cake "melted this structural steel"(*):

IMG_1250_1024x768.jpg

what reasons did they think it would collapse what firefighter said this ? or is this just what the mayor says ? which means absolutely nothing
The fire fighters responding to the incident above did not enter the building while it was burning because they could establish that it had been safely evacuated. The city's chief construction administrator (MS architecture), who was called to the scene shortly thereafter, later explained to me (we are good friends) why firefighters don't enter burning steel-frame buildings when there is no one inside to be rescued: Because steel structures are prone to collapse when heated by fire, and when they collapse, they do so suddenly and quickly. Every fire fighting professional knows this. Every. Single. One. Even Eric Lawyer, if you ask him in earnest.


(*) This building was part of a cooky factory, in which they actually were producing chocolate cake at the time. Chocolate cake is roughly 15 to 20 times more energetic than nanothermite.
 

DJC

Member
This is wrong by a factor probably of tens of thousands, or even more: Buildings collapse from fire all the time everywhere.
Content from External Source
ya no ..No steel buildings have ever collapsed due to fire accept the 3 in one day ( what are the odds) and now this one ..which sounds like bombs went off as well ..( just another coincidence im sure )
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
yet only 4 buildings now have ever collapsed
four TALL buildings, but what about these...

http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/live-factory-fire-grantham-triggers-383152
A huge fire at a factory in Grantham has reportedly led to the collapse of the building.
Content from External Source
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/blaze-rips-through-widnes-factory-12922850
“He said at least a third of the building had been destroyed and that the roof had caved in.
Content from External Source
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-30/fire-breaks-out-in-sydney-shopfitters-factory/6986822
The floor and roof of a two-level shopfitters building has collapsed after an intense fire ripped through the property at Botany in Sydney's south-east.
Content from External Source
http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2012-11-26/sandwell-factory-fire/?page=2
One evacuated resident who lives in the area now off-limits to the public as firefighters tackle a blaze, describes the moment he watched the factory roof collapse.
Content from External Source
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...s/recap-bailey-mill-near-saddleworth-11473024
Todd says there was a ‘very loud crash’ as more of the mill collapsed.
Content from External Source
I could go on (and on and on)

The fires may all have different causes, but all were in steel framed or partially steel framed buildigs, all suffered partial, or total collapse as a result of fire...

...are AE911 are going to cry CD at these as well?
 

DJC

Member
four TALL buildings, but what about these...

http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/live-factory-fire-grantham-triggers-383152
A huge fire at a factory in Grantham has reportedly led to the collapse of the building.
Content from External Source
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/blaze-rips-through-widnes-factory-12922850
“He said at least a third of the building had been destroyed and that the roof had caved in.
Content from External Source
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-30/fire-breaks-out-in-sydney-shopfitters-factory/6986822
The floor and roof of a two-level shopfitters building has collapsed after an intense fire ripped through the property at Botany in Sydney's south-east.
Content from External Source
http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2012-11-26/sandwell-factory-fire/?page=2
One evacuated resident who lives in the area now off-limits to the public as firefighters tackle a blaze, describes the moment he watched the factory roof collapse.
Content from External Source
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...s/recap-bailey-mill-near-saddleworth-11473024
Todd says there was a ‘very loud crash’ as more of the mill collapsed.
Content from External Source
I could go on (and on and on)

The fires may all have different causes, but all were in steel framed or partially steel framed buildigs, all suffered partial, or total collapse as a result of fire...

...are AE911 are going to cry CD at these as well?


You are actually going to compare a roof collapsing to 2 x110 story buildings falling into their own footprint and one 50 story building doing the same on the same day ? are you kidding ?
plasco's roof didnt collapse a floor didnt collapse the whole building collapsed!

smh you are arguing apples and oranges . " a roof collapsed " who cares about a roof ?
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Well obviously the weight of a roof and one or two stories is not going to have the same weight and impact as 10+ floors pushing down on a weakened structure. :rolleyes:

But it is the weakening of steel in fire that lead to the collapses. Not so much apples and oranges, but more like oranges and satsumas
 

Redwood

Active Member
Well, I have explained the reasons I see the expulsions as explosions rather than innocent dust puffs. I'm about 85% on Plasco, but over 95% on WTC 1, 2 & 7.

The expulsions on the right hand side of WTC 1 are what decides whether the US was the victim of an unexpected al Qaeda terror attack, or the perpetrator of an attack on its own citizens. I advise that you study them very, very closely. I can't emphasize that enough. I would ask all interested to hold their noses over the idea of 'conspiracy theories', jump out their silos, forget whether I've offended you, or you've offended me, or I've said something ridiculous, or you have. Take a look at these images. They depict the single event that has defined the 21st century. Are these expulsions down the right face just falling floors, running down the building almost as fast as falling debris, or are they detonating charges?

Source: https://youtu.be/lKYW89xEYg0


@benthamitemetric @deirdre @Keith Beachy @Oystein @NoParty @Whitebeard @SR1419

Now explain why it was necessary to place a few scattered explosive charges well ahead of the collapse front on the perimeter. (The back blast from cutting charges in the core area would blow out windows all over the place.)

Explain how they could be planted without anyone knowing and people might listen.
 

NobleOne

Member
Truthers would have some credibility if they could demonstrate a fire protection system that protects both demolition charges and their initiating systems yet remains inconspicuous.
Well, gypsum boards (GKF - gipskarton feuerschutzplatte) can do the job. F120 system, for example, can hold 1000°C for 120 minutes and F180 can hold for 3 hours. Boards can easily be painted or decorated at will.
 

Tomi

Member
'Proof that thermite can cut a vertical column'

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPNRrylH00

I think this proves to me that thermite wasn't used to cut the very thick columns at WTC1,2 & 7. If thermite gives off such a bright flare to cut small thin sections.

But according to ae911truth only Iran and the US government are using it to demolish high rise buildings. Perhaps Ae911truth think there is a technology transfer mechanism going on between the US military and Iran... bizarre.!
 

Inti

Senior Member.
You are actually going to compare a roof collapsing to 2 x110 story buildings falling into their own footprint and one 50 story building doing the same on the same day ? are you kidding ?
plasco's roof didnt collapse a floor didnt collapse the whole building collapsed!

smh you are arguing apples and oranges . " a roof collapsed " who cares about a roof ?
I know we need to focus on the single claim here, but I am baffled by the supposed motivation and reasoning that some truthers think is behind the alleged Plasco fakery.

Have I got this right? -

Either the present Iranian regime is collaborating with the US powers-that-be in order to exonerate the US neoconservative government, one of its main enemies, who labelled them as part of the Axis of Evil,

or

The US ptb chose the heart of one of the most hostile powers, already highly suspicious of US interventions, to stage an elaborate, undercover, technically demanding ( not to say improbable) fake using utterly unproven methods in order to divert the already desultory remaining suspicions of a small minority about 9/11. They thought it was worth risking wholesale exposure if the plan went wrong, for - what substantial gain?

In this it shares the problem of the alleged WTC 7 conspiracy. It is all downside from the "conspirators " point of view Very little benefit, huge risk. Why would anyone even half-rational do that?
 

LardyL

Member
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.
Truly, you think that someone would apply intumescent material to explosives to protect an explosive charge from heat due to a fire. Do you know the likely temperatures that would develop behind any fire resisting cladding or intumescent material in a fire? And how those temperatures would almost certainly affect any means of igniting or detonating the devices your opine about? I'd go away and look into that issue if I were you.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
You are actually going to compare a roof collapsing to 2 x110 story buildings falling into their own footprint and one 50 story building doing the same on the same day ? are you kidding ?
plasco's roof didnt collapse a floor didnt collapse the whole building collapsed!

smh you are arguing apples and oranges . " a roof collapsed " who cares about a roof ?
Everybody should care about a roof. A steel-frame roof collapsing is proof positive that fires can and often do cause steel-frame structures to collapse.

A 15/47/110 story suffers global, progressive collapse when one floor, or perhaps the roof, is the first to collapse. The Verinage method is proof of concept that a single floor failing can cause progressive and global collapse.

The Kader toy factory collapse in Thailand years ago was proof of concept that a fire-induced local failure can spread laterally in a steel-frame structure and cause progressive and global collapse.

Put these together, and it was clear, and recognized by all relevant professional communities, that OF COURSE steel-frame highrise can suffer global collapse due to local fire-induced failure.

The Plasco incident is the sort of anecdotal evidence that suffices to prove possibilty and falsify a global claim of impossibility. Of course the WTC collapses already proved this.
 

LardyL

Member
Well, gypsum boards (GKF - gipskarton feuerschutzplatte) can do the job. F120 system, for example, can hold 1000°C for 120 minutes and F180 can hold for 3 hours. Boards can easily be painted or decorated at will.
Really? Is that based on testing to which code? ASTM BS ISO?
How much structural "passive" fire protection is applied using gypsum board to F120 or F180 standards?
Maybe gypsum block but boards, really?
Gypsum board, plasterboard or Gib (as it is called here) is usually there to provide 30 60 or possibly 90 minutes resistance - F120 or 180 would be much less common. Those standards would require 3, 4 or 5 layers of plasterboard overlaid.
In any case the fire rating depends significantly on how the boards are finished and how well they are arranged. Plus to get this system to fit your model of explosives concealed and protected by plasterboard then you'd have to contrive some means of connecting the charges and activating them whilst protecting the connecting wiring (or whatever provides the signal) and somehow prevent the connections from compromising the overall fire resistance of the plasterboard "boxing-in". Not trivial and very susceptible to premature operation of the charges.
In any case, most of these systems (for 30, 60, 90, 120 or 180 using that type of board) do not operate to design in real fires where the surrounding structures are moving or where some clever person has made alterations to the fire protection/cavity barriers/cladding. And you might not appreciate this but that is a very regular occurrence. Just based on my 20-odd years attending fire scenes and checking for regulation/code compliance, the quality of workmanship, who to blame for fire/smoke spread, etc
In my experience many (if not most) builders and others cannot even produce adequate fire separation to F30 standards never mind F180.
 
Last edited:

LardyL

Member
Everybody should care about a roof. A steel-frame roof collapsing is proof positive that fires can and often do cause steel-frame structures to collapse.
.....

You are not wrong. Many designs rely on the presence of the roof and/or floor structures to keep the rest of the building from falling over like a deck of cards. Buildings where the roof has gone or the internal floors are looking dodgy would always set alarm bells ringing on the "risk assessment" front.
Having had to climb over, through and around so much structural steel that has sagged collapsed and otherwise failed due to fire tends to leave me incredulous about the claims that fires cannot bring down these types of building.
 

NobleOne

Member
Really? Is that based on testing to which code? ASTM BS ISO?
How much structural "passive" fire protection is applied using gypsum board to F120 or F180 standards?
Maybe gypsum block but boards, really?
Gypsum board, plasterboard or Gib (as it is called here) is usually there to provide 30 60 or possibly 90 minutes resistance - F120 or 180 would be much less common. Those standards would require 3, 4 or 5 layers of plasterboard overlaid.
In any case the fire rating depends significantly on how the boards are finished and how well they are arranged. Plus to get this system to fit your model of explosives concealed and protected by plasterboard then you'd have to contrive some means of connecting the charges and activating them whilst protecting the connecting wiring (or whatever provides the signal) and somehow prevent the connections from compromising the overall fire resistance of the plasterboard "boxing-in". Not trivial and very susceptible to premature operation of the charges.
In any case, most of these systems (for 30, 60, 90, 120 or 180 using that type of board) do not operate to design in real fires where the surrounding structures are moving or where some clever person has made alterations to the fire protection/cavity barriers/cladding. And you might not appreciate this but that is a very regular occurrence. Just based on my 20-odd years attending fire scenes and checking for regulation/code compliance, the quality of workmanship, who to blame for fire/smoke spread, etc
In my experience many (if not most) builders and others cannot even produce adequate fire separation to F30 standards never mind F180.

F90 is made of 2 layers of GKF boards on both sides of the wall. So it is actually 4 layers. If done correctly, construction and especially plastering (since every layer has to be air tight plastered) it should hold 1000°C for 90 minutes. This is how it is done in Germany.

For protecting steel beams (yes we protect them), we use two layers of Promat boards which are much more fire resistant along with theirs better mechanical properties. They are also thicker.
In my experience many (if not most) builders and others cannot even produce adequate fire separation to F30 standards never mind F180.
I'm sorry to hear that and this is a sad fact which I know just as you. Most builders doesn't even know how and what for are they building. They don't even know how to properly build the construction for the boards among many other things.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
This whole area of fire protection is the precedent for any person who wished to protect an explosive charge from heat.

No. You are making that up. The precedent you are referring to is for protecting steel- NOT explosive charges. You are ASSUMING that since they use spray on material for protecting steel that that would then be used to protect explosive charges. That is an assumption based on nothing more than your leap of faith.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
This is wrong by a factor probably of tens of thousands, or even more: Buildings collapse from fire all the time everywhere.
Content from External Source
ya no ..No steel buildings have ever collapsed due to fire accept the 3 in one day ( what are the odds) and now this one ..which sounds like bombs went off as well ..( just another coincidence im sure )
Use math, the odds that three buildings on 9/11 failed due to fire, 100 percent, after they fail. After an event the odds are easy to figure. Want to bet on the last Penn State game? What are the odds. All that is missing for the CD fantasy, evidence, and motive. Motive is ample for the 19 terrorists who did 9/11 and caused all the damage.
What would be the motive for plasco? Fire caused that collapse, and steel fails quickly in fire. If steel did not fail in fire, we would not have to insulate it, or fight the fire.
See 8m 17s to 13m 50s. First example is shown between 8m 17s and 8m 48s.

'Proof that thermite can cut a vertical column'

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPNRrylH00
Next time look closer, there is fused iron on the steel, not found on WTC steel. There was no steel damaged by thermite on 9/11.
This is proof thermite was not used. Why Gish Gallop to thermite when no evidence was found.

The topic is related to 9/11 truth trying to back in CD for the WTC using Plasco which collapsed due to fire. Why does 9/11 truth do that. The thread is not about erroneously claiming thermite caused the puffs of air, those were caused by pressure of a collapsing building. Before 9/11 truth started making up lies about more energy required to do the destruction on 9/11, they needed to do the physics and see each tower collapse released energy in excess of 100 2,000 pound bombs due to gravity. And the overall energy in non-hollywood CD, is due to gravity, not explosives. Which is why the physics free observer thinks the gravity collapses of 9/11 look like CD, they don't know CD is a gravity collapse started with explosives, 9/11 started with impact of aircraft starting biggest office fires in history. Which makes it ODD why 9/11 truth used Plasco to speculate on CD, and try to stir up more interest. Was it to fool more people into donations. Was there a spike in donations. What is the goal of ae911t. There never will be evidence for CD. Take a look back at real conspiracies, like Watergate. Did it take 16 years to break? No. What people believe about 9/11 will not change the fact all the damage is directly due to the acts of 19 terrorists. A simple plot to murder Americans, two steps - take planes, crash planes. An end run using our open culture against us. Which makes bringing up Plasco and anti-intellectual speculative failure for 9/11 truth. 16 years of no evidence for speculative conspiracy theories.

It makes no sense to use Plasco to support WTC CD. For both events evidence is required to claim bombs or thermite was planted by invisible bad guys never seen planting anything. Plasco, a building overloaded with things that burn. Steel fail quickly in fire. The towers failed quickly because insulation was dislodged, WTC 7 failed during the day because fires were not fought.

Why did 9/11 truth bring up a fire collapse, Plasco, to support the speculative fantasy of WTC CD.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
All this speculation, and the details, of heat protection for mythical charges and the capabilities of thermite are idle and useless. Even more useless is the attempt to assess quantitatively how bad these ideas are.

Let's say I make a claim: Suicidal midget with saws cut the columns of the WTC and of the Plasco; and my supporting evidence was the observations that suicidal midgets can cut columns with saws, then your reaction ought not be to point out how difficult this is for midgets, or how difficult it would be to find and recruit enough midgets for such suicide missions. The appropriate reaction is to point out that I just invented the whole story because there is precisely zero evidence that there were midgets on the scene, nor that any columns were cut with saws.

Similarly, it should be easy to accept that engineering solutions can be found to make thermite cut vertical columns and/or to protect demo charges from fire. Can. The problem with these claims is not that they are difficult to realize, the probem is that truthers just invented the whole story because there is precisely zero evidence that there were fire-protected CD charges at the scene, nor that any columns were cut with thermite.
 

DannyBoy2k

New Member
I'm just going to make a small comment here, as to the reaction of steel to heat.
If this is off topic, I do apologize, but I have to say I don't think it is. I am fairly certain that this has been mentioned elsewhere, I would be very surprised if it hasn't been, but I think it might bear repeating.

Sunday, April 29, 2007, San Francisco. A tanker truck overturns on Interstate 80 East-West connector. 8600 gallons of fuel pours out, and is ignited. And this open-air, gasoline fire produces enough heat to "melt" the steel structure of the overhead roadway, causing it to collapse, with 168 feet falling onto the underlying connector.

A large puddle of burning material will spread the heat over a much large area than if it's kept contained inside an office, and gasoline will not burn hotter than jetfuel or the various synthetic materials in an office.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Are these expulsions down the right face just falling floors, running down the building almost as fast as falling debris, or are they detonating charges?
Just clouds of dust being expelled as the building collapses. I fail to comprehend how anyone cannot see that, try as I might to understand the "controlled demolition" viewpoint. I simply can't see it.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I'm just going to make a small comment here, as to the reaction of steel to heat.
If this is off topic, I do apologize, but I have to say I don't think it is. I am fairly certain that this has been mentioned elsewhere, I would be very surprised if it hasn't been, but I think it might bear repeating.

Sunday, April 29, 2007, San Francisco. A tanker truck overturns on Interstate 80 East-West connector. 8600 gallons of fuel pours out, and is ignited. And this open-air, gasoline fire produces enough heat to "melt" the steel structure of the overhead roadway, causing it to collapse, with 168 feet falling onto the underlying connector.

A large puddle of burning material will spread the heat over a much large area than if it's kept contained inside an office, and gasoline will not burn hotter than jetfuel or the various synthetic materials in an office.

Steel loses its strength as it's heated. It doesn’t have to melt to fail.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
See 8m 17s to 13m 50s. First example is shown between 8m 17s and 8m 48s.

'Proof that thermite can cut a vertical column'

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPNRrylH00
So it CAN cut a vertical column but very slowly, with a HUGE bright flash, in a chaotic and certainly not very straight way, and the box device used to hold the thermite is not completely destroyed in the process and is clearly visible on the side of the column. There was NO evidence of such bright flashes OR Jaggedly cut columns with residue on OR any remains of boxes attached to columns in EITHER Plasco or 9/11 to my knowledge. and no evidence of
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There was NO evidence of such bright flashes OR Jaggedly cut columns with residue on OR any remains of boxes attached to columns in EITHER Plasco or 9/11 to my knowledge.

Plasco resembles 9/11 not only in the similarity of the collapses, but in the total absence of residual evidence of explosive charges. And in these cases absence of evidence IS very much evidence of absence. In Plasco, but especially in the much larger buildings, it's basically impossible columns could be rigged to be cut silently and no trace of this would be found. Thermite charges big enough to cut columns would need large support rigs, and would leave lots of slag both attached to the columns and in blobs. Since none of this was found, it's reasonable to assume thermite was not used in either case.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
All this speculation, and the details, of heat protection for mythical charges and the capabilities of thermite are idle and useless. Even more useless is the attempt to assess quantitatively how bad these ideas are.

Let's say I make a claim: Suicidal midget with saws cut the columns of the WTC and of the Plasco; and my supporting evidence was the observations that suicidal midgets can cut columns with saws, then your reaction ought not be to point out how difficult this is for midgets, or how difficult it would be to find and recruit enough midgets for such suicide missions. The appropriate reaction is to point out that I just invented the whole story because there is precisely zero evidence that there were midgets on the scene, nor that any columns were cut with saws.

Similarly, it should be easy to accept that engineering solutions can be found to make thermite cut vertical columns and/or to protect demo charges from fire. Can. The problem with these claims is not that they are difficult to realize, the probem is that truthers just invented the whole story because there is precisely zero evidence that there were fire-protected CD charges at the scene, nor that any columns were cut with thermite.

The simplest way to guaranty any of the buildings in question would fail would be to simply have removed the fire proofing altogether. The steel in an office fire could reach 1000 C without fire proofing according to the experimental findings in the Cardington studies. I think even most die hard truthers would concede such temperatures would be fatal to the buildings in question. So why bother with explosives or thermite or thermate (which is not the same as thermite, by the way, despite how Cole's video seems to conflate them) or some other crazy device? Just strip away the fire proofing in key areas and you can guaranty failure all the same, plus the reason for failure would be essentially untraceable post collapse (as opposed to the magical devices conjured up in the fever dreams of trutherland, which would be easily traceable except for that somehow they are never seen in photos and were never seen by any of the tens of thousands of people who had access to ground zero).

When AE911Truth takes a slipshod, ramshackle building like Plasco, which likely had poor fire proofing and high fire fuel loads, and claims even it could not fail in a fire, they are just telling the world that they are immune to reason while in the throes of advocating for their stated 9-11 theory.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Out of curiosity, do AE911T explain *why* they think the Plasco building was "demolished"? Was it something about the building itself, or was it simply chosen by the PTB to provide another example of a steel-framed building collapsing due to a fire? (And if so, why Iran of all places?)
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
Are these expulsions down the right face just falling floors, running down the building almost as fast as falling debris, or are they detonating charges?

Since they start after the collapse has begun, I don't see any where the collapse initiates and there doesn't seem to be any particular pattern to them I'd go with the expulsions option
 

Tomi

Member
Out of curiosity, do AE911T explain *why* they think the Plasco building was "demolished"? Was it something about the building itself, or was it simply chosen by the PTB to provide another example of a steel-framed building collapsing due to a fire? (And if so, why Iran of all places?)

The 'why' is very easy. Because they have created a story that buildings can't completely collapse in a fire. Since they believe it is impossible, then any building that collapses must be a CD.

And it ruins all the Ae911truth collateral ( movies, talks, ppt's) if WTC 7 is not the only building to have collapsed in a fire. You will note that none of it has changed and now it doesn't need to, because Ae911truth have proved to their own satisfaction, that Plasco was a controlled demolition. It's amazing what truth can do!
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Out of curiosity, do AE911T explain *why* they think the Plasco building was "demolished"? Was it something about the building itself, or was it simply chosen by the PTB to provide another example of a steel-framed building collapsing due to a fire? (And if so, why Iran of all places?)
No, they offer no theory on who, what, how, why. As they offer no such theory on any of the WTC collapses. By limiting themselves to vague insinuations, they protect themselves from the risk of falsification.

This risk has come to pass with the Plasco failure - they made too specific global claims of the impossibility and unprecedentedness of total collapses, and won't make that mistake again. They don't claim explosives were used, they don't claim thermite was used! They merely suggest that investigators consider the possibilty. At most they claim there is evidence of explosions and molten steel.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The 'why' is very easy. Because they have created a story that buildings can't completely collapse in a fire. Since they believe it is impossible, then any building that collapses must be a CD.
Yes, that's obviously why they present the theory. I meant more "What is their narrative?", i.e. why (in their version of events) was this particular fairly insignificant building in Iran targeted for controlled demolition? Is it that the building itself needed to be "got rid of", or are they insinuating that it was done purely to provide a counter-example to their "buildings don't collapse from fire" shibboleth?

If the latter, that shows an amazing sense of self-importance and willingness to extend the conspiracy.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Out of curiosity, do AE911T explain *why* they think the Plasco building was "demolished"? Was it something about the building itself, or was it simply chosen by the PTB to provide another example of a steel-framed building collapsing due to a fire? (And if so, why Iran of all places?)
Don't hold yer breath for an answer. I've asked the same question at least twice in this thread, and several more times on facebook. But all asks here are ignored and the facebook asks are most often deleted. Its a question they can't answer so conveniently ignore.
 

Inti

Senior Member.
Yes, I had hoped that at least those who seem inclined to defend the truthers' position here might have a go at explaining this point, such as @DJC or @John85 either in the case of Plasco or WTC 7.

"...but answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every (trace of rational explanation)"

as Lewis Carroll almost wrote.

I can't help wondering about the state of mind of the person who deleted Whitebeard's Facebook question. Since they claim to base their position on rational ground, didn't they feel a certain amount of cognitive dissonance as they pressed the button?

I know that they probably rationalised that they were nobly removing a malicious troll, but given that the action is an admission that they can't begin to address a central is due in their case, surely it must have hurt a bit?
 

Latest posts

Top