# AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

Except that the main hypotheses above are chaotic falling pieces of masonry. If a chunk falls out of the ceiling, it is not going to squash the air in the room. The pressure will be relieved by the hole in the ceiling too.
Clearly there were some large slabs of floor that fell.

Heck, try compressing it rapidly to HALF its volume.

Can we honestly imagine the floor above us falling down and blowing out a window by air pressure alone?
Imagine? It really happens, no imagination need, use science, facts, and evidence.
Can a floor do it, Yes, it is called physics. Researching this forum, I think Mick has show air escaping falling objects. Rain falling can cause enough air movement to crash a plane due to wind shear. The photos you showed, not one of those photos has evidence of an explosive going off.

Falling debris, falling mass, can cause air movement, see rain/wind shear.

Clearly there were some large slabs of floor that fell.

Heck, try compressing it rapidly to HALF its volume.

How do you think the volume would be compressed to half? By the whole floor moving down as one to half the height?

I also think you will need to provide evidence of which bits of floor fell when, because it is not clear.

How do you think the volume would be compressed to half? By the whole floor moving down as one to half the height?
In one room, or enclosed region, yes.

I also think you will need to provide evidence of which bits of floor fell when, because it is not clear.
Of course it's not clear. It's behind the exterior of the building. All you can see if the expulsions and the collapse. Try to figure it out from that.

This is my approximation of your hypothesis. Is that what you imagine? Where is the air going to go here?

This is my approximation of your hypothesis. Is that what you imagine? Where is the air going to go here?

So the whole floor had to come down in the room?

So the whole floor had to come down in the room?
The floor above, the room's ceiling, has to come down, as it would when lots of debris falls rapidly onto it.

Can we honestly imagine the floor above us falling down and blowing out a window by air pressure alone?
Absolutely. Can you imagine that not happening? It seems incredible to me to suggest that you could drop the floor of a building onto the floor below and not blow out the windows.

Suppose the floors were made of reinforced concrete, with rebar or something similar. They would not then fall in chunks.

Rebar bends. A reinforced floor doesn't have to fall in one perfectly straight horizontal piece. In fact it would be astonishing if it did.

The floor above, the room's ceiling, has to come down, as it would when lots of debris falls rapidly onto it.

So essentially yes, at some point there has to be a floor that acts as a diaphragm. I see no way this could come about, as all edges of the floor assembly would have to fail in unison, so that it acts as a plunger. If it is not level, air escapes. If it is not intact, air escapes.

Given that whole floor collapse is so tenuous as a cause of the explosions seen, is there any reason to rule out incendiaries/explosives as a hypothesis?

But concrete doesn't
Concrete breaks, rebar bends. A collapsing floor can be in one piece (attached by the rebar) without falling straight and level. Or it could break into pieces if the rebar breaks, or if the floors were built in sections.

We don't know how the floors were falling, but we can see that it wasn't a symmetrical and controlled process, because the centre of the roof caved in, the walls fell at different speeds on different sides of the building, and the structure toppled over.

All of which suggests it was a chaotic collapse, which ties in with the observed behaviour of the escaping air. What it doesn't agree with is a co-ordinated controlled demolition.

Literally the only reason to think that it does would be if an idea you had invested your life in for the past 16 years depended on believing that it was a controlled demolition.

Concrete breaks, rebar bends. A collapsing floor can be in one piece (attached by the rebar) without falling straight and level. Or it could break into pieces if the rebar breaks, or if the floors were built in sections.

We don't know how the floors were falling, but we can see that it wasn't a symmetrical and controlled process, because the centre of the roof caved in, the walls fell at different speeds on different sides of the building, and the structure toppled over.

All of which suggests it was a chaotic collapse, which ties in with the observed behaviour of the escaping air. What it doesn't agree with is a co-ordinated controlled demolition.

Literally the only reason to think that it does would be if an idea you had invested your life in for the past 16 years depended on believing that it was a controlled demolition.

Well, if you wish to believe that such a chaotic collapse would involve uniformly falling floor plungers, that's up to you. AE911 can have a point on Plasco, and yet be wrong about 9/11, so it does not cost you to look at the evidence with a more open, questioning mind.

Well, if you wish to believe that such a chaotic collapse would involve uniformly falling floor plungers, that's up to you. AE911 can have a point on Plasco, and yet be wrong about 9/11, so it does not cost you to look at the evidence with a more open, questioning mind.

I don't claim that there are "uniformly falling floor plungers", that's your idea. The floors don't have to be falling uniformly (and we can see they're not) Nor do they have to form a perfect seal like a plunger in order to blast air out the sides. You wouldn't even need walls to seal around at all. Just dropping a slab of concrete onto the ground with no vertical walls around at all will still create a blast of air rushing out the sides. Try it with a paving slab and some flour...

Well, if you wish to believe that such a chaotic collapse would involve uniformly falling floor plungers, that's up to you. AE911 can have a point on Plasco, and yet be wrong about 9/11, so it does not cost you to look at the evidence with a more open, questioning mind.

You seem to have a hard time grasping at the fact that the floor doesn't have to fall like the plunger in a syringe to create an increase of air pressure below it. A whole bunch of loose crap falling as a fluid mass will displace a lot of air below it. Some of it might push up against it and escape through it above, but a lot would be forced downward and pressure would increase. This would have to go somewhere. Some would go out of broken or open windows, some would blast through weak points in the collapsing façade, some might even escape through the next floor and blow out the windows below as THAT floor's air pressure increase. It would have to go somewhere. But the floor wouldn't have to be in one big piece, falling like a plunger. The mass of debris would act as a plunger.

I'm struggling to imagine how a concrete floor would fail 1) only in pieces across numerous floors, and 2) in such a way that sufficient air pressure would be created to blow out windows.

K - I can accept that you don't understand that.

i am curious why it is that you then assume "explosives" as a plausible answer?

The pressure will be relieved by the hole in the ceiling too.

That might help - but it can't be a perfect "relief valve" because the air still has to flow around the edges of the falling panel. Air has momentum, and takes time to move - while it is trying to find its way out the pressure will increase - very quickly - if the air doesn't have time to flow through existing holes it will be pushing at weak spots too.

Perhaps differences in how roofs are falling, and the amount of relief afforded by that add to the chaotic blowouts of air.

If we are to get at what really happened, we have to include the hypothesis that explosives or incendiaries might have been involved.
No because in that case we should also consider space lazers, invisible Godzillas and the creation of transdimensional space time portals destabilising the structure. We should first rule out the most likely factors, in this case a fire in an aging high rise with bad maintenance, no effective sprinkler system and containing a lot of flamables from serveral industrial concerns, as cause of collapse. Only when we can completely rule out the most obvious can we move on to the next possibly hypothesis. Any other way is picking your pet preconcieved conclusion and looking for evidence to fit whilst ignoring evidence that dosent.

The absence of any detectable explosive sounds in fact indicates the absence of any high explosives.

There could have been incendiaries with additives that cause an expansion of gas, but not loud.

I'll be honest, the fact that you concede that the sounds that accompany CD are obviously not at Plasco,
--but you still want to imply CD--uh, I really can't get past that absolute breakdown,
to seriously consider your other arguments. I think that's too huge to be waived off.

Can you at least point to proof of professional CD with
"incendiaries with additives that cause an expansion of gas, but not loud" ?

So, to summarize, the first suggestion was pancaking floors like you would expect in any progressive collapse. I then pointed out the AE have shown the explosions do not progress down regularly. Mick prefers to imagine whole floors collapsing, but in small rooms. Others diverged and went down the pieces of masonry route. To escape the inevitable conclusion that pieces of falling masonry won't generate enough of an increase in air pressure to blow out windows, we then have solution 1, that says the masonry hit the floor below and that was what generated a rush of air, and we have solution 2, that says no actually, it was falling streams of fluid-like rubble. Why not include the hypothesis that explosions and molten metal might indicate the involvement of incendiaries/explosives? It costs nothing to admit the hypothesis, but insisting it be rejected before it is considered comes across as biased.

It costs nothing to admit the hypothesis, but insisting it be rejected before it is considered comes across as biased.

Who's rejecting it? It's just very far down the list, along with energy beams from space, iron eating bacteria, etc. There's just no evidence for it, and plenty against.

Who's rejecting it? It's just very far down the list, along with energy beams from space, iron eating bacteria, etc. There's just no evidence for it, and plenty against.

If the hypothesis of incendiaries/explosives is on a par with bacteria, you have rejected it. That's a mistake. You've presented no evidence to support any method of collapse, nothing to elaborate on the fabled 'progressive collapse' notion, and no evidence that incendiaries were not involved, in spite of the well-known (at least among MB users) pictures and testimony of large amounts of molten metal. The rush to criticize AE911 has outstripped any real attempt to understand the collapse.

explained by mechanics... nothing to see... unchecked fires can cause... and have caused buildings to collapse.

Burden of proof for outlier claims is on those making them.

AE is a marketing operation... nothing more. They collect money to disseminate their CD views and then ask for money to continue this operation.

AE has done no research.... and speaks for a bunch of uninformed people who are conspiracy believers.

and no evidence that incendiaries were not involved
There was no need for incendiaries to be involved. The building contained a number of small industrial concerns, at least one of which involved fabric. Other reports talk of butane gas bottles through out the building... therefore no need to use incendiaries, a couple of well placed matches would do the trick. Look at the Triangle factory fire, probably started by a discarded match, or the Bradford stadium disaster, caused by a disgarded cigerette end.

There was no need for incendiaries to be involved. The building contained a number of small industrial concerns, at least one of which involved fabric. Other reports talk of butane gas bottles through out the building... therefore no need to use incendiaries, a couple of well placed matches would do the trick. Look at the Triangle factory fire, probably started by a discarded match, or the Bradford stadium disaster, caused by a disgarded cigerette end.

Were there incredible amounts of molten metal found there? Butane won't do it in an office fire.

explained by mechanics... nothing to see... unchecked fires can cause... and have caused buildings to collapse.

Burden of proof for outlier claims is on those making them.

AE is a marketing operation... nothing more. They collect money to disseminate their CD views and then ask for money to continue this operation.

AE has done no research.... and speaks for a bunch of uninformed people who are conspiracy believers.

However strongly you feel about a group making claims, if you disagree, you must have evidence. You obviously do disagree, but where is your evidence?

Then they are not comparable

I meant at Plasco.

That's presumably why you rule incendiaries out

Were there incredible amounts of molten metal found there?
Then they are not comparable
yes, they are, because neither were incredible amounts of molten metal found at the WTC-site.
That's presumably why you rule incendiaries out
???? ok, I am lost here; incendiaries with explosives?!?

That's presumably why you rule incendiaries out
To be honest I don't know enough about explosives to even understand why y'all think bombs make pools of molten metal, any more than fire would. Buildings are brought down by CD all the time and I don't hear nearby residents complaining of rivers of molten metal flowing down the street.

I rule out bombs because their science teams in Iran ruled them out. And since I've seen no evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to assume the government blew up a bunch of firefighters just to take down an old fabric building.

So essentially yes, at some point there has to be a floor that acts as a diaphragm. I see no way this could come about, as all edges of the floor assembly would have to fail in unison, so that it acts as a plunger. If it is not level, air escapes. If it is not intact, air escapes.
But concrete doesn't
Concrete with rebar DOES hold together when it bends (at least enough to move air).
Here is a video of an excavator shaking a concrete slab with rebar in it that has at least 4 large cracks in it where it is flopping around, but its still holding together (see especially starting at 10 seconds):

Source: https://youtu.be/0FQOse9w5-o?t=10

At 0:10 in the above Youtube video:

At 0:14in the above Youtube video:

See how the whole sheet flexes? That sheet of concrete would flex, but it would also push air out from under it.
You can test this for yourself. You will need:
1. A 12x12" mesh mounted mosaic tile:

2. A cardboard box that is at least 14"x14"
3. Flour, talc or another similar powder.

Cut some flap "windows" into the lower part of the box (making a I shaped cut and leaving the cardboard in there as flaps, spread a cup of flour out in the bottom of the box and drop the tile into the box near a corner.
The tile (even with the mesh between the tiles) will displace air and push it out the window openings, pushing the flour out with it.

Aaron Z

Last edited:
John you really need to do some research on explosion relief or the documented consequences of explosions/over pressure events before you rule out this process.

Overpressures within structures don't simply vent in the simple-minded manner that you are proposing, neither is pressure generated within structural collapse only by the simple mechanism you propose. Life is a lot less straightforward.

Air with entrained dust can act as a dense fluid displacing the lower density (uncontaminated) air layer below it and causing pressure differentials within structures, never mind how collapsing floors and walls can influence flows of the air/gases contained within buildings and outside them - having been close to collapsing walls/buildings at explosion and fire scenes I can attest to how debris and air is moved some distance by even unconstrained wall/roof/floor collapse.

The pressure differentials only have to be quite small (of the order of tens of millibar) to cause the displacement or failure of unconstrained structural or other elements, particularly if those elements have a large surface area exposed to a pressure differential. Doors often close during the development of room fires as air is drawn in or the products of combustion are expelled at differing rates during the progress of a fire. Doors fail at about 20mbar and a breeze block wall by about 50 mbar. Of course a lot depends upon how these elements are constrained and if you lose the structural compression or support afforded by a roof above a building then the walls are going to become far more prone to collapse.

If you don't believe me look up RJ Harris's book on gas explosion investigation - you'll not get a copy nowadays and it's an old book but it's a great reference work. My copy is falling to bits and probably worth hundreds of dollars now (just checked \$275 on amazon for used, \$800+ for new). And don't just look at the databooks or safety manuals dealing with "blast" protection, they are generally talking about protection from external over-pressure waves from explosives/explosions. Not the same thing at all as an internal pressure differential within a structure.

The cross-sectional area of the element involved is very important as this has a bearing on the load imposed by the impulse action of any pressure differential - this is why domestic gas explosions tend to blow out windows and lift roofs. These loads are often imposed over relatively long periods of time (compared with the duration of detonation of an explosive device or the duration of a fireball from a gas explosion) which is why impulse is an important factor in assessing the consequences of an explosion incident and working backwards to identify the likely cause and any fuels involved.

Also different materials will respond in different ways - hard/brittle (eg glass) responds differently to ductile steel, for example and some materials of one type are held in place by materials of another type - e.g. brittle concrete floors retained by ductile fixings on a ductile frame.

Furthermore, when pressure waves pass and explosions occur there is often a negative pressure produced during the process and structural elements may not be designed to withstand this or the pressure cycling caused by flows of gases through structures. This can cause failure/collapse that was not envisaged during the design of the structure.

Last edited:
Anyone have a video of a controlled demolition where we see signs of the verified explosives and squibs of air being pushed out of broken windows by falling floors?

I guess in John's world that would mean that extra explosives had been placed on upper floors for...reasons?

Anyone have a video of a controlled demolition where we see signs of the verified explosives and squibs of air being pushed out of broken windows by falling floors?

I guess in John's world that would mean that extra explosives had been placed on upper floors for...reasons?

In any real CD, they will remove all windows first because the shock waves from the detonations would shatter them and could turn the broken pieces into deadly projectiles, so there aren't many direct comparisons in that respect. (The fact that no such window breakages due to shockwaves were witnessed on 9-11 and in the plasco building collapse is one of the many glaringly obvious signs that no high explosives were used in either event.)

To be honest I don't know enough about explosives to even understand why y'all think bombs make pools of molten metal, any more than fire would. Buildings are brought down by CD all the time and I don't hear nearby residents complaining of rivers of molten metal flowing down the street.

I rule out bombs because their science teams in Iran ruled them out. And since I've seen no evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to assume the government blew up a bunch of firefighters just to take down an old fabric building.

That's why I suggest you look into incendiaries, regarding the first point.

Secondly, this thread is of course an attempt to debunk AE911 evidence that explosives/incendiaries need to be considered as a cause of collapse. It may be persuasive to those who are already 9/11 debunkers, but referencing a work written in Farsi by a study group reporting to one of the more authoritarian governments of the world does not constitute evidence that AE is wrong. Similarly, claiming to see no evidence to contradict your beliefs does nothing to address the evidence from AE that actually does contradict you.

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
245
Views
46K
Replies
683
Views
62K
Replies
148
Views
23K