AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

[John85]

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.

I'm happy to be persuaded, but no one here who believes AE was wrong can actually deal with the evidence AE presented, nor can they show a plausible way to shoe-horn ''progressive collapse" into the video footage recorded, specifically accounting for the semi-irregular nature of the expulsions. The thread is merely rhetorical, reflecting the fact that AE's assertions regarding 9/11 and Plasco are strengthened or weakened together. As are debunkers'.

 

[John85]

Concrete with rebar DOES hold together when it bends (at least enough to move air).

That's a very general point which doesn't begin to account for the pattern of explosions seen in the collapse. What caused the strip of explosions that ran down the faces visible in the above screenshots (p7)? Did whole floors collapse in small rooms? Did bits of ceiling come down in big rooms? Did floors fail because things fell on them? Did floors fail because the building sprang apart? You don't have an account that engages with the evidence.

 

[deirdre]

Similarly, claiming to see no evidence to contradict your beliefs does nothing to address the evidence from AE that actually does contradict you.

I know you think they have evidence. But they don't.

 

[Inti]

That is easier to answer straight away. There are sounds, but evidently there aren't any really loud bangs. I would suggest that the absence of loud bangs points to the absence of any large volume of high explosives.

I have seen and heard several CDs of blocks of flats from a range of distances similar to those shown here. They all involved a sequence of loud bangs. I have never heard any such demolition in person or on video that didn't involve this distnctive series of sounds, with vaying intervals between.

So I conclude that a lack of the characteristic loud multiple bangs strongly implies no explosive demolition. If you have evidence that a hitherto unknown quiet explosive CD is possible, please post it.

 

[John85]

I have seen and heard several CDs of blocks of flats from a range of distances similar to those shown here. They all involved a sequence of loud bangs. I have never heard any such demolition in person or on video that didn't involve this distnctive series of sounds, with vaying intervals between.

So I conclude that a lack of the characteristic loud multiple bangs strongly implies no explosive demolition. If you have evidence that a hitherto unknown quiet explosive CD is possible, please post it.

If you've been following truth movement contentions, you will already know the answer to why high explosives, or significant amounts of high explosives, would not be needed: incendiaries.

 

[John85]

I know you think they have evidence. But they don't.

You're going to have to start adhering to MB posting guidelines, surely? Links, summaries, quotes, videos?

 

[Inti]

If you've been following truth movement contentions, you will already know the answer to why high explosives, or significant amounts of high explosives, would not be needed: incendiaries.

Yes, and in the various discussions about this, I found the claims profoundly unconvincing and contrary to the evidence.

 

[John85]

Yes, and in the various discussions about this, I found the claims profoundly unconvincing and contrary to the evidence.

Good for you.

 

[Inti]

If you've been following truth movement contentions, you will already know the answer to why high explosives, or significant amounts of high explosives, would not be needed: incendiaries.

And I notice in the thread on acoustic analysis that Tony Szamboti, a leading advocate for truthers, is insisting that the evidence is compatible with explosives, rather than incendiaries. Since you clearly disagree, I suggest you debate the issue with him there.

 

[Whitebeard]

errr... general question. Don't incendiaries come with large balls of flame as they combust, not clouds of dust and / or smoke, which are the products of combustion? There if incendiaries were involved wouldn't we see fire balls and not smoke / dust clouds?

 

[Whitebeard]

Butane won't do it in an office fire.

This was NOT an office fire, large parts of the building had been turned over to industrial concerns, so it should be viewed as a factory fire, not an office fire.

 

[deirdre]

You're going to have to start adhering to MB posting guidelines, surely? Links, summaries, quotes, videos?

You want me to link to every 9/11 thread on the internet?

 

[LardyL]

At risk of making this too complex, on the posting front, here is the detail of the book I was referring to earlier concerning structural elements and their responses to overpressures. To be clear, my post was supporting the idea that internal collapse of a structure or of structural elements such as floors, walls, etc can and does give rise to ejecta as building collapse and fail. Hope this clarifies.

 

[LardyL]

I'm happy to be persuaded, but no one here who believes AE was wrong can actually deal with the evidence AE presented, nor can they show a plausible way to shoe-horn ''progressive collapse" into the video footage recorded, specifically accounting for the semi-irregular nature of the expulsions. The thread is merely rhetorical, reflecting the fact that AE's assertions regarding 9/11 and Plasco are strengthened or weakened together. As are debunkers'.

Sorry, but AE's explanations and speculations and their hypothesis that the only explanation for the ejecta and mode of collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 in particular do not fit with any of the evidence and as far as I am concerned, bringing to bear my training/experience in engineering, forensic science, fire science, explosion and fire investigation. Based on that and on the many hours I have spent looking at what they say and the various flavours of these ideas then there is no doubt that their "it cannot be anything other than a CD" is false, never mind that they are trying to achieve what is highly difficult on a purely scientific level, prove a negative and effectively use a negative corpus approach to discount the "official" account (and any other credible variations of this).

 

[Inti]

Good for you.

Yes, I think it is good for me to be able to evaluate evidence and ask for it when others make assertions.. I dont want to repeat earlier discussions, but I do wonder whether you have any undisputed instances of incendiaries being used successfully for demolition, that would prove that it would work in theory.

 

[John85]

Sorry, but AE's explanations and speculations and their hypothesis that the only explanation for the ejecta and mode of collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 in particular do not fit with any of the evidence and as far as I am concerned, bringing to bear my training/experience in engineering, forensic science, fire science, explosion and fire investigation. Based on that and on the many hours I have spent looking at what they say and the various flavours of these ideas then there is no doubt that their "it cannot be anything other than a CD" is false, never mind that they are trying to achieve what is highly difficult on a purely scientific level, prove a negative and effectively use a negative corpus approach to discount the "official" account (and any other credible variations of this).

Nothing here accounts for the manner of the Plasco building's collapse, the evidence provided by AE, or the sequence of explosions I pointed out.

 

[Mick West]

This thread has gone on a bit far for a general purpose thread. The original point was about AE911 being forced to become "Plasco Truthers", which I thought was an interesting bit of perspective on the amount of convolution they have to do to maintain that their "evidence" (like expulsions) was actually evidence.

If people wish to discuss specific aspects of the Plasco event, then please start a new thread after reviewing the posting guidelines.

Feel free to extract material from this thread, if you think it deserves more visibility.