AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

[qed]

2 arrested on Plasco collapse case

TEHRAN, Feb. 12 (MNA) – Judiciary spokesperson has said 2 people have been detained with charges of neglect in Plasco blaze and collapse.

Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei told reporters in his weekly press conference on Sunday that Plasco case was open in the court; "so far, 2 have been detained on the case charged with neglect in handling property," he told the press.

http://en.mehrnews.com/news/123502/2-arrested-on-Plasco-collapse-case

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

I'm also a bit puzzled by the relevance of accelerants to a claim that the Plasco collapse was a CD event.

If it's intended to identify differences between Plasco and the WTC, I would have thought the jet fuel on 911 would be considered an accelerant?

Ray Von

 

[qed]

Good point.

Interesting. What evidence do we have that the possibility of accelerants was forensically investigated and eliminated through the analysis of physical evidence? This is mandated by US fire investigation protocols in cases like this, but perhaps Iranian authorities do not apply the scientific method in such a manner before drawing their conclusions.

@Cube Radio.

You appear to be admitting that accelerants may have made this building collapse.

• Do you agree that accelerants (rather than controlled demolition) may have caused this building to collapse?

 

[Mick West]

If it's intended to identify differences between Plasco and the WTC, I would have thought the jet fuel on 911 would be considered an accelerant?

It's a reference to thermite, which is considered by the National Fire Protection agency to be an "exotic accelerant" in NFPA 921 19.2.4 - although pretty much the only place you hear this mentioned is on Truther sites.

https://books.google.com/books?id=c...A267#v=onepage&q="Exotic Accelerants"&f=false

Note the three indicators. Presumably if none of those were observed then there's no reason to suspect exotic accelerants.

No doubt AE911 will continue to insist there was "melted steel".

Note that the NFPA discussion of "exotic accelerants" is more about them as a source of fire, and not as a rarely used secret fireproof precise reliable destruction method.

 

[Cube Radio]

I'm also a bit puzzled by the relevance of accelerants to a claim that the Plasco collapse was a CD event.

If it's intended to identify differences between Plasco and the WTC, I would have thought the jet fuel on 911 would be considered an accelerant?

Ray Von

I'm not making the claim that Plasco was a CD. I was wondering if the kind of forensic fire investigation protocol that is codified into manuals in the US was followed in this case.

As you would expect, it is essential in all cases of "high order damage" that the possibility of malicious intent in the setting or acceleration of that fire is investigated and, if possible, eliminated.

In other words, you have to look for evidence of foul play by testing physical evidence -- this is something NIST cheerfully admits it did not attempt to do in the case of WTC7, as the debris of the entire 47 storey building had been lost.

 

[Redwood]

Alas for Truthers, no accelerant could contribute as much as something like burning petroleum-based synthetics. Thermite has only a tiny fraction of the energy, per gram, as burning polyester.

 

[qed]

I'm not making the claim that Plasco was a CD.

@Cube Radio Do you think that it is possible that Plasco collapsed without CD?

 

[Cube Radio]

@Cube Radio Do you think that it is possible that Plasco collapsed without CD?

I haven't examined the case very closely. The video footage I've seen is peculiar to my untrained eye (by which I mean there are apparently explosions inside the building) but I am certainly open to the possibility that these were gas canisters behind the windows or whatever firefighters said: I'd expect that kind of possibility to be discussed and investigated in the forensic report.

 

[Mick West]

I haven't examined the case very closely. The video footage I've seen is peculiar to my untrained eye (by which I mean there are apparently explosions inside the building) but I am certainly open to the possibility that these were gas canisters behind the windows or whatever firefighters said: I'd expect that kind of possibility to be discussed and investigated in the forensic report.

They mentioned gas canisters in initial media stories on the report. However the "apparent explosions" just look like overpressure ejections from progressively collapsing floors. I think they will probably mention gas canisters in the context of general danger to firefighters, and maybe contributing to the initiation of collapse. I think they are pretty irrelevant in the progression though.

 

[Keith Beachy]

I'm not making the claim that Plasco was a CD. I was wondering if the kind of forensic fire investigation protocol that is codified into manuals in the US was followed in this case.

As you would expect, it is essential in all cases of "high order damage" that the possibility of malicious intent in the setting or acceleration of that fire is investigated and, if possible, eliminated.

In other words, you have to look for evidence of foul play by testing physical evidence -- this is something NIST cheerfully admits it did not attempt to do in the case of WTC7, as the debris of the entire 47 storey building had been lost.

FBI does crime, not NIST. There was zero evidence for CD on 9/11, and zero evidence it was not fire as a result of the acts of terrorists using aircraft. At Plasco the building was overloaded with material that burns. When we have fire inspections there are rules about how you store and how much you can store in a building/room. The Plasco building did not meet fire code for storage of material. The investigation into Plasco has found the building was loaded with material that burns, and it was against regulations.
On 9/11 there was malicious intent to kill Americans, it was discovered due to evidence leading to 10 terrorists on two planes hitting the WTC complex. No other evidence was found. Plasco has evidence leading to who was at fault; in Atlanta, based on the burning plastic tubing and how it progressed, they found who started the fire. When you investigate you take evidence and come to a conclusion, as done for the WTC. You don't make up what NIST should do, because the FBI does the crime part.
As for explosions, the fire caused things to burn and make over pressures, but they are not the same as what an explosive does. The gas cylinders in Plasco would burn up as designed, which can be seen on youtube when people try to blow up propane tanks, and they cook off instead. Explosive would cook off too in a fire.

Would a radio controlled explosive work in a raging fire with all the ionized gasses? Before the electronics burn up?
Why use explosives in a building overloaded with stuff that burns? Steel fails in fire, quickly.

 

[SR1419]

They mentioned gas canisters in initial media stories on the report

Yes, tenants used kerosene heaters and were also supposedly cooking inside the building as well.

http://www.startribune.com/scores-of-iran-firefighters-battle-blaze-in-tehran-building/411165075/

The fire appeared to be the most intense on the upper floors, the site of workshops where tailors cooked for themselves and used old kerosene heaters for warmth.

 

[Oystein]

I haven't examined the case very closely. The video footage I've seen is peculiar to my untrained eye (by which I mean there are apparently explosions inside the building) but I am certainly open to the possibility that these were gas canisters behind the windows or whatever firefighters said: I'd expect that kind of possibility to be discussed and investigated in the forensic report.

You have untrained eyes. You haven't looked at the case closely.
However, trained eyes have now looked closely at the evidence.
They were most certainly aware of the things you perceived as "peculiar" - they presumably listened the popping sounds, looked at the expulsions of dust, and went through more witness testimony than we will ever have access to.

And then the trained eyes stated most clearly that explosions most definitely played no role in causing the collapse. Fire, and fire alone, did (helped by negligence).

So again the question:
Do you think that it is possible that Plasco collapsed without CD?
This ia a Yes/No question.

 

[Cube Radio]

You have untrained eyes. You haven't looked at the case closely.
However, trained eyes have now looked closely at the evidence.
They were most certainly aware of the things you perceived as "peculiar" - they presumably listened the popping sounds, looked at the expulsions of dust, and went through more witness testimony than we will ever have access to.

And then the trained eyes stated most clearly that explosions most definitely played no role in causing the collapse. Fire, and fire alone, did (helped by negligence).

So again the question:
Do you think that it is possible that Plasco collapsed without CD?
This ia a Yes/No question.

Oystein, as should be obvious to you from the tower modelling thread I am prepared to accept it is possible that the twin towers collapsed without CD, let alone the Plasco building -- in fact, I am so open to the possibility that the twin towers collapsed without CD I am offering Mick $100 to prove it.

I do expect a certain standard of evidence in all cases, though, and in the case of the twin towers an experimental virtual model of the collapse progression is it. In the case of Plasco, I am simply less interested and also less familiar with the evidence and its provenance. So clearly, based on what I have said so far, you would surely not expect me to deny the possibility that it was wholly as you describe.

 

[Oystein]

That's a very convoluted "yes"...

 

[Whitebeard]

That's a very convoluted "yes"...

indeed, worthy of a UK politician on Newsnight.

 

[Cube Radio]

indeed, worthy of a UK politician on Newsnight.

My response was perfectly clear, but a useful snark, thank you. I once asked Keith Beachy a simple yes/no question that he refused to answer ten times -- it would've been more but the rambles thread was locked because it was so painful. https://www.metabunk.org/cube-radios-spat-with-mb-members-231.t8359/

 

[Whitebeard]

My response was perfectly clear, but a useful snark

No snark at all, just an observation of a text book example of what we in the UK call 'Parliamentary language'

 

[Auldy]

No snark at all, just an observation of a text book example of what we in the UK call 'Parliamentary language'

I'd take it as a compliment of vocabulary and wordsmith-ery.

 

[Oystein]

My response was perfectly clear,

Convoluted. Not straight.
However, I am surprised that you DID answer it.

I have a theory that a 9/11 truther never ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, gives a straight and honest answer to a straight and honest question. Sometimes they answer straight, but dishonestly. Sometimes honestly, but in a convoluted, apologetic way. Most often, they just don't answer, or answer both unstraight and dishonestly.

I once asked Keith Beachy a simple yes/no question that he refused to answer ten times -- it would've been more but the rambles thread was locked because it was so painful. https://www.metabunk.org/cube-radios-spat-with-mb-members-231.t8359/

I sometimes think that a 9/11 Truther is almost defined as a person who won't ever give a straight and honest answer to a straight ans honest question about 9/11, but your example of Beachy shows that some debunkers show similar behaviour. Yes, it's painful.

 

[Cube Radio]

Convoluted. Not straight.
However, I am surprised that you DID answer it.

I have a theory that a 9/11 truther never ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, gives a straight and honest answer to a straight and honest question. Sometimes they answer straight, but dishonestly. Sometimes honestly, but in a convoluted, apologetic way. Most often, they just don't answer, or answer both unstraight and dishonestly.


I sometimes think that a 9/11 Truther is almost defined as a person who won't ever give a straight and honest answer to a straight ans honest question about 9/11, but your example of Beachy shows that some debunkers show similar behaviour. Yes, it's painful.

I sometimes think debunkers deliver nothing but ad hominem remarks, so thanks for being the exception.

 

[Birkenhead]

marvin and mr. radio obviously have never visited a steel plant, so they don't know what 'molten steel' looks like. they also would be impressed how fast liquid steel turns solid (yet brightly glowing) and that constant heat (or power, i.e. electrical) is needed to keep it liquid. also they have never watched any videos of thermite used by railway workers. if thermite was used at plasco, it must have burned constantly for six days, until the moment that slap of glowing metal (aka "molten steel") was excavated, otherwise the steel would get solid within seconds. but the original video neither shows molten steel nor any thermite processing (which is sparkling, smoking and very bright). also there must have been a very large amount of thermite to keep it liquid in an ongoing burning process.

fyi: as a fireman i have been dispatched to the horrible firework disaster of enschede (the netherlands, 2000) where almost the whole neighbourhood of roombeek was burning in the aftermath of the explosion. even several days later we would encounter hot spots of tremendous heat, glowing steel slaps and so on – nothing special for firemen in general, especially at fires in industrial areas, where buildings are mostly constructed of steel beams (which bend like spaghetti in a normal fire btw). the only correct point you guys have mentioned is the concrete insulation. a collapsing floor of concrete falling onto another can easily form a small cavern, in which fires can burn for a long time. if you have two openings, let's say one on the side and one on top, for air intake and chimney effect, it can quickly become a furnace. nothing uncommon at all ...

 

[Tomi]

I'm not making the claim that Plasco was a CD. I was wondering if the kind of forensic fire investigation protocol that is codified into manuals in the US was followed in this case.

As you would expect, it is essential in all cases of "high order damage" that the possibility of malicious intent in the setting or acceleration of that fire is investigated and, if possible, eliminated.

In other words, you have to look for evidence of foul play by testing physical evidence -- this is something NIST cheerfully admits it did not attempt to do in the case of WTC7, as the debris of the entire 47 storey building had been lost.

Yes truthers like to forget that 1,000 FBI agents were deployed at Ground Zero and the Staten Island to collect evidence. And CIA, police, firemen, engineers.

Ae911truth cheerfully say, How do you find evidence when you are not looking for it. Well the answer is you deploy the following:

• 1,000 FBI agents looking for evidence
• Inspection of every piece of steel
• Employ 1,000 structural engineers who are looking at the collapse trying to understand what happened
• Employ 1,000 's of fireman and police
• You take hundreds of thousands of pictures

And what do you find NOTHING ! No evidence of CD. No pictures, the best ae911truth have is the diagonally cut columns near the base of the tower and that is the subject of another thread and has been well dismissed.

 

[John85]

I think you've missed a trick with the Plasco collapse. You understand the significance of the collapse to the 9/11 truth movement, for sure. If the Plasco building collapsed due to fires alone, it is a rare example of a rapid, total, fire-induced collapse, which makes the WTC collapses less anomalous. If it collapsed due to explosions, it is consistent with their narrative - but still mystifying in terms of why it happened. However, you've not adequately addressed the points AE911 Truth has made in support of their view that the official investigation needed to consider explosive demolition as one of the most likely causes.

To take them one by one:

The building very clear collapsed due to a fire - the simplest refutation being that the floors that collapsed were the floors that were on fire

If the collapse began where there were fires, that is compatible with a fire-induced collapse or an explosive demolition covered by fire-setting.

and no sounds of explosive demolition were heard

AE911 quote Jalal Maleki, the fire department spokesman, who says:

"The extinguishing process was going pretty well. We were at the end of our job. Everything was under control, then all of a sudden, and unexpectedly, two or three major explosions took place in the upper floors at intervals of two or three minutes.

He goes on:

"The first explosion caused the massive destruction of the building's windows and soon after that under the order of the chief administrator of the operation, we were to evacuate the building. Because we found that this place had substances and materials that are prone to explosion."

Firefighter Saeid Kamani described small explosions and a big one:

"But where I was high up there, I would hear small explosions and to my amazement, behind every one of the windows there was a gas canister…. I can't remember clearly, but after the white smoke started coming out, there was a massive explosion to the point that it shook me.

Analysis of a video of the collapse shows that there were 7 explosions within approx 0.5s that had a similar magnitude. These could be small explosive charges detonating.

It's clear to just about everyone that this was just a fire

Assuming that popular opinion is a reliable form of evidence, I think you will need to show that the majority believe it was just a fire. AE911 Truth claims this:

According to our sources in Iran, already half of the population believes the Plasco Building was destroyed intentionally with explosives.

Almost the entire AE911 case (and the Truther narrative in general) is built on an argument from incredulity

The AE911 Plasco argument is that explosive destruction should be considered the most likely hypothesis as yet. The reasons are:

• The fire was limited in size and duration, coming under control shortly before the collapse. A large and prolonged fire would be needed to cause severe structural damage, but collapse began when the fire had subsided.
• There were explosions before and during the collapse (audible, visible and reported by eyewitnesses)
• These were not characteristic of puffs of debris from falling floors
• The debris field was compact, which is uncommon of 'natural' collapses but similar to an implosion
• There was molten metal found in the ruins which requires temperatures higher than those achieved in normal fires and suggests the presence of accelerants
• Alternative hypotheses are weaker in comparison. Explosions appeared to take place on floors that were not on fire. Explosions were not likely to be caused by a gas leak, because the building was not connected to the gas network. Individual exploding gas canisters would not have caused enough damage to bring the building down.

In addition some damage can actually occur as the steel cools and contracts

Any examples of total building collapses caused by cooling steel?

In fact if you pour fuel into a pit and light it on fire, not only will you get thick black smoke, you will also get temperatures high enough to make steel sag and fall

If you pour fuel into a pit. Was there any kerosene in the building? AE911 Truth says this

So far, no plausible fuel source other than explosives has been identified. Initially, a gas leak or gas tank explosion (i.e., a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion or "BLEVE") was suspected. For example, "Mehdi Chamrun, the chairman of Tehran City Council, claimed that the explosion that occurred in the building was due to gasoline tanks in the upper floors."4 However, a National Iranian Gas Company spokesman subsequently advised that the building was not connected to the gas network,5 and the building's board of trustees claimed that there were no gas tanks in the upper floors.6 As a result, government officials appear to have ruled out the hypothesis of a gas-related BLEVE

In the 9/11 controlled demolition mythology, a core piece of "evidence" has been "squibs" - small ejections of debris that occurred several floors below the collapse of the exterior. The cause of these has long been obvious - the interior collapse of floors led to rapid compression of the air, and it blew stuff out of windows. That this is happening is readily apparent in the Plasco building, especially in video that AE911 chose to illustrate it.

AE911 refers to such claims and shows that the expulsions are not consistent with puffs of air coming from an ordinary building collapse:

Several factors and characteristics of the expulsions cast extreme doubt on the air compression hypothesis and make explosives the most likely hypothesis

Specifically,

Each expulsion emanates rapidly and consists of a thick cloud of apparently already-pulverized material, often accompanied by intact pieces of debris traveling away from the building at high speeds. 4. The expulsions emanate from point-like sources. In a floor-wide air compression scenario, we would expect compressed air to be pushed out more uniformly

And:

A careful analysis of the series of expulsions that appear to travel down the east face of the building in a somewhat neat pattern reveals that, in fact, the expulsions occur in a disorderly sequence. As shown in Figure 12, which maps the time and vertical location of each expulsion on the east face, we see expulsions occurring high and low in the building, with no apparent order. We also see expulsions occurring seconds apart on the same floor. If the expulsions were caused by floor-wide air compression from successively pancaking floors, we would expect expulsions to progress from one floor to the next downward. Also, we would not expect expulsions to occur on the same floor seconds apart, because the first expulsion on a given floor would relieve the air pressure on that floor, preventing later expulsions from that floor

And note that 7 explosions occurred within 0.5s.

The intervals between the impulses are too short for the impulses to have been the result of falling floors impacting one another. For a single floor to fall an estimated 2.34 meters of head space, it would take .69 seconds, which is longer than the total period in which all seven impulses occurred.

All examples from The Plasco Building Collapse in Tehran, a Preliminary Assessment

 

[NoParty]

"The extinguishing process was going pretty well. We were at the end of our job. Everything was under control, then all of a sudden, and unexpectedly, two or three major explosions took place in the upper floors at intervals of two or three minutes.

"The first explosion caused the massive destruction of the building's windows and soon after that under the order of the chief administrator of the operation, we were to evacuate the building. Because we found that this place had substances and materials that are prone to explosion."

Firefighter Saeid Kamani described small explosions and a big one:

"But where I was high up there, I would hear small explosions and to my amazement, behind every one of the windows there was a gas canister…. I can't remember clearly, but after the white smoke started coming out, there was a massive explosion to the point that it shook me.

Analysis of a video of the collapse shows that there were 7 explosions within approx 0.5s that had a similar magnitude. These could be small explosive charges detonating.

I'll be honest: I can't tell if you're trolling, or just really want posters to interact with you, or if you genuinely believe this.

Because there's so many things to dispute. To me, the most obvious is your attempt to waive off the fact
that there was nothing like the actual sounds of a controlled demolition re. Plasco.
So you paste in three quotes that obviously do not describe a real world CD, presumably hoping that the reader
won't remember that we have the audio!! And the audio is clear: Sounds nothing like real real CD at all!!

 

[John85]

I'll be honest: I can't tell if you're trolling, or just really want posters to interact with you, or if you genuinely believe this.

Because there's so many things to dispute. To me, the most obvious is your attempt to waive off the fact
that there was nothing like the actual sounds of a controlled demolition re. Plasco.
So you paste in three quotes that obviously do not describe a real world CD, presumably hoping that the reader
won't remember that we have the audio!! And the audio is clear: Sounds nothing like real real CD at all!!

If you were going to demolish a building in such a way that, to the casual observer, it appeared to be the result of fire, you would not perform a standard, commercial, controlled demolition. That would be too loud. This has already been addressed by AE911, who suggest that thermite cutter charges can weaken steel so that smaller explosive charges can be used.

 

[Oystein]

I understand that months ago already, the engineering commission tasked with investigating the Plasco collapse presented their final report to the President of Iran. They concluded that fires, not explosions, were the cause.

AE911Truth seems to have missed this, or perhaps chosen to ignore it.

Source: MEHR News Agency, April 06, 2017 (my emphasis):

Mr. Rouhani received the members of the National Plasco Report Special Committee Wednesday evening; the report had been prepared after the president issued a directive mandating the Committee to look into the event and draft a comprehensive report to provide to the public; ...
...
Rouhani also said that partisan interests should not be a factor in examining incidents of national scope and importance; "the Committee had not been subjected to any pressure by the government and the report thus is the results of their expert opinions and examination of the event's diverse aspects," he told the meeting. "Members had prepared the report freely and according to their code of conduct and conscience."

[The report]... categorically rejects the hypothesis that 'explosives' had been used in downing (possibly a deliberate action) the building and asserts that solely fire and heat had been the causes of the collapse.
...

This technical report apparently has 1,700 pages, and presumably was written in Farsi language. I have so far not seen it downloadable anywhere.


More recently, and according to the blog "The Iran Project" on August 30th, an Iranian parliamentary report found 7 entities guilty of the collapse, and went into a bit of detail how these 7 entities contributed to causing the collapse - again, explosives or any other means of deliberate demolition not included (my emphasis):

...
According to a report read by spokesperson of Iranian Parliament Civil Committee on Wed., the Plasco building incident, a 17-story high-rise landmark shopping center in Tehran which collapsed on 19 January 2017 during a skyscraper fire and led to the death of 16 firefighters, was due to unauthorized use of heating devices by workers on the 10th floor as well as unauthorized and non-standard wiring. Other main causes of the fire and collapse have been identified as lack of required safety standards in industrial power system, lighting system, ventilation, heating system, protection, and warning system, as well as lack of sufficient firefighting equipment in the building.

The report has identified seven entities as having been responsible for Plasco collapse, namely owner and manager of the building, Iran Chamber of Guilds, Tehran Municipality and City Council, Tehran Governorate, Ministry of Labor, Management and Planning Organization of Iran, and National Disaster Management Organization of Iran.
...

AE911Truth has popularized the global claim that no steel-frame highrise could possibly ever collapse totally due to fires alone. One main line of argument in support of this global claim is the anecdotal evidence that no other steel frame highrise has ever collapsed due to fire alone: They cite the limited dataset of highrises that have burned in the past and did not collapse. The problem with this is: You can't prove a global claim with anecdotal evidence, regardless of how many anecdotes you may have in store, however you can disprove a global claim with a single instance of anecdotal evidence that counters it.

And thus, AE91Truth have painted themselves in a corner: The single example of the Plasco collapse forces them to either retract their argument from anecdotal evidence and accept, once and for all, that OF COURSE steel-frame highrises CAN collapse totally from fires, OR pretend they believe the Plasco also collapsed due to explosive demolition.

The reality of the Plasco, incidentally, destroys several more of their arguments:

• It proves, by way of example, that "explosions" CAN be reported by fire fighters when a highrise burns, when there are no explosive charges present
• "Molten metal/steel" can be reported after a fire-induced collapse
• Rapid ejections of dust and air, even at some distance from the collapse front, are possible effects of a fire-only highrise collapse, not of demolition
• A relatively neat rubble pile, with most of the debris concentrated inside the footprint, is a possible, perhaps even likely outcome of a fire-induced highrise collapse and does not argue for controlled demolition
• Etc.

I think it is because of all these reasons why it is impossible for AE911Truth to accept the truth about the Plasco building - they'd be forced out of business in short order, for few of their claims are not destroyed by this single example of an actual, fire-induced highrise collapse.

 

[NoParty]

If you were going to demolish a building in such a way that, to the casual observer, it appeared to be the result of fire, you would not perform a standard, commercial, controlled demolition. That would be too loud. This has already been addressed by AE911, who suggest that thermite cutter charges can weaken steel so that smaller explosive charges can be used.

Please link to any credible source about the current viability and availability of "thermite cutter charges"

 

[Oystein]

If you were going to demolish a building in such a way that, to the casual observer, it appeared to be the result of fire, you would not perform a standard, commercial, controlled demolition. That would be too loud. This has already been addressed by AE911, who suggest that thermite cutter charges can weaken steel so that smaller explosive charges can be used.

Suggest.
Evidence woefully lacking.
Rejected.

At the same time, they claim that there were explosions heard AND explain why there were none recordable. The disconnect ought to be painfully obvious.

 

[John85]

I don't imagine I will be accepting Tehran's press releases above what I can see with my own eyes from the videos of the collapse

 

[John85]

Please link to any credible source about the current viability and availability of "thermite cutter charges"

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

 

[John85]

think it is because of all these reasons why it is impossible for AE911Truth to accept the truth about the Plasco building - they'd be forced out of business in short order, for few of their claims are not destroyed by this single example of an actual, fire-induced highrise collapse.

I'd suggest a better strategy for you would be to unyoke 9/11 Truth debunking from Plasco debunking, in case you are proven wrong on Plasco and need a fall-back position.

 

[Mick West]

I'd suggest a better strategy for you would be to unyoke 9/11 Truth debunking from Plasco debunking, in case you are proven wrong on Plasco and need a fall-back position.

The point here is very clear, AE911 (and, it seems, you) are forced to believe that Plasco must also be a covert demolition using top-secret nanothermite charges.

The problem with this is that it makes no sense, it's a vastly over-complicated explanation for a quite simple event - a poor quality un-maintained fire-hazard older building collapsed after a fire. There also zero motivation here, it's an utterly different situation to 9/11. Besides all the failure of physics, the mind boggles when trying to come up with geopolitical scenarios that would result in a super secret demolition method being used twice in history, one on 9/11, and once in Iran.

That's why the initial reaction of most truthers is "oh that does not count, it's just an old building". But most truthers are not actually very familiar with the canon of "evidence" that AE911 is.

This is great from an actual truth perspective, as it shines a light on the the motivated reasoning used by AE911, like the melange of silent explosive, reports of explosions, and ignoring propane tanks.

Here's an example of a much smaller propane tank explosion. 30 seconds in.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhgNHJIRAw&feature=youtu.be&t=29s

I'd suggest a better strategy for you would be to unyoke 9/11 Truth debunking from Plasco debunking, in case you are proven wrong on Plasco and need a fall-back position.

Not really, in fact I'd double down. How certain are YOU that Plasco was a controlled demolition? I'll bet my $100 against your $20 that in the next five years it remains simply the result of a fire.

I offer wagers because it forces people to evaluate the certainty of their evidence, and their thoughts above impending changes in acceptance of their theories. It makes their thought experiments concrete.

So how certain are you? What odds would you wager on?

 

[Oystein]

I don't imagine I will be accepting Tehran's press releases above what I can see with my own eyes from the videos of the collapse

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.)

...
'Proof that thermite can cut a vertical column'

Perhaps you can agree, without video proof, that suicidal midgets can cut a vertical column with saws? Then you should alert AE911Truth and the Iranian commission that this possibility must be investigated ASAP!!

I'd suggest a better strategy for you would be to unyoke 9/11 Truth debunking from Plasco debunking, in case you are proven wrong on Plasco and need a fall-back position.

No.

Your trying to turn the table on me is a transparent ploy - I did not, in fact, paint me into a corner yet. Of course the actual professional investigation ALREADY proved me right and AE911Truth wrong; but just for the sake of academic nit-picking: What IF, in a universe very different from the real one we live in, the Plasco turned out to be a demolition job after all? Then that would merely add one more anecdote to AE's short list of anecdotes, and that STILL would not prove the global claim that steel frame buildings can't ever collapse from fire only.

 

[SR1419]

an explosive demolition covered by fire-setting.

How do demolition charges survive fire?

 

[Oystein]

By the way, just four days ago, AE911Truth put a post on their Facebook page with a link to "An Update on All Things Plasco, Including New Video", which is their Oct 17, 2017 Newsletter.

They write:

Although secondary to our primary effort to expose the truth about the destruction of the World Trade Center, we continue to commit a modest amount of time and resources to the Plasco Building tragedy — in large part because of the very real prospect that the truth about Plasco will come out sooner rather than later.

You'll notice that they completely ignore the reality of a 1,700 pages report, compiled by a professional task commission investigating the incident, ALREADY found the cause of the collapse - and ruled out AE91Truth's necessary fantasy. Are they not aware that such a report was already issued in April? If they don't know, what does that tell us about their Plasco competence or that of their contacts in Iran? If they do know about the report, wouldn't it strike you as plainly dishonest not to mention its existence to your money-donating fan-base?

(The video in that newsletter shows a conflagration not consistent in timing, loudness, brisance and location with explosive demolition - they merely aim at deluding the gullible).

 

[John85]

The point here is very clear, AE911 (and, it seems, you) are forced to believe that Plasco must also be a covert demolition using top-secret nanothermite charges.

Actually, no - I'm not under any pressure to believe Plasco was demolished. I've explained why I believe WTC 1, 2 & 7 were demolished. I've also looked at the AE911 Truth videos and documents on the Plasco collapse and genuinely believe that it was demolished by a sequence of explosions.

The problem with this is that it makes no sense, it's a vastly over-complicated explanation for a quite simple event - a poor quality un-maintained fire-hazard older building collapsed after a fire.

If that were so, how do we account for the sequence of explosions plus molten metal found afterwards? How were temperatures high enough to melt steel generated? If the fire was as standard as you believe, what is the explanation for this?

There also zero motivation here, it's an utterly different situation to 9/11. Besides all the failure of physics, the mind boggles when trying to come up with geopolitical scenarios that would result in a super secret demolition method being used twice in history, one on 9/11, and once in Iran.

You're talking about how easy it is to believe or disbelieve that the building was demolished by explosives under the cover of fire. But I'm not interested in whether it is easy to believe in the sense of familiar and straightforward. If there were explosions and molten metal, we have no choice but to include the hypothesis that explosives were a cause. You've got to work outwards from the evidence. If I'm walking my dog and find a body face down by the canal, knife sticking out their back, I don't say "I have no idea who would have wanted to do this, therefore it's not murder". Honestly, what could the motive be here? I don't know. The date may be significant, as has been noted feverishly elsewhere - 1/19/17. Does Iran's premier have enemies? Does Iran have politics, factions, scheming and power struggles? Are relations with Iran tense? Is Iran a regionally significant power? Is the US preoccupied with Iranian ascendancy? It would be naive to rule out foul play. And who did it? Absolutely no idea. That the Iranian government wants it to all go away suggests they may have been under pressure, it was not expedient to claim a terror attack, they were responsible, or something else.

This is great from an actual truth perspective, as it shines a light on the the motivated reasoning used by AE911, like the melange of silent explosive, reports of explosions, and ignoring propane tanks.

The reference to 'silent explosives' strikes me as disingenuous (or at least, not very effective). AE911 Truth feature the 118 first responder eyewitness testimonies of explosions quite prominently in their material. They do not claim that no-one heard explosions; they claim that lots of people did, and that they felt them, were wounded by shrapnel. They show that some of these witnesses were trained to identify types of explosions. They also debunk NIST's calculation of the minimum no of decibels an explosive demolition would cause. Anyone seriously interested in 9/11 truth has already satisfied themselves that (1) explosions were heard and felt, and (2) it did not need to be a conventional demolition, with conventional techniques, conventional explosives, and a conventional guy standing there pushing a big red button. And they could have used thermite in tandem to reduce the noise.

Here's an example of a much smaller propane tank explosion. 30 seconds in.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhgNHJIRAw&feature=youtu.be&t=29s

Yes, and it doesn't damage the building. Videos show that there were 7 explosions of approximately equal amplitude that took place within 0.5s during the Plasco collapse. Do you think that this pattern is common to gas tank explosions? What conventional fire phenomenon caused them?

Not really, in fact I'd double down. How certain are YOU that Plasco was a controlled demolition? I'll bet my $100 against your $20 that in the next five years it remains simply the result of a fire.

I offer wagers because it forces people to evaluate the certainty of their evidence, and their thoughts above impending changes in acceptance of their theories. It makes their thought experiments concrete.

So how certain are you? What odds would you wager on?

I think the Plasco building was brought down with explosives - I'm confident of that, but willing to be persuaded by more evidence. I'm interested in the truth of the matter, but it looks like you might have got sidetracked by the question of whether the theory is 'accepted'.

 

[John85]

How do demolition charges survive fire?

Fire protection.

 

[Whitebeard]

Honestly, what could the motive be here? I don't know. The date may be significant, as has been noted feverishly elsewhere - 1/19/17. Does Iran's premier have enemies? Does Iran have politics, factions, scheming and power struggles? Are relations with Iran tense? Is Iran a regionally significant power? Is the US preoccupied with Iranian ascendancy?

Then why attack such a run down, elderly building which contained a small local shopping mall, and some minor industrial concerns? It would be like me blowing up a small shed in a Washington back street to 'teach Trump a lesson.' A politically motivated attack on Plasco make absolutely no sense in geo-political terms, and even in terms of Irans internal politics you have to stretch the imagination a lot to fit a suitable narrative.

Tehran is a modern city, and a national capital. It has far more important targets to attack if you wanted to pop at the government there for 'reasons'. Why go for Plasco, when you could do real damage by hitting say The Tehran International tower complex - the cities swankiest residential complex and home to key players in Iranian society. Or the Sephir tower, where many key Iranian banks and fiscal institutions are based. Or the Markazi tower, home of the National bank. Or the Kar Bank Building, home to the nations stock exchange.

If Plasco was a international political hit' then how stupid are the CIA, Mossad, KGB, MI6, whoever?
"Ok we are gonna really teach those Iranians a lesson, we are gonna strike at a building in their capital."
"So we gonna take out government offices, key financial institutions, key business hubs?"
"No siree, we are take out a low rent shopping mall and a couple of local rag trade business, may be a charity office while we are at it..."
"That'll show em alright"

Besides even if the fire was arson, wouldn't a disgruntled former employee or kids playing with matches be a more logical source of ignition than a hideously complex and politically impotent plot to achieve a somewhat vague objective?

 

[Mick West]

If that were so, how do we account for the sequence of explosions plus molten metal found afterwards? How were temperatures high enough to melt steel generated? If the fire was as standard as you believe, what is the explanation for this?

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.

 

[Mick West]

I think the Plasco building was brought down with explosives - I'm confident of that, but willing to be persuaded by more evidence.

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.