Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons

jaydeehess

Senior Member.


This photo from a few seconds into the collapse is interesting as it shows the deformation of the building's skin - especially visible on the right, in the area clear of smoke.
Buckling as if the exterior is attached to nothing in the interior.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Largely, in that's it's probably from a partial collapse, however in the video we can only really see the Northwest corner (the street side faces south, right in this image)
View attachment 24196

Whereas the damaged canopy is in the Northeast
Yes, but it illustrates collapse on the north side. Windows on the NE all appear black, blown out in similar fashion as is seen in the NW corner video.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
In short, given the now illustrated interior partial collapses prior to global collapse, it is a testament to the building's construction, that it stayed upright as long as it did.

What contributed greatly to it's demise was the ignoring of fire codes.

I expect that someone will be paying a high price for ignoring the fire code transgressions.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Largely, in that's it's probably from a partial collapse, however in the video we can only really see the Northwest corner (the street side faces south, right in this image)

Whereas the damaged canopy is in the Northeast
Dang - you're right.
However, the news report said "Plasco's north wall of the building completely collapsed and is extremely insecure" - partial collapse involved the entire north side - from NW to NE corner then.
The quote is of course inaccurate - the wall didn't collapse. Could be lost in translation.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Dang - you're right.
However, the news report said "Plasco's north wall of the building completely collapsed and is extremely insecure" - partial collapse involved the entire north side - from NW to NE corner then.
The quote is of course inaccurate - the wall didn't collapse. Could be lost in translation.
Translation often is difficult between such dissimilar languages.
However, yes, since it's obvious that the north exterior wall was indeed still intact, it could simply be translation from a phrase that referred to a collapse on the "north side" became "north wall".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Serching for "north wall plasco building" (ساختمان پلاسکو دیوار شمالی) sheds some light, here's an article that seems to be from before the collapse:
http://www.mizanonline.ir/fa/news/2...ت-احتمال-تخریب-کامل-بنا-از-سوی-نیروهای-امدادی

With a poor google translation:
 

jayo

New Member
I thought this was supposed to debunk, This looks like how I would expect a building to collapse if by accident. Not the freefall of three buildings. This looks nothing like WTC collapse. Wow
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I thought this was supposed to debunk, This looks like how I would expect a building to collapse if by accident. Not the freefall of three buildings. This looks nothing like WTC collapse. Wow

It's a much smaller building. The point is that aspects of it look like the WTC collapse, as noted by AE911. In particular the ejections of material, but also other things like the way the skin of the building ended up:
20170125-105224-zwdgb.jpg
 

jayo

New Member
It's a much smaller building. The point is that aspects of it look like the WTC collapse, as noted by AE911. In particular the ejections of material, but also other things like the way the skin of the building ended up:
View attachment 24205

So even you say this is a rare occurrence, yet three buildings on the same day collapsed at free fall speed with no resistance unlike in this video? Yeah keep trying. Please do a side by side of all 4 collapses then i might believe.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So even you say this is a rare occurrence, yet three buildings on the same day collapsed at free fall speed with no resistance unlike in this video? Yeah keep trying. Please do a side by side of all 4 collapses then i might believe.

The point here is that there are similarities, not that they are the same. We see things that are simple functions of a progressive internal collapse - like the expulsions of material. It can't be exactly the same as they are very different buildings.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
So even you say this is a rare occurrence, yet three buildings on the same day collapsed at free fall speed with no resistance unlike in this video? Yeah keep trying. Please do a side by side of all 4 collapses then i might believe.

There are hundreds of videos on the internet of EVERY instance of fully fueled jetliners crashing full speed into buildings; where those buildings subsequently collapsed, due to the extensive damage and relatively un-fought, out of control, jet fuel and office material fueled fires. In your search for these videos, you will also find several videos EVERY 47 story office building that was damaged when a neighboring 110 story building collapsed next to it; showering it with massive debris, causing extensive damage to the lower floors and starting fires throughout that were unsuccessfully contained and eventually led to the progressive collapse.

This only happened once. EVER! 9/11 was extremely rare. To try to find exact matches for what happened is impossible. The best we can do is to see something like the Plasco building and determine a few things:
1. Fire can make a building collapse.
2. That building can collapse relatively straight into its footprint, at relatively free-fall speed.
3. That building can exhibit similarities to controlled demolitions.

4. It doesn't mean that there is any reason to believe that it was, in fact, demolished on purpose and requires millions of dollars of research and testing to determine that it was a natural collapse, just to appease 2750 people with an agenda.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
So even you say this is a rare occurrence, yet three buildings on the same day collapsed at free fall speed with no resistance unlike in this video? Yeah keep trying. Please do a side by side of all 4 collapses then i might believe.
But the the buildings did not fall at free fall speed (free fall is not a speed). Resistance, the timing of the collapse matches the resistance building mass would offer. That fact can be checked with a momentum model which matches the collapse timing. What speed is free fall speed? Free fall speed, a building falling on 9/11 at free fall speed, a false tagline of 9/11 truth. The facts prove the tag line is bunk.
Fire caused the collapse of this building, on 9/11 fire caused the collapse of three buildings, and the partial collapse of more buildings. Fire and steel don't mix, this is why we fight fire. If steel could withstand fire, we would not have this...

Steel fails in fire. Not news.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Persian is no more dissimilar to English than Russian or Greek, for example. Much closer to English than to Turkish or Arabic.
but not as similar as French or German
Point was that with differing connotations and perhaps differing syntax, translations, especially literal translations can be a bit off the mark.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I thought this was supposed to debunk, This looks like how I would expect a building to collapse if by accident. Not the freefall of three buildings. This looks nothing like WTC collapse. Wow
You seem a bit confused. Members here ARE saying this building was brought down by fire.

AE911T has come out and said there were explosives used on the Plasco. On another forum, AE911T engineer, Tony Szamboti is declaring that the Plasco was taken down by the use of explosives. Apparently you disagree with them, not us.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Good angle of the south and East faces here.

Thanks. Shows nicely how some columns remained standing for a while and toppled only after all floors had collapsed to the ground - similar to the core "spire" of the WTC twins.
Also nicely shows how the first dust ejections were slower than those that followed further down - indicative of a dynamic process of floors pancaking onto one another at an accelerating pace.
There are no ejections from any of the three right- (north-)most windows - that's where a pancaking collapse had already occurred sometime earlier, which then left the walls standing.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
FTR @Tony Szamboti
Tony was right, both are implosions due to fire. The FEMA report talks about WTC 7 being an implosion, due to fire.
Due to fire, in the FEMA report.
 

Fromage

New Member
View attachment 24197

This photo from a few seconds into the collapse is interesting as it shows the deformation of the building's skin - especially visible on the right, in the area clear of smoke.

This photo also appears to indicate that the floor collapse has already proceeded past the area clear of smoke, and the interior is open to the sky. Yes, some look like reflections off some sort of open window, but the others look like a view into an space open-to-the-sky, interrupted only by the bulging skin and diagonal cross-bracing. if the floors were still intact, from this angle you wouldn't be able to see thru the windows on the wall facing us thru the windows in the skin "just around the corner".
 

Emphatic

New Member
The comparisons to the two buildings are irrelevant, as the plasco building was aged and poorly maintained, over burdened and failed many many many inspection and was cited for failing to meet dozens of building regulations, those of which are considered lax by western standards, two compare the two in any light is misguided, also this was not a steel framed building it was reinforced concrete building, as most apartment and residential buildings are.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The comparisons to the two buildings are irrelevant, as the plasco building was aged and poorly maintained, over burdened and failed many many many inspection and was cited for failing to meet dozens of building regulations, those of which are considered lax by western standards, two compare the two in any light is misguided, also this was not a steel framed building it was reinforced concrete building, as most apartment and residential buildings are.

And yet AE911 seems convinced this was a secret nanothermite demolition and have been extensively comparing it to the WTC collapses.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
The comparisons to the two buildings are irrelevant, as the plasco building was aged and poorly maintained, over burdened and failed many many many inspection and was cited for failing to meet dozens of building regulations, those of which are considered lax by western standards, two compare the two in any light is misguided, also this was not a steel framed building it was reinforced concrete building, as most apartment and residential buildings are.

This was a steel framed building. There are multiple photos of its construction included in the discussions of its collapse on metabunk. If you are claiming otherwise, please provide proof for your claim.

And comparisons to WTC7 are worthwhile. While WTC7 was a steel framed building built on a much larger scale and (we can assume) more robustly constructed in many respects, these are differences of kind, not type. AE911Truth recognizes this reality, which is why AE911Truth made the ridiculous claims that Plasco was a controlled demolition. Without that deflection by AE911Truth, it would be forced to address the first principles point of how steel, including structural steel, can fail in a fire, which leads to a series of difficult, technical questions for each building re just how and when given steel members would fail in a given fire scenario, and how such failures would effect the integrity of the building as a whole.
 

Cube Radio

Member
And yet AE911 seems convinced this was a secret nanothermite demolition

What nonsense. This is what AE911 said.
Based on the data we have collected and analyzed over the past month, we can now recommend with a high degree of confidence that investigators should consider controlled demolition involving a combination of explosives and incendiaries as the most likely hypothesis for the Plasco Building’s destruction.

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf
 

Cube Radio

Member
And...? There are no statements of conviction in the above. It's all "appears to be..." and "could be". Mick naturally misrepresents these qualifications.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
And...? There are no statements of conviction in the above. It's all "appears to be..." and "could be". Mick naturally misrepresents these qualifications.
Mick said, "AE911 seems convinced".

Their report says, "The most plausible explanation...appears to be" and "investigators should consider CD...as the most likely hypothesis."

Maybe "convinced" is slightly stronger than the wording used in the sentences quoted above. But it does appear to be the hypothesis they've settled on, the hypothesis they support, and that no other hypotheses are being considered: the report is merely a section "for" controlled demolition, and a section "against" fire-induced failure.

Taken as a whole, I think "convinced" is an accurate assessment of their beliefs: though if there's something in the report where they cast doubt on this hypothesis, I guess I would have to reassess that.

(They do conclude by saying that "fire/accidental explosion...should not be ruled out" - but that comes immediately after stating that "fire and/or accidental explosions...does not appear to pass the first test of being consistent with the data", and reads more like a token gesture than a genuine lack of conviction to me.)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
What nonsense. This is what AE911 said.

PS I would say that they're using the word "consider" in the 4th meaning here:

consider.png

As in, "we consider this matter closed" rather than, "we have considered your proposal but..."
 

Fromage

New Member
AE911Truth is convinced it's nanothermite because of "steel framed buildings don't collapse in fires" meme. Which of course they do if the fire is intense enough. Which means that AE911Truth is convinced Plasco was steel-framed - and say so quite explicitly. So are all other references.

I think Emphatic got confused with the Grenfell Tower fire - which was concrete framed, and didn't collapse, despite the fire lasting rather longer than Plasco or WTC (before collapse).

[The middle eastern "tower torches" are even less comparable. Each of these fires were exclusively on the exterior of the concrete shell, there were no (or no significant) interior breaches. They were never in danger of collapse. The events show that they probably didn't even need to evacuate them.]

The code violations that Plasco had were because of the flammable load violations, poor access, and bad storage - a fire initiation
and evacuation issue. This is largely irrelevant to the overall survival of the building once the structure is on fire. As for WTC, building codes certainly didn't require resistance against fire initiation events of the magnitude of a 767 at 500 or so mph.

In other words, what Plasco had with fire reg violations, WTC had in whopping big airplanes crashing into them, leading to overwhelming fires.

In other words, with perfect code and perfect compliance, _neither_ WTC and Plasco would have been likely to collapse. Plasco wouldn't have caught fire in the first place, and WTC would have automatically suppressed it. So, they're approximately comparable vis-a-vis structure survival.

I do not believe that you could get a concrete framed building to come down without obscene amounts of thermite. The thermite reaction is so hot that the surface of the concrete would ablate like heat tiles on the shuttle (technical term: "spall" - the cured concrete's hydration will decompose then boil off), drawing off a lot of heat in the process. So, unless the fire goes on for a very long time and remained very very hot, it would be unlikely to fail.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And...? There are no statements of conviction in the above. It's all "appears to be..." and "could be". Mick naturally misrepresents these qualifications.

And are you not misrepresenting my "seems" qualification?

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf
They say they don't rule out fire, and yet they just did.
 

izz

New Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=74&v=_MgJTa7SDaY
I'm sorry, but I feel people are intentionally ignoring all the facts. If you look here @ 20 seconds you can see the actual charges. This video shows all the angles which seem to be missing from here.
One of the main arguments 9-11 truthers use as 'proof' of controlled demolition is the alleged 'fact' that 'fire has never caused a tall building to collapse before or since', often going on to quote more recent incidents such as the Marina Torch and The Address fires in Dubai.

Thankfully build collapses due to fire are very rare, however they can happen as the events unfolding in Tehran have proved
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38675628



Video of collapse here

So do tall building collapse when burning for several hours? The answer is rarely, but yes.


See also:
I'm sorry, but I feel it's only fair to show the truth. I assume posting a link to the video is o.k. since you did it. In this video you can clearly see charges going off. You can see them from different angles. Even the flashes. This was not caused by fire.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
In this video you can clearly see charges going off. You can see them from different angles. Even the flashes. This was not caused by fire.
I'm no expert but I can't clearly see charges going off. I can see puffs of smoke and air, and even some flames, etc - which I suppose could be charges, could be due to the collapse, could be something else. Given that the building's already on fire though, and looks like it's about ready to collapse, I can't really see any need for charges. I'd also wonder how and why someone would put them there - looks like it would be difficult to do that given the state of things.

Unfortunately, there's nothing in that video that would convince me those expulsions are as a result of explosives.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm sorry, but I feel people are intentionally ignoring all the facts. If you look here @ 20 seconds you can see the actual charges. This video shows all the angles which seem to be missing from here.

Post screenshots of the first five charges you see.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
If you look here @ 20 seconds you can see the actual charges.

Hi Izz I see squibs or large volume of air & dust ejecting from windows as floors ceilings collapse, If measured the ejecting dust air would be moving relative slowly compared to your claimed HE High explosive charges that depending upon class of HE explosive would be in a range 3 to 29 thousand feet per second

http://nobombs.net/brucel/explosivefacts.html

here a link for some more explanation..
https://www.metabunk.org/north-tower-asymmetric-squibs.t8921/
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Post screenshots of the first five charges you see.
I assume these are the "charges" that @izz is referring to?

upload_2017-11-8_13-40-47.png
upload_2017-11-8_13-41-17.png

However, you can clearly see that the collapse begins *before* this supposed "charge":

upload_2017-11-8_13-42-44.png

It appears to me that the initial collapse could be triggered by the pressure of the water from the hose: a collapse begins from the point where the water strikes the building. Presumably the fire had weakened the structure to the point that the high pressure stream of water was enough to dislodge a structural column.

The roof starts bowing in above this point, at 0:20 in the video, and the first "puff" or "flash" occurs at 0:21, by which time the roof is already collapsing downwards.

The same order of events is shown from the other angle at 1:26:

Initial collapse around area of hose:
upload_2017-11-8_13-50-37.png

And then the first "flash" (the same one seen at 0:21 from the other angle) occurs after this, by which time the roof is already very much collapsing:

upload_2017-11-8_13-53-6.png
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
You cannot HEAR any explosive charges. This is important, because steel structures are demolished using supersonic detonating material, so-called High Explosives. Their effect is to shatter the crysral internal structure of the steel by means of a shockwave. A shockwave is a high-energy acoustic wave resulting from supersonic event.

In other words: it is the very SOUND of the explosion that literally breaks the steal.

No sound -> no steel cut by explosives.

It is really that simple.

To drive home that point: please search YouTube for as many explosive demolitions as you can. Turn the volume to the max, endure the many many very loud BANGs! From time to time, re-listen to the Plasco videos, and WTC videos, and note the absence of bangs! After you have listened to at least 50, better 100 real explosive CDs, please come back and post the one that has the softest, least audible bangs. Let's compare it to Plasco and WTC.
Prediction: you will not find any video of a real explosive CD with original audio shot from as near or far as aPlasco or WTC video where the latter has audible bangs as obvious and as loud as the former.
 

Related Articles

Top