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

[jaydeehess]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/269383/دیوار-بخش-شمالی-ساختمان-پلاسکو-فروریخت-احتمال-تخریب-کامل-بنا-از-سوی-نیروهای-امدادی

With a poor google translation:

The northern part of the building collapsed wall Plasco / risk complete destruction of the forces of relief

fire in the early hours of the morning and turn off the fire Plasco building to this moment, the possibility of the complete destruction of the building by the relief factor there at the scene.
Now the fire is started again from the eastern part of the building.
According to the report the north wall of the building completely collapsed Plaskvnyz and extremely unsafe. A number of forces have caught fire show now Plasco floors and some also have remained under the rubble of collapsed buildings.

Content from External Source

 

[Oystein]

Translation often is difficult between such dissimilar languages.
...

Persian is no more dissimilar to English than Russian or Greek, for example. Much closer to English than to Turkish or Arabic.

 

[jayo]

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]

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:

 

[jayo]

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:

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mick West]

Here's another video of the fires (three days in)
Source: https://twitter.com/MajedMajidy/status/824368869166948354


A lot of the tweets are from the Iranian anti-mullah opposition. They are blaming the collapse on corruption leading to poor building standards.

 

[Mick West]

Here's the northwest corner, with a small debris flow before the collapse
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNqpJR6UDE

 

[Keith Beachy]

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]

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]

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.

 

[qed]

On another forum, AE911T engineer, Tony Szamboti is declaring that the Plasco was taken down by the use of explosives.

Do you have a reference? I did ask google...

 

[Cube Radio]

Good angle of the south and East faces here.

 

[jaydeehess]

Do you have a reference? I did ask google...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11680040#post11680040

 

[Oystein]

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.

 

[qed]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11680040#post11680040

FTR @Tony Szamboti

It appears that the Plasco collapse was due to an implosion also.

Content from External Source

 

[Keith Beachy]

FTR @Tony Szamboti

It appears that the Plasco collapse was due to an implosion also.

Content from External Source

Tony was right, both are implosions due to fire. The FEMA report talks about WTC 7 being an implosion, due to fire.

NIST consultant Ramon Gilsanz admitted that WTC 7 was an implosion

Content from External Source

Due to fire, in the FEMA report.

 

[Fromage]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What nonsense. This is what AE911 said.


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

Therefore, at this time, the most plausible explanation for the large amounts of molten metal appears to be a high-temperature incendiary such as thermite

Content from External Source

Controlled demolitions are usually accomplished without the use of incendiaries. However, in a situation where the goal is to conceal a controlled demolition, thermite would serve the purpose of weakening support columns and structural joints, allowing for the minimal use of explosives and, therefore, minimal noise generation. Thermite, or another exotic accelerant, could also be used in such a scenario to help start the fires that were set as a cover for the controlled demolition

Content from External Source

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

 

[Cube Radio]

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]

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]

What nonsense. This is what AE911 said.

"...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."

Content from External Source

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



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

 

[Fromage]

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]

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

As discussed in Section 2.4, large amounts of molten metal were found in the debris. Fires in open air cannot achieve temperatures above 1,800°F (1,000°C). Iron and steel melt at approximately 2,750°F (1,510°C). The fires that occurred in the Plasco Building, therefore, cannot account for the observed molten metal.

Content from External Source

In summary, the hypothesis that fire and/or accidental explosions were responsible for the destruction of the Plasco Building does not appear to pass the first test of being consistent with the data collected to date. Nonetheless, the fire/accidental explosion hypothesis should not be ruled out while investigators continue to collect and analyze data.

Content from External Source

They say they don't rule out fire, and yet they just did.

 

[izz]

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

Many firefighters are feared dead after a landmark high-rise building in Iran's capital, Tehran, caught fire and collapsed, state media report.

Two hundred had battled the blaze in the 17-storey Plasco building for several hours before it fell to the ground in a matter of seconds.

More than 200 people were also reportedly injured in the incident.

Completed in 1962, the building was once Tehran's tallest and contained a shopping centre and clothing workshops.

The fire reportedly began around 08:00 (04:30 GMT) on Thursday, at a time when many of the shopkeepers were not inside.

Initial photos showed flames and smoke pouring out of the top floors.

Ten fire stations responded to the blaze and state television reported that dozens of firefighters were inside the building when the north wall collapsed, swiftly bringing down the whole structure.

"It was like a horror movie," a local grocery shop owner, who was forced to evacuate the area by police, told the Reuters news agency. "The building collapsed in front of me."

Content from External Source

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


See also:

• :AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job

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.

 

[Rory]

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.

 

[Mick West]

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]

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

Commercial high explosives almost always require a sudden shock (such as a blasting cap) to start the explosion. They are made this way because far too many people were killed in accidental explosions when they were using the earlier sensitive explosives. Commercial high explosives will detonate (explode) between 3,300 feet per second and 30,000 feet per second.

Content from External Source

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

 

[Trailblazer]

Post screenshots of the first five charges you see.

I assume these are the "charges" that @izz is referring to?




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



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:


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:

 

[Oystein]

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.