February 23, 2017
By Craig McKee
The similarities to what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11 are undeniable.
At about 11:20 a.m. local time on Jan. 19, 2017, the 15-story Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran (17 stories if you include two floors underground), fell into a pile of rubble after being on fire for about three hours. Twenty-six died, including 16 firefighters, while 500 businesses lost much or all of their property and 3,000 employees were directly affected. (As is pointed out by an alert reader in the comments below, the date, Jan. 19, is the reverse of 911. I think it is very unlikely that this is a coincidence.)
There were reports of explosions in the building after firefighters believed they had extinguished the fire. These explosions can be clearly seen in videos. The scene looked similar—although not identical—to aspects of the destruction of the three WTC towers on 9/11. And according to a new report called “The Plasco Building Collapse in Tehran: A Preliminary Assessment,” just released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the cause of this building destruction may very well be the same as with the WTC towers—controlled demolition.
One especially intriguing fact included in the Feb. 20 report is that—as with all three WTC towers—molten metal was found in the rubble of the Tehran building. This raises the possibility that thermite might have been used, as AE911Truth contends was the case on 9/11.
“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.” (AE911Truth’s” Plasco Building Collapse” report, p.13)
The report goes on to explain that fire can’t account for the presence of molten metal:
“At this time, there appears to be no plausible fire-related scenario where large amounts of molten metal found in the debris could have been created during or after the incident.” (p.15)
Within a day of the Iran event, AE911Truth had issued a statement urging the Iranian authorities not to rush to judgment on what caused the “collapse.” With the new report, the organization makes it clear that controlled demolition is most likely to have caused the collapse.
“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.” (p.2)
So, to be clear, the report is not stating that this was definitely a controlled demolition, but it is stating that this possible cause should be considered by investigators as the most likely hypothesis. And if explosives were used, this from the report might naturally follow:
“Under such a scenario, the fires that started at around 8:00 AM would have been set intentionally to create the false appearance that the building came down as a result of those fires.”
The report recommends that investigators in Iran follow the National Fire Prevention Association’s Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (called NFPA 921), which is the national guide for fire and explosion investigations in the United States. Further it recommends that interviews be conducted of those who had access to the building before the event.
“NFPA 921 advises that an early task in the initial assessment of a fire or explosion incident is to determine whether the incident was a fire, an explosion, or both. Based on eyewitness accounts, as well as subsequent public discourse in Iran concerning the cause of reported explosions, we have determined it was a fire and explosion incident.” (p.8)
Kamani also described larger explosions closer to the building’s destruction: “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.”
Fire Department spokesman Jalal Maleki said, “Everything was under control, then all of a sudden, and unexpectedly, two or three explosions took place in the upper floors at intervals of two or three minutes.”
Maleki also states that the first major explosion caused the “massive destruction” of the building’s windows.
The AE911Truth report notes that any hypothesis that seeks to explain the building’s destruction must explain these explosions, which were felt by firefighters both inside and outside the building.
“Within one to two seconds after the final large, audible explosion event that emanated from the south face around the 11th floor, other apparent explosions began to emanate from various parts of the building as it underwent total collapse.
“Video taken from the southeast (Figure 7) shows two energetic plumes rapidly emanating from the south and east faces approximately two seconds before the roof began to cave in along the south face. Then, just as the roof began to cave in, we see two series of expulsions run down the eastern side of the south face and down the middle of the east face, roughly below where the first energetic plumes occurred.” (p.11)
Iran’s Interior Minister, Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, has been quoted as saying the fire started as the result of an “electric shortcircuit” although an expert commission has been formed to investigate the complete destruction of the building. AE911Truth’s report praises the make-up of the commission which includes “seven apparently-renowned engineers, a political scientist, a lawyer/political scientist, and an insurance expert.”
Finally, the report also calls on investigators not to reach conclusions until the facts are in.
“As we noted in our January 20 statement, it is often much more difficult to ascertain the truth of an event after an explanation for that event has been prematurely formed. We therefore urge the commission and the people of Iran to be fearless and vigilant in their search for the truth about this national tragedy that took the lives of 26 individuals.” (p.16)
Another criminal or terrorist controlled demolition? Why not? It does not seem nearly as worthy of attention as the 9/11 controlled demolitions, though:
* It seems to trigger no major and disproportionate response; by contrast, the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition served as a pretext for a major worldwide boost for war, fear, repression, poverty.
* It is much less obvious than the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition, not to mention Building 7’s, and therefore even less teachable.
Incidentally, assuming the Plasco Building’s destruction is indeed a criminal controlled demolition, its authors may have learned from the 9/11 conspirators’ audacity and taken some precautions to cover themselves:
* They did not build up a worldwide anxiety on TV leading up to the controlled demolition.
* They avoided a horizontal symmetry.
* They avoided a steady and uniform vertical progression.
* They did not dismember large parts of the outside walls.
I am still trying to make sense of this event. Do you suppose that the Iranian gov’t could have staged this event, in order to draw attention to the potential for controlled demolition by thermite. That would be a stroke of geopolitical genius, provided that nobody actually got hurt.
I was thinking the same thing. Try to draw the US, Israel, and/or Saudi Arabia into accusing them of demolishing the building as proof that Iran is a rogue state, only for Iran to throw it back in their face. Doesn’t seem like they took the bait though, which is not that surprising, these people are not dumb.
A psychological operation. many had commented on many high-rise fires that did not result in collapse. (Madrid). so if you are willing to buy the theory that the mullah regime is a limited hangout of the global evil, then this op makes perfect sense as it SUPPORTS the nonsense about steel structures falling into their footprint because of a fire.
Craig McKee said:
“At about 11:20 a.m. local time on Jan. 17, 2017…..”
It was not on 1-17, 2017…..it was on 1-19…..that is the reverse of 9-11.
Whoever did it, the date was intentional as a signal that it resembled the 9-11 event.
Yes, you’re right. I think I was hypnotized by the “7” in 2017. The date does seem very deliberately chosen.
It could be that the owner was tied up by asbestos laws to not demolish the building. Then someone suggested he pull a Silverstein, and he became titillated by the idea. (If he wasn’t already familiar with Silverstein, “pull it,” thermite and 9/11 truth.)
Or, the Iranians (a faction of govt insiders) decided to do this to show the world how obvious it is that the WTC was demolished. We can’t see into the future and for all we know someone may be planning on announcing the ruse.
If US CIA (or whoever) infiltrators into Tehran decided to do this as a way of showing the world that fire CAN collapse a steel building, and as a way of intimidating ae911truth to shut up, pack up shop and concede that NIST was right all along, the plan is backfiring spectacularly.
The builder of the structure in question was an Iranian Jew and various Jewish shell corporations have owned it since.
It was a warning to Iran, which has no nuclear power plants to sabotage unlike many countries under occupation throughout the world. We have already seen what they did with Fukushima, guarded by an “Israeli security company”, and subject to the Israeli stuxnet virus, not to mention the nuke in the Japan trench to provide “cover” and distraction.
Four years ago, in Sweden a fist full of plastic explosives was found on a forklift going into one of Sweden’s reactor cores. We have seen what has happened to Sweden in the years since.
It’s all about fear, terror, and oppression, and not that much to do with reality. They want us to believe that some buildings in NYC “collapsed” due to fiberglass and aluminum planes, yet there were no planes hitting buildings 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, which all completely destroyed that day.
They always use dates and numbers to tip off the chosen ones of “inside job”, false flag etc.
Physics has been removed form high school curriculae, as is any hard science, to say nothing of true history.
Thank you very much for this Craig. I look forward to finding out more about who had something to gain from demolishing this building. The debunkers are already out in full force trying desperately not to believe what their eyes are telling them. Very hard to await the results patiently.
Interesting to see the responses. Did you ever hear someone who knows nothing about music make a declaration it is possible to write a music score identical to one previously made due to the fact there are only seven notes to make all music. The notes are from A to G.
But if you ask a musician, who is an expert like Adam Syed, who will tell you it is impossible to have the identical notes with all the moods to be identical music. There are so many aspects to music with flats and sharps, rhythm and all the other peculiarities to music that it is impossible to have a duplication.
Then there are people who buy a book, on whatever subject, or have one given to them and leaf through it and maybe read one chapter and then claim they know all about it. Most every home has a bible yet the vast majority have no idea what is in it, and rely on others to explain what is inside of the book. There isn’t a place in the Bible that says the reward is heaven or that there is a place of torment for eternity but people believe that concept and suppose this concept is in the Bible..
Then there is the “truthers” of 9/11, and the vast majority don’t believe the Government explanation on how the SEVEN Buildings of the WTC complex were destroyed. Anyone investigating the subject will soon come to the conclusion it was a purposeful destruction by perpetrators with enormous power and control to do it.
So who would you ask regarding how “the WTC complex” was destroyed and the building in the picture above?
The opening statement of…. “The similarities to what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11 are undeniable.”…. is made by Craig, who is not an expert on the subject of destroying buildings. The little bit I learned so far is this is not identical. Like the musical expert will say “not even close”.
Who of all the AE9/11 took a course on how to destroy buildings with explosives with a combination of thermite and explosive charges?????? Who of all the “truthers” with all of their different perspectives, studied on how to destroy steel frame buildings and dropping them in their footprint?????
What science is there available in the Universities, that can explain the details on what we are looking at? Wouldn’t it be wise to ask someone who is trained and studied this subject with a hands on expertise? Two experts in demolition as a trade said the WTC complex was not destroyed by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
Of all the people in this Forum, who would you ask on what notes would be used to play the “blues”? We have an expert who plays the violin among us who could tell us right away. Is he an expert in demolition?
The only similarity between Building 7 and the Plasco Building is there was smoke, fire, dust and destruction for sure. One collapsed the other didn’t. Two experts say Building 7 wasn’t a controlled demolition but 2500 Architects and Engineers say it was, who is right?
Straw man. There are more than 2 experts in CD that promote the “truther” explanation. Also, there are aspects of the event (e.g., the evidence of molten metal and the high temperature corrosion of steel components) that have nothing to do with conventional CD and thus require the insight of other types of scientists.
I do not expect a substantial response. These types of comments are usually drive-bys. Most people still discussing 9/11 are either truthers or paid trolls/bots; which are you?
Enough Al Reddy:I’m a truther and I’m not stuck in a rut.. One of the two experts is Mark Loizeaux. He is at the top of the list for experts. Most every truther just disregards what he says about 9/11 just so they can be with the biggest group that say it was “Controlled Demolition”.
As for the “high temperature corrosion” where did the high temperature come from? What caused the corrosion? Like you say it requires experts in their field to say what it is,,,,, BUT….. the truthers wont listen because they are stuck with “Controlled Demolition”. The fourteen people that survived in Stairwell B said there wasn’t any heat or kinetic energy, yet the truthers will scream and turn inside out to say everything was blowing up.Interestingly there was nothing above them because for a moment they saw sun light before the dust covered it. Where the hell was the 110 stories that was above them??????
We are not supposed to ask these questions because we are truthers.
As for the molten metal, what exactly do you think caused that and where was it located? What kind of metal was it? The reason why i ask is there was a lot of aluminum surrounding the buildings and there was lead batteries on the service floors as back up power. Lead melts at a lower temperature than steel and iron and so does aluminum. Did anyone take a sample to explain what it is? Most everybody knows perception is not always reality but the truthers know it is Controlled Demolition.
Of all the truthers including Craig, who is an expert concerning explosives or thermite?
Just to keep it straight…. there were no Arabs on the passenger list. There was no plane hitting any building that day. And there was no CONTROL DEMOLITION in the WTC complex. I believe Cheney and Rumsfeld were the lead characters in this false flag and Bush was kept out of the way because he couldn’t find his ass with both hands.
The day before Rumsfeld told the world there was 2.3 trillion dollars missing, and some of the truthers know that Building #7 housed all the information concerning Enron that was due in court with over 2300 cases. Same thing at the Pentegon the part that was destroyed was where the accountants were working to find where all the money went.
Dan Rather was there at the Pentagon and said there wasn’t any plane.
So now what?
Roger, I feel that you have been given a more than generous opportunity to make your case that we don’t have proof of controlled demolition. I think that the only thing you’ve demonstrated is that you don’t know. To most in the Truth Movement it is obvious that some kind of explosive was used to bring the towers down. You are entitled to your opinion. But in any case I am not interested in going around in this circle any longer. You’ve made your point and that is where I want to leave it. You can talk about other elements of 9/11 but please, no more about controlled demolition.
I just have to say that this is possibly the nicest “enough already” message from a site’s owner that I have ever seen…
Not sure if that’s good or not. For whatever reason, I’m much more aggressive on Facebook.
Sorry if it was not clear. I meant that as a compliment for your level-headed and courteous, yet very clear reply to RGloux.
I appreciate it.
Funny that the first person who commented after my “enough already” comment is called Enuf Al Reddy… :-}]
Glad you noticed the homophobe. Just another one of those darned coincidences… 😉
Either autocorrect or a fat thumb. Should be homophone.
David Hazan (@Lilaleo): I agree with you, Craig was very diplomatic in muzzling me. He did so in other threads and refused to allow certain things that are not supposed to be mentioned.
Roger, I did not muzzle you. If I wanted to muzzle you I would have done it the first time you commented on the topic. It is very disingenuous of you to claim that I am not allowing you to make your point about controlled demolition. In fact, there are 259 comments on Truth and Shadows that are either from you (the vast majority) or that mention you by name in responding to you. I have allowed you great leeway to express your view even though you really have nothing other than “doubt” to offer us. This is my blog and I am not obligated to let anyone go on forever on a single topic. You are free to start your own blog or to comment elsewhere. You can continue to comment here, but I have given you enough of a platform on this one topic. If you haven’t made your point fully yet, that is on you.
Craig McKee: If anyone else can say anything they want concerning Controlled Demolition but I am not, I would tend to think that is called “muzzled”.
You keep saying….”….you really have nothing other than “doubt” to offer us”.
What????? You mean all those posts and all those pictures that say it wasn’t Controlled Demolition is causing doubt????
You will note that I removed most of your comment above because you continued to repeat your claims against controlled demolition, which I asked you to stop doing here. The reason – again – is that you’ve made your point over and over and over. I’m not obligated to give you a platform to continue doing so forever.
Craig McKee: Well part of a post is better then nothing. Your right, I have said it over and over again that it wasn’t, in contrast you say it over and over again it was. Mind you in the write up above you said….. “The scene looked similar—although not identical—to aspects of the destruction of the three WTC towers on 9/11. ”
I agree, but only up to a point and focusing on “although not identical”. They both were destroyed. Also, there were seven buildings destroyed in the same manner but only three were sky scrapers. the other four just disappeared. Building #6 was cored out with parts of the offices left hanging on to the outside walls. The rest of the interior just disappeared right down to the main floor. like you said…. “not identical”.
I wonder how they accomplished that feat?
Your right, you don’t have to give me a platform but you did leave it open to the public to say their piece, not to just agree with your perception of things.
And you have said your piece. I would point out that more than 24,000 comments have been posted at Truth and Shadows. Many of them I agree with, many of them I don’t. It is clear that I do not just approve comments that agree with my “perception of things.” The comment section is for people to have their say on the articles posted and related topics. You have had your say on controlled demolition.
This might really be none of my business. I just made a comment in passing, in appreciation of Craig’s usage of soft, velvet gloves, in direct contrast to the knee-jerk, sometimes sinister and very real muzzling that most sites engage in.
I see and read your comments on a daily basis…They do not look like you have been muzzled to me. What is it that you are not allowed to mention? (just the topic please, not the argument itself 🙂
David Hazan (@Lilaleo): I’m not to say anything about controlled demolition. anything else goes.
Roger is not allowed to talk about controlled demolition and not all of his posts are entered.
Just as in the case of 9-11-01, the necessities are clear; ask and answer the question, “Qui bono?” — Who benefits? Follow the money, the social ripples, the political beneficiaries. I suspect that there is no one here with either the access or the expertise to do the follow-up in a useful way; certainly I do not. It is enough for us to note the obvious similarities to the demolitions in New York as A&E911T has done and infer, reasonably but not certainly, that a message of some kind has been sent by somebody to somebody else, with zero concern for property or human life.
It is the proper role of the authorities in-country to unravel this knot. Should they fail to do so, or do so only unconvincingly, that, too, will send a message. Whether that message, if sent, will have anything to do with us must remain to be seen. Meanwhile, I respectfully suggest we already have plenty on our own plates right here in the good ol’ USA.
Geezer 1984 imagination is running wild with all the possible reasons. The Plasco Building went bad because it was poorly set up, much the same way as buildings didn’t fall over in the USA in the precise manner it was supposed to go……
Craig notes that “an expert commission has been formed to investigate the complete destruction of the building. AE911Truth’s report praises the make-up of the commission which includes “seven apparently-renowned engineers, a political scientist, a lawyer/political scientist, and an insurance expert.”“.
I wonder if AE911Truth will accept the commission’s findings even they determine that it was an accidental collapse with fire being the ultimate cause?
What about the other commenters here?
Will you accept the findings, no matter what they are – or what are your criteria to decide whether or not to accept them?
“Will you accept the findings, no matter what they are..”
Hey, that’s your job!
What are your criteria to decide whether or not to accept them?
Well, it would be nice to see a crappy, closed source simulation looks nothing like the actual “collapse”. Have you timed it yet?
A worldwide media campaign of BS wouldn’t hurt either I suppose. Equating dissenters from the official position with terrorists would certainly help me formulate the correct opinion.
Of course, I don’t expect the Iranian government to do that.
I did find it interesting that their “intelligence” spokesperson seemed to rule out terrorism so quickly after the “collapse”.
It did look a bit of a dump though … supposedly they had fuel containers in there? Apparently it was built by an Israeli spy. Small world!
remember that the question was:
“What are your criteria to decide whether or not to accept them?”
Now your answers…
“Well, it would be nice to see a crappy, closed source simulation [that] looks nothing like the actual “collapse”. Have you timed it yet?”
This is not an actionable criterion, and vague. Are you saying that you require an animated simulation of the full progressive collapse sequence, or not?
Will you reject the investigation results when there is no such animated simulation?
If there is an animated simulation, you seem to be insinuateing that you expect it to match the real world event more closely – but how close, can you define that in any way? Given that the exact fuel load wasn’t known, the exact fire progression wasn’t known, and the exact state of the building before the fire wasn’t know, would you accept some deviation from the video record?
Have you talked to a competent forensic engineer with experience in such simulation how closely such a simulation can be expected to match reality?
“A worldwide media campaign of BS wouldn’t hurt either I suppose. Equating dissenters from the official position with terrorists would certainly help me formulate the correct opinion.”
I am sorry I don’t quite understand what your criterion is, especially since it involves the loaded term “bullshit”. By what criteria do you decide what is, or isn’t, “bullshit”?
“Of course, I don’t expect the Iranian government to do that.”
Huh? Is that a criterion? A good or a bad one?
“I did find it interesting that their “intelligence” spokesperson seemed to rule out terrorism so quickly after the “collapse”.”
Is that a pre-emptive excuse to reject the findings of a commission that AE911Truth, according to Craig, “praises”?
“It did look a bit of a dump though … supposedly they had fuel containers in there?”
The Plasco building looked like a dump? Perhaps, I don’t know. I can’t actually see that, but it has been described in such terms. Yes, I read that supposedly some tenants had gas containers in there. Not entirely unusual I think. What’s the point?
“Apparently it was built by an Israeli spy. Small world!”
Habib Elghanian was executed “by an Islamic revolutionary tribunal and sentenced to death” on charges that inculded having business ties with Israel and the Israeli military forces.
So what? This is not a criterion to accept or reject the findings of the Iranian expert commission . Instead, it sounds like a pre-emptive excuse to not accept the findings of a commission that AE911Truth “praises”.
What is actually your criterion here?
“Israeli spy. Small world!”
I do not understand what this exclamation is supposed to convey to me. Frankly, it smacks of very old-fashioned anti-semitism. Please elaborate!
I’m sorry, I meant a crappy, closed source simulation THAT looks nothing like the actual “collapse”.
“I wonder if AE911Truth will accept the commission’s findings even they determine that it was an accidental collapse with fire being the ultimate cause?”
I doubt that.
“What are your criteria to decide whether or not to accept them?”
That’s simple. emaraite…..The laws of nature are the criteria by which we accept hypotheses or theories with regard to the causes of destruction of buildings.
At no time in the history of the world has an office fire produced molten steel or iron.
You can burn a steel building for weeks, and you will NEVER melt steel.
“Will you accept the findings, no matter what they are?”
Only a brainless sheep or lemming would be foolish enough to do that.
“(I wonder if AE911Truth will accept the commission’s findings even they determine that it was an accidental collapse with fire being the ultimate cause?)
I doubt that.”
With the information implied by the question, the only criterion you could possibly justify your reply with is that you believe that AE911Truth is already decided to reject a conclusion of “fire did it” no matter how well they support that conclusion with evidence.
“(What are your criteria to decide whether or not to accept them?)
That’s simple. emaraite…..The laws of nature are the criteria by which we accept hypotheses or theories with regard to the causes of destruction of buildings.”
So you WILL accept a finding of “fire did it” if the Iranian expert commission employes laws of nature correctly?
“At no time in the history of the world has an office fire produced molten steel or iron.”
The Iranian expert commission might (and I predict: will) find that there wasn’t actually any molten=liquid steel or iron. Would that then satisfy your criterion such that you accept a finding of “fire did it”?
“(Will you accept the findings, no matter what they are?)
Only a brainless sheep or lemming would be foolish enough to do that.”
If the Iranian expert commission finds that the Plasco was brought down by exotic incendiaries and explosives by evil, western, Zionist forces, will you accept that finding?
Can’t speak for anyone else here, of course, but my own criteria for acceptance of an Iranian report are the same as for any such report:
1. Analysis must be clear, objective and free of the sort of “flim-flam physics” found in, for instance, the NIST report on the destruction of WTC-7.
2. Analysis must comprise and account for ALL the observations in a methodical, scientifically coherent manner. This would include, of course, the eye-and-ear-witness accounts of observers present, as well as the photographic evidence of such items as the high-speed ejections of debris and the apparent rapid sequential failure of structural elements of the building in a manner previously only seen in controlled-demolition.
3. Analysis must model the actual collapse itself, not merely the situation allegedly existing when, “the collapse became inevitable.” This model must be based on the actual as-built features of the structure, not “simplified,” “edited,” or allegedly “mechanically equivalent” hypotheticals.
4. Observations supporting the analysis must include a detailed examination of the failed structural elements themselves, including applicable metallurgical studies, material distortion studies, in-situ photographs of collapsed members, etc. etc. No “guesses” or “best estimates” allowed where hard physical evidence is available.
5. Finally, the analysis must pass a careful, competent, independent peer review.
In short, I’ll accept the results of the sort of investigation we here in the U.S. should have gotten, but did not get, after the attacks of 9-11-01.
I appreciate your reply.
“No “guesses” or “best estimates” allowed where hard physical evidence is available.”
Would you agree that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, to have “hard physical evidence” available for all “failed structural elements themselves”, let alone all “actual as-built features of the structure”? In other words that some “simplified,” “edited,” or allegedly “mechanically equivalent” hypotheticals are inevitable in such an investigation?
AE911Truth has made a number of claims about the WTC events over the years that have not passed “a careful, competent, independent peer review”, nor have taken into account ALL observations, nor have investigated in situ all the elements they use for their arguments.
Do you accept AE911Truth’s claims, by and large, or do you reject them?
AE911Truth’s “Preliminary Assessment” – the subject of this blog post, contains some “flim-flam physics”. I am specifically thinking about this paragraph on page 13:
I have seen these calculations. They rest on assumptions that are major bullshit – flim-flam physics at its worst. For example, Tony Szamboti (the co-author responsible for those calculations) assumes that molten iron (created by a thermite reaction, we are manipulated to assume) would start out at a whopping 4500 °F – which would imply that it hasn’t done any work at all (such as heating, melting, cutting) on the structure. He assumes that such molten iron created before the collapse would have a chance to assemble in pools of 200 pounds or more without mixing with any other, cool materials. He assumes that such large pockets of pristine molten, super-hot iron would puddle in shapes like a cube, with a low surface:volume ratio (minimizing heat loss). He assumes that such puddles would transfer heat only to the material above it, not sideways and not downward. He assumes that the insulationg layer of powdered gypsum and concrete either has a heat capacity value of zero (this is flat-out false) or is preheated to the same 4500 °F (this is plain crazy). He assumes that the debris pile outside a thin insulation layer is already heated to 932 °C immediately after the collapse, apparently on account of the office fires. All these assumptions are bizarrely implausible – flim-flam physics.
Do you trust in the work of AE911Truth?
had a chance to assemble unmixed
“AE911Truth has made a number of claims about the WTC events over the years that have not passed ‘a careful, competent, independent peer review'”. Do you have examples of such claims? Please provide such examples, and the criteria by which these claims were determined to have failed such reviews.
I am not saying the AE911T claims “failed” any peer reviews that were done – I am saying there were no such peer reviews.
Examples – all from http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html -:
1. The claim that “Rapid onset of destruction” is evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
2. The claim that the WTC7 north wall descended at “constant acceleration”
3. The claim that this is evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
4. The claim that “Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions” are evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
5. The claim that there was “Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph”
6. The implied claim that such ejections were (or even just could possibly be) caused by explosives
7. The claim that there was “Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete”
8. The claim that this is evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
9. The claim that “large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds” are evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
10. The claim that “Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the crush zone” are evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
11. The claim that “Total destruction and dismemberment” is evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
12. The claim that “220 floors each an acre in size [are] missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile”
13. The claim that “Several tons of molten steel/iron [were] found in the debris piles”
14. The claim that this is evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
15. The claim that there is “Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams”
16. The claim that this is evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
17. The claim that “iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples” are evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
18. The claim that “Nanothermite composites … found in WTC dust samples” are evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse
This is at least 18 separate claims, none tested by independent peer review, all most likely FALSE.
The only claim in the list that has been published and peer-reviewed – sort of – is this:
“Nanothermite composites found in WTC dust samples.”
This, however, is a hoax.
As you may know, the journal that published this, was an obscure, corrupt pay-to-publish outlet with an academic impact of exactly ZERO. As you probably know, “peer review” was not done by an expert in forensic analysis, but by a Truther peer of Steven Jones – David Griscom, who had a bit earlier published in Jones’ own bogus “Journal of 9/11 Studies”. The journal’s editor in chief, responsible for the peer-review process, resigned over the publication of this paper because the peer-review had been improper.
The Harrit/Jones “nanothermite” paper is, as I said, an elaborate hoax. The data is genuine, though cherry-picked, but the paper’s conclusions do not actually follow from the data. It has been shown since that the red-gray chipped are most likely primer paint on spalled, oxydized steel.
Since you appear to be an active and responsive denier, here’s a challenge for you:
Explain how firefighter bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsch bank building (see map at 4 minute mark of this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hk8eJv6-bnE) without the use of explosives.
I eagerly await your response.
I don’t see the relevance of this question. Can you please elaborate? Do you perhaps have an explanation for the same? What would it be? And – how would you know?
Am I correct to guess that you are thinking “explosives did this”? You have a problem – there were no large explosions when the towers came down. You see, if there had been small, efficient explosive charges, they would have been attached directly to key structural steel elements and release most of their energy on said steel (and steel be AWESOMELY loud and clearly recorded on many videos). The firefighters however certainly did not attach themselves to such charges – so why on earth would such charges rip their bodies and fling the bone chips far? If on the other hand you imagine huge explosions ripping through the entire floor area – well, the evidence tell you clearly that this is not possible! How many charges would you assume? How large? Have you done the math? Where are the shockwaves buzzing visibly through the dust? Why aren’t absolutely all windows within half a mile at least shattered? Why did no one sustain barotrauma? -> Because there were no supersonic, steel-breaking explosions!
I am quite comfortable stating that I simply do not know how firefighter bone fragments got on that roof (accepting for the moment the claim that these fragments include remains of firefighters). I would guess, again comfortably, that the equivalent of 125 tons of TNT that the gravitational collapses of either twin tower released would be far more than enough to cause air turbulences that carry small bits of debris, including bone chips, up the roofs of many buildings in the vicinity. You saw those dust clouds rolling through the streets of downtown Manhattan, didn’t you? Why would human fragments behave different from building fragments?
I note with great interest that you did not defend any of the 18 untested and very likely FALSE claims by AE911Truth that listed, nor the nanothermite hoax.
Sorry for the delayed response.
The relevance is EVERYTHING was blown to smithereens (other than modestly sized structural steel segments and cladding). WHY?
And you can keep going on about needed supersonic high explosives to dismember steel all you want, but that is NOT TRUE. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Now, as for Harrit, Jones, et al vs. the Millette analysis, I’m inclined to think that there probably are some (possibly major) flaws in the work supposedly identifying nano-thermite in the dust. Specifically, the proposed quantities based on the concentration on the red-gray chips does seem outlandish. Also, the mass concentrations of Fe and Al are fairly low, so the energy release from the thermitic reaction would be likewise fairly low. So is the Harritt paper a limited hangout/poisoning the well? Maybe.
However, that does not mean that the buildings were not destroyed by some advanced incendiary device/material. The presence of the iron microspheres, which has been confirmed by many analysts and has become a signature of WTC dust as confirmation it is from that site, indicates that a unique high temperature process was occurring at the WTC otherwise the dust from EVERY FIRE would contain iron microspheres. If this were the case, then the presence of the microspheres COULD NOT be used as a confirmatory signature.
Furthermore, can you explain why the free-falling outer cladding is continuously smoking as it descends? In my opinion, it cannot be pulverized concrete as why would there be so much pulverized concrete being generated from a segment only experiencing the force of air resistance? It is also highly unlikely this amount of pulverized concrete would be entrained as it fell hundreds to thousands of feet; sure, maybe some material would be emitted when the cladding was first ejected, but the rate of particulate emission does not noticeably diminish throughout the descent.
Finally, who are these guys and what were they doing for MONTHS/YEARS prior to 9/11?
Thanks in advance for your reply and Good Luck!
You switched the goal-posts in your initial response. AE911T does not constitute a body that can perform an “independent review” of their own conclusions. Given the relationship of the phenomenon to geopolitical entities, it stands to reason that such a review did not take place regarding the 9/11 collapses. Are you asserting that AE911T should not assert their own conclusions because the aforementioned peer review did not take place?
Your claims regarding the nanothermite theories are not accurate. You used an ad hominem to attack the journal and Jones and Griscom. Your statement that the red-gray chips were demonstrated to have most likely come from priemr paint on spalled, oxydized steel is not accurate either.
“such a review did not take place regarding the 9/11 collapses”
I am glad you agree AE911Truth’s claims have not been vetted and found holding water by independent scientists.
“Given the relationship of the phenomenon to geopolitical entities, it stands to reason…”
I disagree that this has anything to do with “reason”. At best, it stands to be taken on pure, almost religious faith, that AE911Truth cannot seek such peer review for political reasons.
“Are you asserting that AE911T should not assert their own conclusions because the aforementioned peer review did not take place?”
I assert that AE911T should not assert their own conclusions because they are FALSE.
I further assert that an independent peer review of AE911T’s claims and conclusions has not taken place, and I am glad you agree that this is true.
“Your claims regarding the nanothermite theories are not accurate. … Your statement that the red-gray chips were demonstrated to have most likely come from priemr paint on spalled, oxydized steel is not accurate either.”
You are mistaken: My claims are correct.
In early 2012, Dr. James Millette, a highly qualified and eminently experienced forensic analyst who ran a prestigeous forensic lab until his retirement, released a report on his analysis of red-gray chips from the WTC identical to those Harrit et al – a team entirely unexperienced, and mostly unqualified in the field of forensic analysis – and found that they contain no elemental Al, thus no thermite. Instead, all ingredients of the red layer are consistent with primer paint – an organic binder of epoxide with pigments of red iron oxide and kaolin clay. The gray layer is consistent with structural steel (oxidized).
AE911Truth, in a newsletter shortly after, announced they would publish a refutation of Millette’s findings in their next newsletter – but they never did.
“You used an ad hominem to attack the journal…”
Since a journal is not a human (Latin: homo), it is not possible to do an ad hominem attack on a journal.
All my claims against this journal are demonstrably true.
“… and Jones and Griscom. ”
I claimed that David Griscom is not an “expert in forensic analysis, but … a Truther peer of Steven Jones, who had a bit earlier published in Jones’ own … “Journal of 9/11 Studies” – these are two facts that are demonstrably true and relevant to our current debate topic, and thus not ad hominems.
I further claimed that the Harrit/Jones “nanothermite” paper is “bogus” – this not an ad hominem, as a paper is not a human.
I further implied that “Jones’ own … Journal of 9/11 Studies” is “bogus”. It is, as the editors as well as their choice of publications are not centered around a recognized actual branch of science, but instead a weird political religion far out on the fringe of society. It is essentially a propaganda website. That’s why I call it “bogus” – my opinion, but not an ad hominem.
Learn your Latin before you use it.
AE911T’s claims have been neither vetted, nor refuted by independent scientists. Again, you moved the goalposts as I stated previously. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the likelihood of independent peer reiview taking place. I don’t share it. Challenging the official accounts of the 9/11 events consitutes an allegation of malfeasance by powerful elements of the US state apparatus. The nature of the relationship of academia to corporate and state power is such that an undertaking like investigating the conclusions of AE911T is highly unlikely to occur.
Your statement that AE911T’s conclusions are false is not adequately supported by evidence, regardless of how many times you resort to using capital letters incorrectly.
The ad hominem logical fallacy is exactly what you engaged in by assailing the journal, as the journal constitutes the work of the people in question. You attacked the people by attacking the journal, rather than refuting the arguments made by the contributors to the journal, and you threw in the term “truther” presumably out of a lack of confidence in the soundness of your argument. Your skill with language does not match your desire to be in a position to be condescending.
Your statement regarding Millette’s findings and their relationship to AE911T’s findings is not accurate. Aluminum was found on Harrit’s chips.
Seems my last post went into cyber never-never land. Let’s try again
You say: I appreciate your reply.
Thank you; and I yours, though likely for different reasons. You are obviously a skilled, perhaps professionally trained, debater and I find your presence and earnest participation on a thread like this intriguing.
You have asked a number of specific questions which deserve specific responses; let me see what I can do:
You ask: Would you agree that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, to have “hard physical evidence” available for all “failed structural elements themselves”, let alone all “actual as-built features of the structure”? In other words that some “simplified,” “edited,” or allegedly “mechanically equivalent” hypotheticals are inevitable in such an investigation?
I would agree that it is neither possible nor necessary to have hard physical evidence available for all elements and features. It is, however, necessary fully to embrace, so far as practicable, the salient elements and features, whether individually or statistically. By “salient” I mean both relevant and significant, seen in the light of sound engineering/scientific judgment. Examples here might be the specific dimensions of load-bearing beam seats, the presence or absence of floor-slab shear studs, or the presence of web-stiffeners at I-beam joints. Simplifications, editorial “adjustments” or asserted mechanical equivalencies, if resorted to, must be justified and congruent with good engineering practice and must not omit or distort the actual features present in the situation being investigated.
You say: AE911Truth has made a number of claims about the WTC events over the years that have not passed “a careful, competent, independent peer review”, nor have taken into account ALL observations, nor have investigated in situ all the elements they use for their arguments.
Agreed. However, it must be pointed out that, at least to the best of my knowledge, neither have any of the claims of the government. Moreover, even the possibility of “in situ” investigations was precluded by the immediate (and illegal) destruction and removal of critical crime-scene evidence, not only at the New York “ground zero” site, but also at the Pentagon. Given the gravity and overall significance of these events, I find these realities both startling and deeply suspicious. I wonder why you seemingly do not, given your readily apparent critical thinking skills.
You ask: Do you accept AE911Truth’s claims, by and large, or do you reject them?
I am willing provisionally to accept any claim that is adequately supported by objective evidence. In the case of A&E911T’s claims (as you have enumerated them in your March 12th comment below) it is certainly possible to quibble with such details as that “multi-ton steel framing members” were “ejected 600 feet.” The most impressive, clearly multi-ton, ejection I’ve seen was actually a spandrel-connected chunk of exterior wall (no, not cladding) embedded in several upper stories of a neighboring building at a distance I’ve not seen measured. The lateral component of velocity of impact of that chunk was sufficient to cause it to penetrate some distance into the structure. Behavior of that kind requires an explanation the government has not seen fit to provide. But such quibbles do not, in my view, invalidate the overall thrust of A&E911T’s argument, which appears to be buttressed by a good deal of photographic and other evidence.
You quote, correctly, from a paragraph found on page 13 of A&E911T’s Plasco preliminary report and claim to have seen calculations by Tony Szamboti together, I gather, with Mr. Szamboti’s underlying assumptions. Given that the paragraph in question was not footnoted nor, so far as I can determine, otherwise referenced in that paper, I’m curious where you found the calculations and supporting assumptions.
That aside, your comments here strike me as something of a straw-man. This paper is clearly labeled as a “preliminary assessment” and as such is little more than an amped-up “back of the envelope”- level problem-scoping document.
But, OK, can it fairly be described as “major bullshit?” Let’s see.
You assert that one of Mr. Szamboti’s assumptions is that the (possible) molten iron would “start out at a whopping 4500 °F.” Given the assumption of an aluminum-iron oxide reaction (other chemistries are possible), the resultant nascent iron is initially, or “starts out” at approximately that temperature, whopping or not. And of course at that point it has indeed done no work. You of course are quite correct that some cooling will be involved in interactions with neighboring material, such as the steel the thermitic reaction was presumably intended to destroy.
So far, no bullshit.
Now, you claim, “He assumes that such molten iron created before the collapse would have a chance to assemble in pools of 200 pounds or more without mixing with any other, cool materials.” If “such” means at the temperature of the nascent iron, then I’d certainly agree that the assumption, if made, is unreasonable, even as a back-of-the-envelope estimate. On the other hand, iron can and does flow at temperatures quite a bit below 4500 °F, so it could certainly pool in the presence of a suitable substrate (floor) configuration.
Bullshit level indeterminate.
You claim further that, “He assumes that such large pockets of pristine molten, super-hot iron would puddle in shapes like a cube, with a low surface:volume ratio (minimizing heat loss).”
Shapes like a cube — well, yah, that does seem at first blush like an unreasonable assumption. But then I got to thinking about the situation, and it occurred to me that at two stories below grade or, let’s say twenty to twenty-five feet, we might be at or close to the phreatic surface (the so-called water table) and might therefore need, or be required by local code to have, one or more sumps for collection of water seepage. Such structures, if they exist, are likely to be cubical or cylindrical, at least several cubic feet in volume, and located at engineered low points in a poured concrete slab.
Bullshit level moderate at worst.
Then, you claim that, “He assumes that such puddles would transfer heat only to the material above it, not sideways and not downward.” This is less unreasonable than it might at first appear; many dry soils are extremely poor thermal conductors — remember that the liners of steel crucibles are basically just high-fired special analysis clay. To a first approximation, it’s probably reasonable to omit these terms.
Bullshit level probably minor.
Proceeding, you claim that, “He assumes that the insulationg layer of powdered gypsum and concrete either has a heat capacity value of zero (this is flat-out false) or is preheated to the same 4500 °F … He assumes that the debris pile outside a thin insulation layer is already heated to 932 °C.” If, in fact, these are his assumptions, and not merely your assumption that they are his assumptions, then I would agree that such assumptions would be anywhere from somewhat to extremely unreasonable, depending on the aggregate thermal masses and specific heats involved (it takes more heat to raise the temperature of a big chunk than a small chunk, and the heat transfer will lower the temperature of a little chunk more than a big chunk.) Personally, I’d start with the assumption of a relatively low overlying thermal mass with low thermal conductivity and moderate temperature, given the postulated nature of the overlying material.
Bullshit level moderate to significant depending on details
Bottom line — I disagree with your conclusion that, “All these assumptions are bizarrely implausible …” I think you overstate your case here.
Moreover, we have photographic evidence of apparent molten metal at depth in the debris pile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJeQghFOe9E&feature=youtu.be at approximately 31 – 32 seconds into the clip. You will need to still-frame this carefully to see the apparent running metal clearly. Also see the breakup of an apparently-fused mass of concrete and other materials, beginning at about 1:49 and continuing to about 2:24, and again starting at about 2:27 and continuing to about 2:57. These objects appear to be white-hot. If they were, in fact, white hot, they are at temperatures well above what can be achieved by an ordinary, oxygen-deprived fire.
Should these observations be confirmed by on-site investigation, it constitutes presumptive evidence of the presence of exotic accelerants. See NFPA 921, Sec. 220.127.116.11: “Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete.”
You ask: Do you trust in the work of AE911Truth?
So far as possible, I place my trust in the preponderance of evidence. So far in the increasingly rancorous 9-11 dispute, that preponderance lies overwhelmingly on the side of those calling for a genuine, dispassionate, independent investigation of the events of that ghastly day. “Da fire dun it, stoopid” just won’t cut it in a rational universe, one to which I cling even in a world of “alternative facts.”
Now, I have another question for you: Do you trust in the 911 work of NIST? If so, why?
Skewing slightly off the topic of Tehran there is this story from Japan where an office supplies warehouse “blazed” for six days and yet the building is still standing and very recognizable.
[I think I already replied to this days ago – not sure why it doesn’t display. Anyway, here is the short of what I meant to write:]
Jimmy, no one claims that every building that burns will collapse. Most actually don’t, some do. One anecdotal example of non-collapse doesn’t prove it’s impossible for other fires to bring down other buildings. Examples can’t prove a negative.
Examples can however prove a positive! Your article about a fire in Japan has this interesting bit to say:
“The office supplies blaze at Askul Corp.’s warehouse … explosions caused residents to evacuate. … the three-story building … was being wracked by explosions.”
This is proof positive that office supplies fires can produce sounds of “explosions” significant enough to be reported, even in the absence of any hint that explosIVES were fired – on purpose or otherwise.
This seems to invalidate immediately all claims that reports of explosions are evidence for exploSIVES being fired on purpose or otherwise. It’s actually quite normal to get reports of “explosions” when there are large fires in buildings with ordinary organic combustibles.
Jimmy, no one claims that every building that burns will collapse. Most actually don’t, some do. ~ emirate
You are spreading the bullcrap really thick, aren’t you, emaraite? Which collapses caused by fire are you referring to by “some”.. Can you provide links, info, names, places?????
David, you cannot seriously pretend you don’t know that some buildings collapse from fires?? I’d guess it probably happens every damned day somewhere in the world!
Most of those are only one or two stories – typically, the roof collapses in those cases.
Just last November in my home town – I took the photos a few days later myself:
I was told by the head of the communal construction department (a master of architecture, and one of my best friends), who was responsible for the safety of the site after firefighting was done, that the firefifgters OF COURSE did not go inside once they had determined that the building had been evacuated, because, as every fire fighter and every engineer knows, steel frames are liable to collapse from fire, and when they collapse, they do so suddenly.
This roof didn’t collapse entirely, obviously, but it pulled the walls inward. Had there been a load on the walls – one or several upper stories – they could have collapsed easily:
Here is a building that collapses from fire:
Here is a building that collapses from fire:
Here is a building that collapses from fire:
Well, emaraite, I am sold!!! These buildings in these videos were not even hit by a plane or anything. When you are right, you are so right!!!
Because, come to think of it, I actually know of buildings collapsing without any fire whatsoever. In fact, I once saw a wonderful in-depth documentary about this one wolf that would terrorize these little pigs and could actually huff and puff and blow their buildings in… Admittedly, it was a turn of the century documentary, and the buildings were made out of straw, sticks or bricks, and not steel. It is still pretty weird that the hundred year old brick NYC building collapses like that. Because the wolf in the documentary could not blow in brick houses. Maybe there were two wolves there?
The collapse of that Russian building in the first video is also very peculiar and definitely an amazing point in your column… Because Russian architects and engineers are really well known for their rock solid construction quality with their public housing projects, especially from their communist era. So much so that I am beginning to wonder if there might have been tens of wolves there, off camera, huffing and puffing at the building on fire.
Hmmmm… After watching these videos, I’m gonna need to reconsider my stance on the subject of the symmetrical collapse of modern day steel structure high rises due to fire. Thanks for opening my eyes.
…..and they lived happily ever after!
You’re welcome, David.
How do you rate the quality of the building of the building of the Department of Architecture at Delft University, one of Europe’s Top 10 technical universities? It wasn’t old, and it collapsed from fire. Despite steel-reinforced concrete being more fire resistant in principle than steel alone.
The Delft building didn’t collapse. Still, that was an excellent attempt at something or other that you made.
let’s hear it from the local experts – Delft University is one the world’s top engineering universities:
“1. Overview: On the morning of May 13, 2008, a fire that started in a coffee vending machine on the 6th floor of the 13-story Faculty of Architecture Building quickly developed into an extreme loading event. … the rapid fire spread severely impacted fire department operations, allowing the fire to burn uncontrolled for seven hours, eventually resulting in the structural collapse of a major portion of the building. The damage was significant enough that the building had to be demolished.”
you are splitting hairs. The building didn’t collapse completely, but it was a major structural collapse. The significant information is that
1. The collapse was caused by fire, and fire alone
2. It started several floors below the roof
3. It progressed straight down…
4. …all the way to the ground
Many Truthers insinuate that 1., 3. and 4. are impossible. They are not – those central claims of AE911Truth are simply, plainly false. That is the lesson to be learned here: Where there were previously 13 floors of solid structure, there was then a rubble pile, and fire did it.
It is due to the specific layout of columns that the south and east vertical compartments weren’t affected. Each building and each fire is different, obviously. It would be foolish to expect the same result every time.
The significant information in the context of 9/11 is that:
1. Not a steel framed high rise.
2. No free fall.
3. No symmetry.
NIST failed to produce a fire based simulation of WTC7 that collapsed symmetrically at free fall because that would be impossible. Do you agree?
“The significant information in the context of 9/11 is that”
No, that information is irrelevant, as it is anecdotal.
You seem to claim that it is, globally, in princple, impossible for any steel framed highrise to collapse from fire – this must be false for obvious reasons: It would imply that it is also impossible to design a steel-framed highrise such that it does collapse from fire.
You seem to claim that no fire-induced collapse can exhibits bits of free fall. To support that global claim you point to anecdotal evidence of three collapses where you think there wasn’t an episode free fall of some subassembly (you have not actually shown this to be true) – but examples can never prove a global claim of impossibility
You seem to claim that no fire-induced collapse can exhibits “symmetry”. To support that global claim you point to anecdotal evidence of three collapses where you think there wasn’t any degree of symmetry of … something (you have not actually shown this to be true) – but examples can never prove a global claim of impossibility. And we haven’t started yet with the invalidity of the “symmetry” argument, which is bogus from the get-go, as no one can even define what “symmetry” even means in context. None of the WTC collapses was perfectly symmetric in any meaningful sense of the word. Intuitively, you feel you can see that WTC7 looks “pretty” symmetric, but of course you can also see that the east core fell before the west core, the north face kink wasn’t symmetrically in the center, the NW corner started to fall later than the NE corner, and the entire facade twisted mightily as it came down. So what is objectively “symmetric” about that collapse? Is there an objective measure of symmetry for building collapses? Please tell me the metrics and the method! Is there an engineering textbook that has a chapter on “collapse symmetry”? When two buildings collapse, how exactly do you determine which collapse was more symmetric than the other?
Think about this hard, and you may find that the “symmetry” argument is bogus.
“NIST failed to produce a fire based simulation of WTC7 that collapsed symmetrically at free fall because that would be impossible. Do you agree?”
Merely for the sake of argument, pretend that I agree. Then so what? No NIST simulation done or undone can change the reality of what happened on 9/11 historically.
It is fully impossible to simulate such a collapse and result in a perfect match with every detail of reality. Why? Because starting conditions cannot practically be known, and with imprecise starting conditions, it is extremely unlikely that the result will, by chance, converge on the real metrics with precision.
You are invoking, implicitly, the “Call to Perfection” fallacy.
emaraite, you said:
“No, that information is irrelevant, as it is anecdotal.”
Steel frames exist or they don’t. Acceleration and symmetry are real and measurable.
“It is fully impossible to simulate such a collapse and result in a perfect match with every detail of reality. ”
True enough, but irrelevant. The point is that while there are many possible outcomes of the simulation depending on the initial conditions, none of these will exhibit symmetrical free fall. Which is why NIST failed to find one, or anything close, even after modifying their initial conditions to favor collapse over accuracy. NIST’s WTC7 simulation does not experience free fall, but free fall is what was observed in reality.
“Steel frames exist or they don’t.”
They do exist. What are you trying to argue?
“Acceleration and symmetry are real and measurable.”
I didn’t deny that acceleration is real or that it can be measured. I claimed that you haven’t in fact measured the acceleration of all subassemblies of the buildings that I showed you to have
ccollapsed accidentally from fires. Furthermore, neither you nor AE911Truth or anyone in the “9/11 TM” has shown that episodes of freefall acceleration of subassemblies are impossible in accidental building collapses.
You claim now that “symmetry” is “measurable”.
I explained to you that the “symmetry” of none of the WTC collapses has, in fact been measured, and challenged you to explain how you would go about measuring such “symmetry”, and to tell me the metrics by which to assess such measured “symmetry”.
Had you thought about this hard and carefully, you might have noticed that the entire “symmetry” argument is bogus, as in fact no method and no metrics exist to measure the symmetry of building collapses.
Furthermore, even if such method and such metrics existed, neither you nor AE911Truth nor anyone in the “9/11 TM” has ever shown that such symmetry cannot arise in accidental collapse.
I have an example collapse for you – this one not caused by fire but, according to the description, by poor workmanship – a failure in one spot progressed to the point where three buildings in a row collapsed in one swoop. Pretty symmetrically, don’t you think?
“The point is that while there are many possible outcomes of the simulation depending on the initial conditions, none of these will exhibit symmetrical free fall. ”
How do you know this? Have you, or has anyone, run all simulations with all plausible initial conditions, and have you, or has anyone, measured the resulting vertical accelerations of all subassembkies at all times? No? I thought so.
Claim made without evidence and argument – claim rejected without further ado.
You speak with complete religious faith on this matter, apparently.
“NIST’s WTC7 simulation does not experience free fall, but free fall is what was observed in reality.”
The claim that the observed freefall acceleration of some sub-assembly during some short episode late into the collapse is somehow relevant, even significant, that claim is bare and not supported by any well-formed argument, much less has any such argument passed independent peer review. This mantra was invented by some 9/11 Truther years ago and has been believed on pure faith by the faithful.
There is no science to it.
By the way, I am not aware that anyone has actually analysed the NIST simulation (the case with initial impact damage) and determined that no subassembly in it experienced an average of about freefall acceleration for one or two seconds. Please link me to this analysis from which you learned that “NIST’s WTC7 simulation does not experience free fall”! Thanks.
emaraite, you said:
“..acceleration of all subassemblies..”
“..freefall acceleration of subassemblies..”
“..vertical accelerations of all subassembkies..”
“..observed freefall acceleration of some sub-assembly..”
“..no subassembly in it..”
Yes, captivescientist, I said these things. What’s your problem with them? Can you explain? “Righty-ho” is not exactly a persuasive argument.
By the way, I also wrote
“an episode [of] free fall”
“episodes of freefall acceleration”
“have you … measured the resulting vertical accelerations … at all times?”
“freefall acceleration … during some short episode late into the collapse”
“an average of about freefall acceleration for one or two seconds”
You did not get the relevance of those phrases did you?
The important points I am trying to make you all aware of, which most truthers ignore or have so far not thought of, are:
1. Not the entire building, but only a part of it, was shown to average g
2. An average acceleration of g occurred only for a short time interval late into the collapse sequence
3. The acceleration of that subassembly during some short time interval merely averaged g, which is merely equivalent to “freefall”. What I am saying is that during that short interval, acceleration wasn’t constant – it varied and was even above g for some sub-interval(s), and below g during other sub-interval(s). In other words, the sub-assembly was not actually in “free fall”, as obviously forces other than gravity acted on it during the interval. Truthers have no explanation for this.
emaraite, you said:
‘Have you, or has anyone, run all simulations with all plausible initial conditions…’
Well! You need only produce one to show it’s at least possible, and yet you fail to do so. Why?
Remember, we’re looking for a steel framed building, ideally like WTC7, in symmetrical free fall.
NIST has some of their input data locked up under ‘National Security’, but what’s available is fraudulent anyway. Maybe you can find open, more accurate data here to get started:
‘… how you would go about measuring such “symmetry”’
There are lots of ways to measure symmetry in 2d and 3d, most of them general and automatic. But to compare your simulation with WTC7, explicitly defining the window positions and outer frame in 2d would be a good start.
Hardly necessary with Delft though, as the collapse wasn’t even complete. And there was no steel frame. Or free fall, that I can see.
‘neither you nor AE911Truth nor anyone in the “9/11 TM” has ever shown that such symmetry cannot arise in accidental collapse.’
If only it were possible for the US or Israel, or you, to provide one example it can.
Looking at what you’ve said here, don’t you find it strange that elsewhere on this page you keep repeating variations of “Examples can’t prove a negative. Examples can however prove a positive!”?
In response to your points:
1. Not the entire building, but only a part of it, was shown to average g
Which part was that?
2. An average acceleration of g occurred only for a short time interval late into the collapse sequence
I assume you are starting the timer with the penthouse.
3. … obviously forces other than gravity acted on it during the interval. Truthers have no explanation for this.
What is your explanation?
I’m probably done here for now.
A major portion of the building does not the buliding make. As universal collapse was not observed, I would argue that the phenomena observed in the Delft fire is not the same observed in the twin towers, nor WTC7.
Your argument would be quite wrong, as the phenomenon to be explained is progressive vertical collapse of a highrise accidentally due to fire.
Call to Perfection Fallacy
Fallacious thinking is the hallmark of the 9/11 Truther. If your thinking wasn’t systematically fallacious, you’d soon stop being a 9/11 Truther.
Those are all really great points, but in no way dissuade me from my conclusion that your equating of the collapses of the WTC buildings with the partial collapse of the Delft building is inaccurate.
you apparantly lost sight again of what the context of this current debate is. It started on March 01 with Jimmy Solomon presenting a news article of an office supplies warehouse that was on fire, but did not collapse (and, interestingly, experienced “explosions” reported, despite there having been no explosive charges planted). Jimmy apparently meant this as anectdotal evidence to support the assertion that buildings simply do not – cannot – collapse from fire alone, accidentally. I responded on March 06, explaining that “One anecdotal example of non-collapse doesn’t prove it’s impossible for other fires to bring down other buildings. Examples can’t prove a negative. Examples can however prove a positive!”
Do you agree with this general principle?
I also wrote in the same post that “no one claims that every building that burns will collapse. Most actually don’t, some do.” David Hazan quoted this and called it “bullcrap”, when he responed: “Which collapses caused by fire are you referring to by “some”.. Can you provide links, info, names, places?????” I did, in fact, provide links, info, names a day later, posting three videos of fire-induced, accidental building collapses. David Hazan could only respond in a childish manner to this.
Then you, Bobo chimed in on March 12, pointing out that the Delft building did not collapse completely.
Fire did cause an accidental collapse.
I showed you two more fire-induced, accidental building collapses that were complete.
Remember the principle I stated earlier? Examples can’t prove a negative. Examples can however prove a positive!
I provided at least two examples to prove that fires CAN cause accidental and complete building collapses.
You seem to try to argue that the example of the Delft building not collapsing completely is somehow evidence that buildings can NOT collapse accidentally from fires – but your argument misses the principle that examples can’t prove a negative.
The Delf collapse is proof positive that fire can cause straight-down, multifloor progressive collapses involving the entire height of a highrise, as a single example can prove a positve claim that something is possible. It cannot, however, prove that such collapse cannot be complete – examples can’t prove a negative.
You claim that I was “equating … the collapses of the WTC buildings with the partial collapse of the Delft building“. This misses the entire point of the debate, which was about the evidentiary power of real world examples.
9/11 Truth claims that steel-framed high-rises cannot possibly collapse from fires. This claim is bogus. It rests exclusively on a limited number of anecdotes – steel-frame highrises that burnd and didn’t collapse. However, since examples cannot prove a negative, that argument is invalid – simple as that.
A single positive counter-example falsifies the claim of a negative. And this positive counter-example has now occurred in Teheran: An fire in a steel-frame highrise caused its accidental and complete collapse. You all understand how this single example demolishes several of AE911Truth’s core claims – and so you are all forced to rationalize the Plasco collapse as yet another work of the evil NWO or whatever. The Grand Jewish Master Conspiracy, I hear in some comments (hello, sockpuppet2012!). In reality, this is the moment where the 9/11 Truth Movement jumps the shark. The sane response would be to abandon – at least tentatively – AE911Truth’s basic claims.
Can you explain if there was a lot of “stick frame” in contrast to steel frame. There is a big difference to reinforced concrete with rebar along with “stick frame”, than to thick heavy gauge steel holding the structure together with no “stick frame”. Office furniture isn’t hot enough to affect heavy steel like in the Towers or Building 7. The Plasco Building in Iran had charges blowing out the structural steel from top to bottom…. then the building collapsed.
That’s a big difference.
(I just replied, and WordPress tells me I can’t post the same reply as it would be a duplicate, but my first reply doesn’t show up here!? I’ll try again, with this remark in front and a remark at the end, hoping to fool WP’s duplicate algorithm. If this actually results in a duplicate, then Craig is of course welcome to delete this second version)
“Can you explain if there was a lot of “stick frame” in contrast to steel frame.”
Why and how is this relevant? I didn’t know the term “stick framing” until I looked it up at Wikipedia a minute ago, where it redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(construction)#Platform_framing
It seems to describe a method and order of assembling structures, and seems to be independent of the structural material – could be wood, steel, other. So why and how is this relevant? Are you implying that this method yields structures that are more, or less, fire- and collapse-resistant than other methods, and if so, how do you know that? Got a source?
“There is a big difference to reinforced concrete with rebar along with “stick frame”, than to thick heavy gauge steel holding the structure together with no “stick frame”.”
Can you support that assertion with any sources?
My understanding is that reinforced concrete with rebar tends to be inherently more fire-safe than mere steel. What has the framing method got to do with this?
“Office furniture isn’t hot enough to affect heavy steel like in the Towers or Building 7.”
This is plain wrong.
All the engineering studies on the WTC7 event show that unfouhght office fires, once fully involved, can be expected to heat a number of floor beams to very significant temperatures where they expand, deform, and develop significant forces on their connections.
The same has been shown by various experiments such as the Cardington fire tests in Britain.
“The Plasco Building in Iran had charges blowing out the structural steel from top to bottom…”
This is just wrong.
There are no sounds of explosions consistent in timing, number, loudness and brisance with explosive demolition – no steel-breaking charges can be heard in any of the several videos of the Plasco collapse.
If you disagree, then you ought to be able to present at least one video of an actual, known explosive highrise CD where the popping sounds are as soft as they are at the Plasco, when video is shot from a similar distance. Because silent or soft explosives simply do not breal structural steel. It is the very supersonic BANG!, the shockwave of a sufficiently large high explosive charge, that does the work of breaking steel (breaking atomal bonds).
I am glad though you, too, observed that there were dust ejections going top to bottom. This is evidence of floors collapsing progressively inside the walls. It’s what happened at the Twin Towers, too.
“then the building collapsed.”
Again, what you perceive as “charges blowing … top to bottom” IS the collapse already.
(Again, hoping this post is not a duplicate now)
“I am glad though you, too, observed that there were dust ejections going top to bottom. This is evidence of floors collapsing progressively inside the walls. It’s what happened at the Twin Towers, too.” Not withstanding the use of all capitals for your onomatopoeia, your
conclusion is simply not supported by observable evidence.
Please explain, Bobo. Yours is a bare assertion. Are you suggesting that there were extremely loud, sharp sounds from high explosives consistent in timing and number with how demo charges would have caused the visible collapse event? I haven’t heard any in several videos. Have you?
Obviously, air and dust found openings in the structure to be seen. It is therefore not plausible that any high explosive “BANG”s would not find their way out. The best conclusion is therefore that no explosive charges were detonated.
“It is therefore not plausible that any high explosive “BANG”s would not find their way out.” I really can’t make heads nor tails out of that statement. Why do you insist on incorrectly using capital letters? It in no way compensates for your inadequate arguments.
Your focusing on details of letter capitalization instead of the actual arguments presented tells me you cannot adequately address the actual arguments.
Thanks for signalling that you are out-argued, and goodbye 🙂
Uhm thee two Photobucket links in the post above didn’t show…
I try again, with [IMG] tag instead of [A] tag:
Plain URL to jpg, in case the [IMG] tags don’t work:
“This seems to invalidate immediately all claims that reports of explosions are evidence for exploSIVES being fired on purpose or otherwise.” Reports of explosions being fired are not evidence for explosives? You win the prize for the most illogically constructed sentence I have seen on this website. Congratulations!
You misrepresent what the report from Japan claimed – the illogical construct is yours.
You speak of “Reports of explosions being fired” – the report didn’t say “being fired”. It merely said that there were explosions – i.e. were observed.
Again, this is not proof of (A) exploSIVES (B) being fired – two reasons:
(A) Many things that are NOT exploSIVES can go “boom” in a large fire and are mistaken for explosions – steel breaking, heavy stuff falling, transformers blowing, pressurized bottles popping, etc. etc. etc. It is quite normal for people, including firefighters, to report “explosions” when there was merely a large fire, not a demolition.
(B) Even if, for whatever reason, some “exploSIVES” happened to be caught in the fire and going off, that doesn’t mean they were “being fired”, as in deliberately and with some purpose (e.g. to demolish) made to explode. Examples could be fire weapons ammo, or certain gases with a propensity to deflagrate, or perhaps fireworks. Such explosions would be collateral to the fire event and not evidence for demolition or against accidental collapse.
Are you of the opinion that the Japanes office supplies warehouse was rigged with explosives that were fired? What evidence would you base this on?
You used the term “explosives being fired”, not me. I just quoted you. In fact I cut and pasted your statement. Do you need an adult?
i suggest that perhaps you need an adult.
You wrote, and now I quote you verbatim:
“Reports of explosions being fired are not evidence for explosives?”
I did not say there were reports of explosives being fired, nor does the media report on the Japanese fire.
I said, verbatim:
“This seems to invalidate immediately all claims that reports of explosions are evidence for exploSIVES being fired on purpose or otherwise.”
Notice that I speak of “reports of explosions” and NOT of “reports of explosions being fired“. The latter phrase appears only in the consequent: Such reports are NOT, I claim, “evidence for exploSIVES being fired“.
I hope you get it now.
“This is proof positive that office supplies fires can produce sounds of “explosions” significant enough to be reported, even in the absence of any hint that explosIVES were fired – on purpose or otherwise.” It certainly is not. Do you have some evidence that the sounds of explosions at Askul were produced by office supplies? Further, do the contents of an office supply warehouse equate to the contents of an office building with regard to explosive potential?
“Do you have some evidence that the sounds of explosions at Askul were produced by office supplies?”
Try reading my previous post with attention to English language. I didn’t claim that “explosions at Askul were produced by office supplies”. I said that “office supplies fires can produce sounds of “explosions” significant enough to be reported” – the bolded bits being the important words you left out. There was reports of “explosions”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there were explosions – other events that are not explosions can sound like explosions. Apparantly, such events, whether or not they were explosions, were caused by the fire fed by office supplies. Doesn’t mean the office supplies as such caused the sounds or any explosions – the fire did. The same might happen if it was some combustible material other than office supplies, for example wood furniture, plastic toys, whatever.
When there is a large fire, “sounds of explosions” are often reported.
It almost never means that anybody planted and fired “charges of exploSIVES”.
It feels strange that I must write so verbosely to explain such a simple concept.
“.. the bolded bits being the important words you left out.”
Not only did Bobo quote you verbatim, but I see the phrase “sounds of explosions” in his first sentence – that you quote in full at first, before omitting “sounds of” yourself by only quoting the second half.
Everything you put on this website is verbose. You have not demonstrated that office supply fires can produce “sounds” of explosions. And you stated that “exposions were observed”. That does not equate to the “sounds” of explosions being heard. Are you going to try to argue that “sounds of explosions” are often heard and reported in the absence of explosions? Are you also trying to argue that a warehouse full of burning office supplies equates to the burning of the quantity of office supplies that one would expect to find in several floors of an office building?
I am arguing something infinitely more simple:
Since “explosions” are demonstrably reported in fire events where no exploSIVES were employed, such reports of “explosions” are NOT evidence that exploSIVES were present or even deliberately made to explode – contrary to what the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement”, and namely AE911Truth, have been claiming, and are still claiming. Their claims are FALSE.
Reports of explosions are not evidence that explosives were present? That is a fascinating construct. What a limber mind you have, metaphorically speaking. What do you suppose explodes if not explosives? Non-explosives?
Reports of explosions are not evidence that explosives were present?
That is a fascinating construct.
I find it rather trivial, actually, but if it fascinates you, more power to you.
What do you suppose explodes if not explosives? Non-explosives?
The plane crashes themselves – just aluminium structure hitting steel structure at 400+ mph – have been described by many at the scene as “explosions” based on the sound (sudden and very loud). The jet fuel fireballs, though not actually explosions, and despite jet fuel not being an explosive, have been described by many as “explosions”. When electrical transformers blow, this is often described as an “explosion” even though no explosives are present. When steel cables snap, hard surface impacts hard surface, when pressurized bottles break, some people will describe these as “explosions” because of the sudden and loud noise – no explosives involved. Sometimes a balloon bursts, and people think “explosion”. Do you employ explosives when your little child celebrates a birthday?
This concept is so very simple, I am at a loss why you didn’t get it already. You ought to have grasped the absurdity the very first time a 9/11 Truther presented you this bogus argument that “explosions” only reported by witnesses but never recorded on the many sound recording devices can only be explained as “explosive charges”.
NIce emoticon. I hope a nice boy asks you to the grade eight spring dance. Do you suppose that reports of explosions are evidence that explosives were not present? Your skill with language again fails you. It seems evident that you don’t really understand the meanings of the words “explosions” and “evidence’, and you clearly cannot distinguish between “explosions” and “reports”. While the fireballs from jet fuel don’t bear much relevance to reports of explosions made by First Responders in the Twin Towers, fireballs are, without question, explosions. Still, for an eighth-grader you’ve done a lot of work with these posts.
“NIce emoticon. I hope a nice boy asks you to the grade eight spring dance.”
Interesting to see your hateful response to a smile.
“Do you suppose that reports of explosions are evidence that explosives were not present?”
“It seems evident that you don’t really understand the meanings of the words “explosions” and “evidence’”
“fireballs are, without question, explosions”
No. Pot … kettle 😉
“…for an eighth-grader you…”
Insults generally say nothing about the insulted, but a lot about the insulter.
It’s the moment in the debate where I am informed that I “won”.
Israel and Iran were the best of friends when the Shah ruled. And we know America’s next invasion and bombing campaign will be Iran, regardless of a world outcry, which we had before the Syria bombing campaign began. The Plasco bldg. is a precursor to war. These are very deep waters to fathom, but the pattern is so well worn, we can know what’s coming.
“And we know America’s next invasion and bombing campaign will be Iran”
We know? :O
Got an idea just about when that will happen? At the latest? We can mark it our calendars and check your prophecy then. 🙂
Iran’s oil is depended on by to many powerful countries for the USA to go in there to take it over. Iran’s oil produces a good quality gasoline.
The USA has to supply arms to one of two different factions in Iran to create unrest, and then go in as if it is trying to make peace. It wont work. Nobody trusts the USA and besides, the USA is flat assed broke. It’s just a matter of time when it will collapse.
All the major powers are making their move because the world production is past “peak oil”. Iraq was attacked because of a false flag in the USA blaming their ally Saddam Hussein and WMD farce. Once Hussein was out of the way then Iran and it’s friends were able to make their move.
So now the USA is supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons to they can destroy their small neighbours like Yemen and in return will leave the Saudis alone. The rich families comprising of 500 Princes need the protection of the USA against their own people.
Interestingly Europe led by Germany is very dependent on Saudi Oil and Germany is a sleeping Giant with a standing Army of 200,000 men with airstrips all over the Mediterranean.
The USA is very powerful militarily but it can’t take everybody on.
China is buying every ounce of gold it can get it’s hands on, getting ready for the financial collapse. In comparison the USA has none.
So the USA would like Iran but it can’t get it.
Reblogged this on jamesrobertcoyle and commented:
Is there a similarity in the Tribal membership of the buildings ownership?