January 19th 2017: the prestigious high-rise building in Tehran starts to burn and then collapses. It was 17 storeys high.
Does this negate the important 9/11-truth axiom, ‘No high-rise steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fire’?
Or, can you clearly see some demolition process here, with explosives going off?
Architects and Engineers for 911 truth – who have 2,900 members – havecome out and endorsed the explosives theory. Let’s quote them:
At around 8:00 AM that day, the upper floors caught fire and burned for a little over three hours before a series of explosions rocked the building. The structure then completely collapsed to the ground…The day after, we issued a statement, based on our analysis of the available videos, urging the Iranian government to investigate the possible use of explosives. One month later, after compiling more evidence, we published a report recommending that investigators consider explosives and incendiaries as the primary hypothesis for the building’s destruction.
The Iranian government is loth to support this view – perhaps for understandable reasons – averring that fires brought it down.
Here is an Iranian firefighter’s view, Mr Maleki: “The extinguishing process was going pretty well. We were at the end of our job. Everything was under control, then all of a sudden, and unexpectedly, two or three major explosions took place in the upper floors.”
Here is another one, Mr Kamani:
But where I was high up there, I would hear small explosions and to my amazement, behind every one of the windows there was a gas canister…. I can’t remember clearly, but after the white smoke started coming out, there was a massive explosion to the point that it shook me. And there, after a couple of minutes, the fire returned…. After that they ordered us to evacuate the building…. All of this that I’m recounting took place in two or three minutes at most, and suddenly the whole building started to shake and then I saw that the building collapsed….
Molten iron was found glowing in the rubble afterwards, even a week later:
Some comments here: https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truth-forced-to-claim-plasco-collapse-is-an-inside-job.t8339/
“Fire has still been raging from under the rubble as clearing giant machines laboriously carry the debris including large slabs of steel; rescuers say nothing had been found partially intact, as the intense heat from burning of the fabrics and other inflammable materials had but melted down everything including the most resistant steel.”
Huge quantities of molten metal were found in the debris: (Iranian news):
During the debris removal operation, the Iranian news media reported large amounts of molten metal being found in the debris. The Mehr News Agency and Press TV wrote: “As the ruins removal process reaches final steps, excavators and mechanical equipment pull out a layer of molten iron from the rubble. The volume of molten metal underneath goes beyond imagination….” “[T]he operation slowed down on Thursday as workers found a large amount of molten metal gathered in the location, spokesman for the crisis committee Jalal Maleki said.” Also, numerous videos show the observed molten metal being dug up.
This video (also attached) shows molten metal in the clean up of the Plasco Building collapse. Normal office fires can’t produce that
Thank you Thomas Green! That is the bottom line. Smart-ass sceptics, eat your heart out.
Actually, let’s quote Thomas Green a bit more here:
“your video is uploaded January 27th, a full week after the fire.”
– that is alluding to the above video. It’s one week later!
Iron was never melted until the blast furnace was invented. Please don’t make up things like that. You don’t get temperatures above 1500 degrees celsius from office fires. Thermite could explain it. What else?
– He’s replying to some idiot sceptic who’s saying that a burning building can get hot enough to melt iron – and have it glowing a week later!
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.”
#1 | Written by pete fairhurst about 7 years ago.Reply
Hi Nick, I just watched Richard Hall’s latest film about the “assassination” of Jo Cox. I saw your previous work about this and I wondered if you will comment? What do you think, is Richard correct in his assassination claim? Or is there another possibility, or possibilities?
Well this is the wrong place for such a query! But yes I was stunned and shocked by R.H.’s claim that jo Cox was actually killed where they said. We do actually have an expert who sometimes posts here, and we’re hoping she will come out with a monograph on the subject. Which takes a bit of courage. Not much more i can say really. If I’m right and she was not killed, then puzzling questions arise about how she could leave her kids, assuming they are hers.
Having finally getting around to reading the book ‘More In Common’, I have started to write a paper which will (hopefully) answer all the questions. I am still gathering some pertinent information.
Did Thomas Mair kill Jo Cox? I couldn’t answer that question, because I don’t know if she is dead or not, evidence of death is certainly lacking. If she was killed, it wasn’t by Thomas Mair, in my opinion. The RDH video shows this very well.
#5 | Written by pete fairhurst about 7 years ago.Reply
Thanks Nick
I realise that this is the wrong place but could not think of another way to contact you. So please accept my apologies. Nevertheless…..
Yes, the kids are a puzzle if you are right. But nothing would surprise me anymore to be honest. Deception is the norm nowadays it seems.
Jo Cox’s support for the very spooky White Helmets was a big red flag for me. They are not what they seem. They work for the West and only act where “rebels” are, not where the Syrian army is. They are very generously funded by the West too. They seem to be more a propaganda outfit than a civil defence corps. This is all well documented as I am sure that you are aware. So who was Jo Cox really working for, the people of Batley? Or darker forces?
Also the demeanour of Brendan Cox during his period of “grief”, and subsequently, was puzzling to say the least. He had a strange way of showing his grief that’s for sure. Money and media both being uppermost in his mind it seemed. Plus the accusations against him by employees of Save the Children, where he had a senior role, and where admitted to being a “sex pest” according to some mainstream accounts, see this:
So maybe the marriage was not all that it was said to be? Was it even real? There is no way to know with any certainty.
I do not rule your “not killed” possibility at this stage. Despite what Richard says.
Hopefully your expert friend will proceed. I realise that it must take courage to go out on a limb for something so sensitive. I know that you have done this many times yourself because I’ve read and watched a fair bit of your work and I very much respect you for that.
#6 | Written by Mark Gobell about 7 years ago.Reply
