Inward bowing of columns, whats is the explanation

The inward bowing of columns happens slowly, supposedly due to sagging floors, which is what debunkers are using to refute the truth movement. The truth community should develop a response toin order to stave of debunking nightmare. Any suggestions or hypothesis?

Don't isolate one event from the others

Sure, bowing of columns explains the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw and felt secondary explosions in the towers.

Or how the towers exploded into dust in midair.

Or... I'm tired of explaining this. No so-called debunker theory accounts for all of the characteristics of the collapses. (Another: Did bowing columns produce a pyroclastic flow?)

Debunkers only think they make sense by separating one event from all of the others, then providing a plausible explanation for that one event. Taken together, the events witnessed don't make sense as a gravitational collapse.


Why were they bowing? What was destroying the supports below to help cause the bowing? That clown Mark Roberts that debated with Avery & Bermus was using the bowing BS, and when the idea that the top portion of the S. tower should have continued to fall was brought up, he mentioned that a fulcrum would have been needed to allow for such a thing to occur. Well i'm sure he has no answer to why that portion was pulverized, ofcourse there was no fulcrum to help it continue falling, the supports were being melted by thermite, and blown up.

They talk about demolition experts who say it wasn't controlled demolition, have they ever stopped to think that maybe that was the first time two gigantic towers were brought down with controlled demolitions, and helped the shock and awe effect? Since there is no visual footage to compare of what such huge buildings look like when being brought down with explosions. Especially two that had jetliners hit them in positions that were obviously pre-determined points of impact, most likely the explosives and thermite had to be placed in certain areas where the planes were not going to hit, and to get maximum effect as to damage the structure so it would be brought down quickly. I believe that regardless of how well the government planned this false flag event, they still made huge mistakes.

I believe they most likely wanted the buildings to go down as soon as the planes hit, had that have happened the firefighters never would have been able to get inside the buildings to hear explosions, William Rodriguez would not have been here to tell us about the explosion he heard prior to the plane hitting. If that had happened they would obviously have blamed it on the planes, their impact, and the jetfuel, and called it a day, just like they did anyways, but they'd have less witnesses to worry about.

Look at how the second building to get hit, went down first. Look at how building 7 went down later that afternoon in a matter of controlled demolition without even being hit by a plane. Look at how the other buildings survived all the debris falling from the towers, being directly below them compared to 7, and were eventually brought down with demolition as part of the clean up. If you look at all that, you see the holes in their plan, but they are slick, they still continue to press forward, and call all dissention conspiracy theories.

Such a convienient term to use when there are so many questions to answer. I wish everything was so easy in life, when we have to face questions at work, or when taking an exam on things we studied, why can't we have the luxury of just calling all questions conspiracy theories, and have our word be law? Oh I forgot we aren't presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries of defense. We aren't the world bankers, Rockerfellers, Rothchilds.

When we get pulled over for speeding, why can't we say that's just a conspiracy theory, I never speed, I wasn't speeding, you guys are liers, I don't believe in radar guns, you guys always lie so you can make money off of us, and fill your quotas.

I mean really do common criminals have such luxury? When they are being accused of a crime? They aren't allowed to bypass a trial by jury, by simply saying, bah- that's just a conspiracy theory, I had nothing to do with that, that was the other guy I mentioned when I was first questioned. You found my fingerprints? What? Bah- that's a conspiracy theory..


Great post, especially the last part....

.....that is exactly what they are doing....methodically denigrating the CT term over the years and then used, as necessary, to exploit people's fears of ridicule, standing alone, or being viewed as nuts.

I've said here before that the media talks about "conspiracies" all the time, they just call them "scandals" instead (Watergate, Iran/Contra, as examples...both conspiracies to commit and conspiracies to cover-up...just like 9/11).

The bankers plot to create a private Federal Reserve Bank in 1910, the Smedley Butler-exposed "Business Plot" coup d'etat of 1933, the Tuskeegee syphillis "experiments" (crimes), Operation Northwoods, secret expansion of the Southeast Asian war during Vietnam into neighboring countries, Nixon/Hoover's secret, unlawful spying on American political dissenters.....not to mention the assassinations of the 60's....our history is riddled with government conspiracies....

There was no "bowing"

I do not think there was any "bowing." I think what looks like bowing in the images (and videos?) is merely parallax, distortion, divergence and related skewing and artifacts due to lenses and other known still and motion film, digital and video camera characteristics. And I think any good photographer, videographer, or optical specialist would tell you basically that.

Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.

Boeing or Bowing ... we know one happened

This is all I'll say about bowing of columns caused by sagging floor trusses and intense fire.

Common sense prevails

Which would happen first? Square structural box columns bowing from heat and weight or Steel angle clips which were designed more to hold the floor trusses up rather than hold them from perpendicular forces like the columns pulling away from the floor trusses. Clips that were far thinner than the columns and far more suseptable to being consumed by fire which is causing the floor trusses to allegedly sag.

This is logic that can not be disputed by any engineer with any common sense.

BOX COLUMNS = HEAT SINK!..... columns would have to be heated equally on each side to cause symmetrical failure and temperatures would need to be at least hot enough to melt steel. Temps hot enough to weaken steel to 50% may cause the coulmns to warp or bend but not catastrophicly fail causing it to fall directly into the path of most resistance.

here is a scary

here is a scary thought...

Caption of one of the pictures...
"East Face of WTC 2
9:21 AM
Maximum inward bowing of approx. 10 in.
(18 min after impact)"

18 MINUTES!! So an "office fire" would bow the columns in 18 MINUTES!!!!
Holy #*(&#$, were these things made out of tin-foil.

No, something else is missing in the picture here....

There is no way that 18 minutes of any kind of office fire would cause enough internal
damage to cause this....

Bowing & Glowing

Look at some of the images... the video... you can see the columns along one wall.... every one of them just glowing orange.... but the fire is hardly visible.

that my friends is the thermite

most likely placed with-in those coulmns....

thermite was used on the area of impact as well as the building above..... the themite reaction melted the building... and when the building began to fall from the failure of the compromised structure.... then they pulled the trigger and blew it from the top down.

the thermite was used up top to create the exagerated smoke while destroying the structure so that they could destroy the upper part without the use of explosives... for the most part.

the video of the molten steel pouring out of the building was in an area where the column buckled the wrong way.... and it ruptured spilling it's hidden goodies down the side of the building.

To my unscientific mind & experience....

.....this description/scenario sounds very plausible, based on the video of the Towers' destructions and what we've learned about thermate....

John O'Neil

Why was John called to the exact point of impact?

The thermite could also explain this.... if the thermite charge had been set off I'm guessing 30 min prior to impact.... there may have been noticable heat or odor coming from the affected area.... and possibly some smoke.... but for the most part it would have been concealed within the columns.... I'm guessing that this was what the call to security was about.

If it had been a fire or if there had been a large amount of smoke then the fire alarms would have gone off unless they hadn't been disabled.

It would take him some time to get to the point of the call.... that's why I'm saying at least 30 min.... maybe more.

If the thermite took an hour to do it's damage after the impact.... to drop the rest of the structure.... I'm guessing that after 30 minutes + the columns in the area of impact would have been good and hot and ready for the plane to penetrate.... this may also explain the orange flash?

Problems with bowing

Problems with bowing scenario...

1) It is only an initial event, and does not provide any explaination for the global collapse events.

2) It's cause is based purely on speculation. The bowing may have occured, but there is no
evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this, let alone after only a few minutes of fire.

3) If the bowing occured so early on, how come the towers didn't collapse then?

4) If this was so obvious, why wan't it the FIRST theory of collapse and not the THIRD theory of collapse?

5) The testimony of the "we knew it was going to collapse" is taken years after the event. 20/20 hindsight. Besides, this testimony is irrevalent because it doesn't prove anything - just like people "hearing" explosions does not prove that it was CD.


Like that guy from Popular Mechanics explained...based on the interview he conducted with that fire cheif who said ... during fires things explode all the time..... because it's hot.... due to the fire

you know like Aresol cans.... and stores of ammunition.... and sodie cans?..... and popcorn?


and of yea.... he talked to someone else who told him cell phones work OK at 30,000 feet over Pennsylvania Dutch country

and let's not disregard resistance.... even if they collapsed three days later... there would still be resistance.... which at the very least would have slowed the debris.... and IMO caused the structure and falling debris to seek the path of least resistance and fallen off to one side of the building leaving a good part of the structure still standing.... as well as many many more survivors..... and as many credible witnesses


I would have to agree with you guys, all im doing is preparing people for the grand debate that will take place soon in our country, hugs

4 problems with bowing

(1) It doesn't explain global collapse. Even if bowing is real, the debunkers have to explain that.

(2) It's the logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because the walls bowed (assuming they did), does not mean that this initiated a collapse. Do all buildings whose walls bow collapse? NIST doesn't actually have evidence it recovered from the site (broken connections, etc.) showing that the bowing caused the collapse.

(3) Is it real? Some of NIST's photos have been enhanced, I'd like to see the unenhanced versions before taking a firm position. Also, when I had a look at this, my feeling was that not all the photos of the towers before the collapse show the bowing.

(4) The debunkers argue that explosives in the building would have been set off by the fire, so the fire sets off some of the explosives, the walls bow, somebody blows the rest and the whole caboodle comes down. This is scenario is consistent with eyewitness evidence.

Bowing is an interesting point for the debunkers to make, but the link you provided was bigging it up.


Thermite reaction easily started by fire..... has distinct white smoke.... you will see the upper floors pouring white smoke..... explosives only needed for the core and the hat trusses in the upper portion of the structure above the fire...

Explosives would have been safe from the fire for the most part..... now if the fire had been allowed to burn for a longer period... the explosives would have been in greater jeopardy.

I'm guessing a majority of the explosives were set below the range of the fire.

and they were not hard wired but set off using remote detonators.

Considering the heat required to weaken steel.

Critical Thinking:

I believe all will concede that the planes that struck the WTC had fuel on board;
I believe all will concede that the fuel was dispersed in the WTC;
I believe all will concede that fuel will burn until it is consumed or extinguished;
I believe all will concede that the fuel contained on board would have been disbursed at the point of impact;
I believe all will concede that fuel will pool or flow downward, not upward, due to the effects of gravity;

So, when Mark was presented with question of how the woman was standing in the hole the plane made in the WTC, assuming that 1. the fuel from the plane would have been where she was standing, 2. burning at between 650 and 1100 degrees which was hot enough to weaken the floor trusses, 3. which caused the collapse, and

his answer was to the effect of "that" fire must have gone out.

Gone out how? Consumed fuel or extinguished fuel? Did the fuel supply move itself up 2 floors? Or was the fuel contained initially only in the right wing which struck the upper floor?

Or, is it physically possible that the majority of the fuel supply was consumed on impact in the fireball, fuel did not pool, the fire actually did go out, and the temperatures at the point of impact were in fact in range of tolerance for continuation of human life? And by implication, NOT in the range to weaken steel?
In order for the steel trusses to weaken from temperatures at 1100 degrees (that is the temp given by NIST) that temperature would be required to be maintained below the steel trusses. This is an engineering requirement because as we all know, the gaseous temperature ratings in the room do not equal the internal temperatures of the steel.
I would find it questionable how a human being could find their way through a room that is maintaining a constant 1100 degrees.
It is a fact that heat rises, that is why we are taught to crawl out of a fire. Maybe it was 1100 degrees at the ceiling near the trusses and below, let's say 150 degrees - the singeing temperature for human lung tissue - on the floor. However, the fuel supply was a liquid and would not have been suspended just below the trusses. The fuel supply, following many laws - gravity for instance - would have been on the floor where the woman would have been crawling to gain access to the open hole area. Anyone who has ever stood beside a campfire or structural fire also would understand the laws of heat transference and would not attempt such an argument that a room could maintain temperatures of 1100 degrees and also support human life.

South Tower

I have a clip of the South Tower collapse that starts off as an extreme close-up of the area wher Prof. Jones noticed the molten material pouring out of the building (this is not the same clip he uses). In this clip, which is very clear, when the tower begins to tip to the left the building "walks" to the right snapping all of the visible perimeter columns. There is a clear, roughly 30 degree frature line across the building. I have watched this clip over and over, trying to visualize what is causing this odd "walking" behavior. All I can imagine is it has something to do with the core. It looks like the core was cut in a certain way to make the tower tip to the left and walk to the right.

Another wierd anomoly is when the demolition event begins, there is an audible "PA-CHOO" explosion sound that coinsides with a visible mushroom ploom that exits the building about 50' or so. After the top of the tower begins to fall through the dust cloud, you can see that the corner of the building above the impact damage looks like it is in the process of being further demolished, which may be further evidence of the destruction of it. I have a screen capture of this damage that I will post on here one of these days, if I can ever figure out how to post photos. I have seen the same thing on other clips of the collapse, although they are from much further back and can't be seen to clearly due to compression distortions.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Would you please post these clips here and.....

....tell us at what point, by time, when these anomalies occur?


The clip...

The clip is only about 20 seconds long, so it gets right into it. It looks like it is from some sort of documentary (not a truth documentary) from TLC or Discovery or something similar. It starts off with a guy saying, "Then the tower collapsed into it's own dust." RIght after that the tower begins to lean and all of this takes place. The guys voice sounds like one of the survivors who is in a lot of the TV documentaries. He is the guy who helped save another survivor who is either indian or missle eastern.

I will try to post it to youtube and put a link on here since I do not know how to post the video clip like everyone else.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.