Inward Bowing:Does it really support the fire induced collapse theory?

"NIST says the Towers collapsed because sagging floors pulled in the exterior columns. It's nonsense.
The maximum was an inward bowing of 55 inches. A floor has to sag about 3 meters to pull 55inches and a 3 meters sagging should have caused an inward bowing of the west and east face (WTC1) as well. There wasn't any sign of inward bowing neither east nor west.
On the other hand the maximum (WTC1) was located in the east half of the south face and there wasn't any visible fire in that area until 10:00am (South Tower Collapse). So the floor (97) had to sag 3 meters in about 20 minutes of fire exposing in an area where - according to NIST - the fireproofing wasn't damaged. "


Now-I understand Gaza is more important than NIST report debunking!By now everyone knows that the simulations of WTC7 collapse didn't describe the actual collapse.

Collapse initiated in straight part of the east wall,nevermind.....

North Tower?Maximum of the inward bowing occuring in zone with intact fireproofing? nothing to see here,move along

In fact I think,that NO ONE should know that,really! NO ONE should be able to offer a good rebutal to the inward bowing theory-which is supported by huge amount of photos......

Let's read about GAZA!

Is this even 911blogger????

911blogger users...

Please leave "peterene" some feedback. It's not that Gaza trumps this analysis, it's that an invasion of Gaza appears imminent, Richard Falk is a credible voice questioning 9/11, and his comments deserve the top slop right now.

These videos by "achimspok" have been kicking around since March of 2008. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, is happening RIGHT NOW.

David Chandler's are NEW, HOT, and popular. Deal with it.

"peterene", are you "achimspok"?

peterene is not achimspok

I know them booth.

Steel and concrete ejections

The towers certainly didn't collapse inwards.

In a famous Protec article that defends the official theory one can find this sentence describing the forcefulness of the twin towers' destruction:

"A review of photographic images clearly show about 95 % of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant 'mushroom' effect around its perimeter."
(p. 5)

I checked with the author that this 95 percent referred to all the material of the towers. (He further noted that others' estimates of the proportion of the towers' material landing outside their footprints have varied between 80 and 98 percent.)

When I then pointed out to him that material falling outside a building's footprint cannot contribute to its destruction and that the 95 percent figure precluded any increase in the destructive mass during the collapse, he completely bypassed my observation.

Elsewhere, too, I have found this to be a strong argument. I don't think that the percentage of the material ending up outside the towers' footprints has been given the attention it deserves.

Good point. It does deserve

Good point. It does deserve more attention.


JFK on secrecy and the press

Well produced video with intriguing content.

I see that these videos are extremely well made. I appreciate the amount of work and skill which were applied. I have to admit that I am only monolingual. I would love to see these videos with the narration read in English, or with English subtitles.
Thanks for your work.

unhappy with this state

there are two possible reasons,which are responsible for this damned situation.

1.It's so good,that every competent truther will ultimately decide to keep it secret."Who cares!"In fact-only a few dozens of truthers want to make deeper research,this is why we are on dead water.We haven't seen anything new/important for at least 10 month.

2.It is german,with small english subtitles.Everybody is lazy.Who cares.

I did now about the freefall acceleration of WTC7 for about 2 years,although it wasn't as detailed knowledge as it is know.But somehow it is HOT,and popular.SOMEHOW it's hotter than these videos.Well,this line of reasoning remains a big mystery (for me).

We need to improve our nowledge right know



wall bowing was not to blame

In the case of the north tower we see the antenna starting to drop before the corner of the roof. The antenna is held up by the core and the roof corner is held up by the walls, hence the core collapsed before the walls. Hence the the collapse could not have been initiated by the walls, whether they bowed or not.

That does seem to be the case

"When the north tower began it's collapse at 10:28, sheets of fire spewed from the impact zone as if expelled by a colossal explosion. Some videos of the collapse seem to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. That could mean that something in the steel core gave way first, pulling down the rest of the building with it." page 271