Another Conspiracy Controlled Demolition Expert Replies:
Re: Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 Controlled Demolition
911REICHSTAG writes, "CASE CLOSED??? LOL - LISTEN PAL I HAVE DONE MY RESEARCH (MANY MORE HOURS THAN YOU HAVE I ASSURE YOU) AND I HAVE SEEN THIS GARBAGE YOU ARE SENDING ME. I'M A LOT MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THAT. WHY DON'T YOU ENLIGHTEN YOURSELF WITH A FULL DEBUNKING OF YOUR 'FLOORS FAILING' 'PANCAKE COLLAPSE' 'AIR PRESSURE' BULLSHIT."
I doubt you have spent more time than me. Regardless, can you at least address the point I made? You called it "bullshit" but you didn't explain why. How is it that the exterior columns were bowing inward BEFORE the collapse, in fact, many, many minutes before the collapse? And the bowing increased up until the collapse.
I already have read wtc7.net. The only time they address the bowing was to insist that we are not seeing what we are seeing. Jim Hoffman wants you to think it is an optical illusion caused by hot air that happened to be caught at the right time in a single photo. (he then ignores the fact that NIST presents other photos showing exterior columns bowed inward!) BUT AN OPTICAL ILLUSION!? No way in hell does hot air mimic a perfect lens that increases its bending of light ALL IN ONE DIRECTION and over MANY minutes. Hoffman is desperately concocting an excuse to explain away what we see happening to the buildings. He ignores the fact that it was seen by police helicopters from different angles. So are the witnesses lying about what they saw? As you circle the buildings, no way would this imaginary hot air lens create the impression that the columns bowed inward all in the same way, all in the same direction and to INCREASE their bending inward over many minutes. He ignores the fact that it was captured in photos FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES over many minutes. Hoffman's hot air theory is just that, hot air.
* The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center.
Griffin writes, "in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes." But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong.
Griffin erroneously writes "The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse." The fact is, before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing, columns bending, floors sagging, was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. We can see in the photos that the exterior columns were bowing in the minutes before the collapse, in the case of the South Tower, the bending was evident as early as 18 minutes after the plane's impact.