Proof that the Trusses Were Sagging

I was watching 9/11 collapse videos, and I noticed something at 6:28 on this video compilation:


If you notice, the steel was bending inward and literally snapped back when the tower began to collapse. In my opinion, this rules out the notion that the collapse was suddenly initiated by an explosive, because the steel must have been slowly sagging for some time. Unless there was a slow burning bomb that was weakening the strength of the steel trusses, the idea of the OS about the tower fires doing the job would support this.

In this video by National Geographic, a steel beam was exposed directly to jet fuel fire, and at 6:10 (4 minutes after initial exposure to direct jet fuel fire), the steel was bending and finally collapsed downward. It is not an exact replica of the tower steel trusses, but it demonstrates that the notion of steel being completely unaffected by the fire to be false:

Are there still people that really believe that 9/11 wasn't a false flag attack?

Originally posted by Mizzijr
Are there still people that really believe that 9/11 wasn't a false flag attack?

Quite a few, given that there is hardly any credible evidence for it.

OP, good point. The video shows that people who think that the towers were CD'd have some pretty serious explaining to do.

Originally posted by Mizzijr
Are there still people that really believe that 9/11 wasn't a false flag attack?

Off-topic. I didn't say anything about false-flag attacks. I'm talking about the physical reality of the tower collapses. You can still have a false flag without explosives causing the collapse of the towers.

reply to post by Varemia


ROFL , looking at that video you can see that the trusses were NOT sagging, but suddenly sucked inwards, paused , and then for some reason everything starts exploding.

Great video Varemia, watching just makes me remember just how pathetic arguments of fire induced collapses really are.

I wonder how steel turns into dust , from "sagging" and how you can watch any video of this and still look for the most unlikely explanation.

Ohnoes, the top is so heavy it disintegrated the bottom !! Amazing. Especially after it has turned into a pyroclastic cloud , had no idea dust had such enormous power...

EXCELLENT posting, Varemia, and I thank you. Although I admit this isn't proof positive that the fires did in fact instigate the collapse, it does definitively add greatly to the credibility of the claim and equally important, it likewise discredits the "it's utterly impossible" gripes fron the naysayers.

That said, I sincerely doubt this is going to make a lick of difference. The truthers WANT to believe these conspiracy stories of theirs are true so they have created for themselves such a complex runaway train of circular logic with these conspiracies within secret plots within coverups that it's nigh impossible to get off, and they'll make up some reason off the tops of their heads to justify why they don't have to accept this footage. They'll simply brush this off as being lies from secret gov't disinformation agents, or they'll attack National Geographic as being a gov't mouthpiece, or they'll accuse the footage of being doctored, or they'll say it really wasn't steel but cardboard, or whatever.

Wait a week and see whether or not I'm right.

No we will just brush YOU off, as being a total believer in the most ridiculous theories maybe ever expounded on the internet...such as these buildings "collapsed" , that any look outside of the official fabrication cannot be questioned, that entire lack of evidence to support YOUR beliefs is completely not in existence...and the fact there is too much fear out there to really investigate, which you find safety in.

Must be nice to live in a world with blinders on, they give you the confidence to back yourself up with more lies...and those dam fool truster sites.

All in all, it is at least entertaining and very telling of how this planet is a junkyard of rehashed crap, and that junkyard needs salesmen.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


Excuse me, but I'm not talking about accepting the OS about everything. I'm just saying look at the evidence. It appears to support ONE ASPECT of the official story. It's like saying that because you believe the sky is blue, you accept everything you are told about how the sky functions without questions.

reply to post by Varemia


No, I am sorry, but anyone who saw those buildings fall before they heard about Osama or anything would be entirely unanimous that it ONLY looks like completely detonated , there is NOTHING that shows anywhere, at any time that what we see is a collapse...It is you who is trying so hard to see something that is not there.

The level of annihilation, the vortex in the insane cloud created, the pieces of debris jettisoning like a mushroom cloud, sorry, none of that equates to a collapse, or gravity's awesome power.

And the little tiny pile of debris at the bottom, incomprehensible temperatures...and ALL videos show a building that completely EXPLODES, and vanishes into thin dust.

700 gals. of jet fuel focused on one, isolated steel beam wth no heat sinking, and loaded with 3000 pounds
of lateral load.


What was the approximate lateral steel loading for the floors in the towers?

How much steel was on each floor of the tower for the available jet fuel in the aircraft?

What is the length of that steel beam in the video?

How is that similar to the towers?

Can you give me an example of where in the towers you would find a pool of 700 gallons of jet fuel focused on
one beam for several minutes?

reply to post by turbofan


How does focusing fuel on a beam make any difference ? How does jet fuel ever cause it to turn into a dust cloud ?

How does jet fuel constantly burn, for an hour without dissipating, how does it get hotter as less fuel remains , how much of it burnt on impact in that massive fireball.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


Exactly.

I'm just getting the obvious out of the way.

This experiment is a joke in comparison to the actual conditions.

It took them 700 gals. just to peak at 2010 degrees.

There is no way the available fuel vs. steel in the towers reached that temperature.

Aside from your observations, there are other concerns (like mid-air pulverization, acceleration of the mass,
proof of subsiding fire temps., etc).

reply to post by GrinchNoMore

How does jet fuel constantly burn, for an hour without dissipating, how does it get hotter as less fuel remains , how much of it burnt on impact in that massive fireball.

Not just jet fuel - plenty of other things to burn in a modern office building. Most modern furnishings are made in
part or whole with synthethic materials which are derived from petroleum and burn with some 50 - 100% more heat energy than ordinary materials,

A truss is a structure built up of smaller pieces which balance forces of tension (pulling apart) and compression
(crushing) to give it its strength. Problem is since built of smaller pieces a truss lacks mass causing it to
heat up faster than a single piece . If one part of a truss fails compromises the entire truss.

Truss structures, particularly in roof supports, have acquired a reputation for sudden failures with little warning.
Firefighters are acutely aware of this since many multi fatality fires have been caused by trusses.

Old saying in fire service "Never trust a truss". Or as one veteran battalion chief put it to a class I was in "a truss
is a perfectly adequate structure under normal conditions" Then quickly added " a fire in a building is not a normal situation".

Because of several tragedies in my state of NJ involving truss collapses = fire code states that all buildings using
trsses in construction display a promenient sign at enterance indicating trusses.


At WTC problem with trusses was in the fire proofing - because of numerous angles made it difficult to fire proof
compared to single beam construction.

Aircraft impacts blew off what fire proofing there was exposing the trussto heat from fires.

people with agendas have had plenty of time and talent along with resources to produce these new
or just discovered videos...

did the sagging trusses cause the ourter wall connections to fail...
or was the sagging trusses causing the concrete & steel pans to fail, but the truss hangers were robust


all one needs to do is create 1 aspect of doubt, then all kinds of extrapolations can become real



i still say there was a May-June-July 1969 article printed by the Village Voice... which foretold
the great probability that WTC 1 or 2 would pancake from fatigue after a aircraft penetration...
Structual Engineers and other high profile experts forecast the 30+ year later demise


both Rockafeller brothers pushed the project, with the praise of 1000s of yes-men

Fires dont cause buildings to explode....never have, never will....

except on 9/11 when it happened 3 times, with 3 buildings coming down, even though only two planes were involved....


There is NO proof in this thread.....and the title is very mis-leading indeed.

Funny how davey and co. dont see it this way.....presumably they take it as gospel....as they pretend to do with the OS.

reply to post by thedman


They do not burn with more energy than jet fuel, so what caused these massive temps, the fires were not traveling at all in any images for long, running out of fuel.

I will continue to be astonished that you think fire can combined with gravity, can cause such powerful explosive, and very sudden total destruction of incredibly thick strong beams.

Look at a crane for instance, it is using trusses and is holding massive weight well out into the air, if it does break it does not turn into dust, but falls to the ground in pieces...I saw one last year in a building being built,, it was in the center with a heavy load on it, when fire broke out.

This fire was super hot as the whole place was a giant torch, the crane did buckle somewhat and twist, however it never fell down or lost its load, and the building left all the steel there, just everything else fell... I talk to my friends who own a steel manufacturing company,, and they cannot reproduce the effects no matter how they tried,, ridiculous to think that fireproofing being knocked off can cause steel to combust into gas and everything just suddenly goes nuclear...A literal Volcano those 2 towers became...

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


Obviously you are confused on some matter or another.

They do not burn with more energy than jet fuel, so what caused these massive temps, the fires were not traveling at all in any images for long, running out of fuel.

It took around an hour for the steel to fail. This most notably suggests that the steel was bending very slowly due to lower temperature fire than in the controlled demonstration of what jet fuel can do to steel.

I will continue to be astonished that you think fire can combined with gravity, can cause such powerful explosive, and very sudden total destruction of incredibly thick strong beams.

Don't forget that the building had incurred structural damage from a massive plane impact.

Look at a crane for instance, it is using trusses and is holding massive weight well out into the air, if it does break it does not turn into dust, but falls to the ground in pieces...I saw one last year in a building being built,, it was in the center with a heavy load on it, when fire broke out.

This fire was super hot as the whole place was a giant torch, the crane did buckle somewhat and twist, however it never fell down or lost its load, and the building left all the steel there, just everything else fell... I talk to my friends who own a steel manufacturing company,, and they cannot reproduce the effects no matter how they tried,, ridiculous to think that fireproofing being knocked off can cause steel to combust into gas and everything just suddenly goes nuclear...A literal Volcano those 2 towers became...

To my knowledge, a crane does not have concrete and floors of office building sitting on top of it when it begins to twist and buckle.

The tower's steel did NOT combust into gas and nothing went nuclear. The concrete and other material being pulverized created dust and smoke, and the fire that was still in the debris (along with simply friction and kinetic energy) made a lot of the smoke and dust very hot.

There was no volcano in the towers. Gas lines were broken underground for certain, and with all the electrical sparking, there were constant infernos and raging fireballs in the rubble underground. The height of the tower debris can be easily attributed to the fact that the towers had really large basement complexes.

Now I'm no scientist nor do I think I know everything, but aren't trussess in roofs and floors? I could be wrong but the particular part of the video the OP refers to only shows an outside WALL, which is clearly leaning inwards. Again, I could be wrong but there are fires on the floor directly above the inward bent walls and that indicates that a flippin' AIRPLANE just ran into that wall, which could explain it leaning inwards.

Originally posted by benoni
Fires dont cause buildings to explode....never have, never will....

except on 9/11 when it happened 3 times, with 3 buildings coming down, even though only two planes were involved....

Seriously, you got starred for a near completely off-topic post? It didn't even address the proof that I provided, just going on a tangent about your personal opinion on what you thought you saw at first glance.

Let's start from ground 1 anyway. Only the towers 1 and 2 came down in the same fashion, and that could very easily be because they were built the same way and hit by the same kind of plane. They burned for different amounts of time, demonstrating that one method of crashing a plane was more effective than another in taking down the towers. Tower 7 was another story. It took all day long with fire and STRUCTURAL DAMAGE FROM TOWER 1's COLLAPSE in order to finally collapse, and it wasn't a traditional demolition. The building fell slowly in sections before coming down altogether.

There is NO proof in this thread.....and the title is very mis-leading indeed.

It honestly seems like better proof than "I have an idea that has no basis in actual science, but some guy wrote a paper on it and says it exists, so it must exist even though there is no way to test it." Or something like that.

Funny how davey and co. dont see it this way.....presumably they take it as gospel....as they pretend to do with the OS.

Yeah, gospel... right. Someone agreed with my logic, so they are suddenly an OS blind believer. You truthers/truther supporters are very patterned. I have repeatedly said that I don't think the OS is the truth. I just happen to have come to the conclusion that the buildings fell because of the planes. This is just too hard for any truther to even consider thinking about for longer than the five second "OMG this is against my primary belief. Shun!"

reply to post by budaruskie


The building is very obviously collapsing when the wall is bending inward, and the trusses were connected to the outer walls. The plane impacts had happened much earlier in the day.