Proof that the Trusses Were Sagging

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by budaruskie

 

The building is very obviously collapsing when the wall is bending inward

Not trying to pick a fight here, but it appears that the walls were leaning inwards for the entire length of the video prior to collapse. Furthermore, it appears that only a section of that particular wall is leaning, not even the entire wall. Also, I must say that you said trusses, not walls, and here we are discussing walls.

and the trusses were connected to the outer walls

So what? I've seen roof trusses and floor trusses break, and they do typically take down a wall or a portion of a wall. And I'm talking about structures infinitely less elaborately engineered. I have never before seen them cause an entire building to collapse into a cloud of dust.

The plane impacts had happened much earlier in the day.

When they occured doesn't matter, its where they occured in this particular instance that matters.

reply to post by budaruskie


I agree with your points, but the wall couldn't have been bending inward without the truss connected to it being bent as well. The video really wasn't long enough to compare how long it had been bending that much, but I recall other images demonstrating the warping in the previously straight lines of the world trade center's walls. I will have to locate them somewhere.

If one truss failed, that means that the weight in that area had pressed down on it too much while it was weakened. It goes without saying that a lot of material was now crushing down on that area, and that much weight falling say 3 or 4 meters will cause damage, the damage will lead to more damage, and gravity will carry the momentum downward in a spiraling case of destruction as long as the energy can continue to overcome the resistance. Apparently, since the towers did come down almost completely (some parts did take a moment after initial collapse to come down), there appeared to be enough energy available.

reply to post by Varemia


We are almost completely in agreeance. For instance:

I agree that it was a very short video. I also agree that bent or broken trusses can cause walls to lean and even fail under certain conditions. The idea that gravity pulling mass downwards causes damage to structures below is a no-brainer too. You very astutely point out that this will cause destruction as long as the momentum can overcome the resistance below and that the energy needed for this was no doubt there because it did in fact fall to the ground, with that I can also agree entirely.

What I do not agree on is the idea that there was enough momentum generated in the 3-4 meters to overpower such an enormous and fantastically engineered building, the overwhelming majority of which was "crushed" by a much smaller piece at the top. Why didn't it slide off of the top, or only part of the structure below fail? You don't have to be a genius, scientist, physicist, chemist, or demo expert to see with your own eyes and use your own common sense to call a spade a spade. CLEARLY, that total almost completely uniform collapse was only possible with the aid of some type of explosive device or devices.

reply to post by budaruskie


Well, if the building was built as a solid block this might be true. However, the building could not allow the material to just stop and slide away. In a topic I made a few weeks ago, I showed what I believed to be evidence that after the initial collapse of the North Tower at least, that the top had essentially fallen away and not completely crushed down onto the building below. The debris and such had already begun tearing through the floors and ripping apart beams though. If the towers were solid, it probably would have stopped because the rubble would pile up against the walls and be confined, the rest just falling out of the top or crushing through a couple more floors. Unfortunately, the outside walls of the tower were being equally ripped apart, and the debris had a path to follow outward without piling up and slowing down the force.

reply to post by Varemia


What was the force "ripping apart" the walls, steel core beams, etc?

EXPLOSIVES

reply to post by Varemia


How do you explain that where the building is failing at, is all a mass of charged explosion...and that is exactly the same all the way around, despite the fact the entire top is clearly moving away from the one side...There WAS nothing touching the building on that side, yet it somehow since it failed it is still attached and pulls everything else down ?? WTF.How can it be unattached and yet attached.

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Varemia

 

What was the force "ripping apart" the walls, steel core beams, etc?

EXPLOSIVES

I don't see the need. If you have a lot of pressure from debris collapsing with the force of gravity and momentum, it will naturally rip things apart. The connections tended to just be heavy bolts. They get ripped out with enough force. There are pictures of steel debris which clearly show the ripped connections.

reply to post by Varemia



Um.. remember that huge fireball that blew up when the plane hit?

Do you really think lots of fuel was left after that massive explosion?

Seriously?

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by Varemia

 

Um.. remember that huge fireball that blew up when the plane hit?

Do you really think lots of fuel was left after that massive explosion?

Seriously?

I don't know for sure. It's the fumes and flammable material that were involved in the explosion. Did you know that it's the gas, not the liquid that combusts? That's how jet fuel fell down the elevator shafts and blew out the lounge that the firefighters entered when trying to get into the buildings.

reply to post by Varemia


Those were only from the very BOTTOM of the towers, you know, the ones they didn't rig with explosives so they could save the bathtubs,, all the rest of everything is embedded in buildings hundreds of feet away, or just plain GONE.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by Varemia

 

Um.. remember that huge fireball that blew up when the plane hit?

Do you really think lots of fuel was left after that massive explosion?

Seriously?

I don't know for sure. It's the fumes and flammable material that were involved in the explosion. Did you know that it's the gas, not the liquid that combusts? That's how jet fuel fell down the elevator shafts and blew out the lounge that the firefighters entered when trying to get into the buildings.

You believe that story that it fell down the elevator shafts ?? Do you not realize those elevators did NOT go all the way down ?? But had separate levels of entry ? This is hilarious, the buildings were designed specifically so that scenario could NOT happen.

reply to post by Varemia


I edited my last post to insert a video. In that video, a woman on the scene says and I quote "it sounded like 100 of those blackcat firecrackers lit all at once." Falling buildings do not make the exact same sounds as EXPLOSIVES, if you say they do then I will not continue this conversation because that is ridiculous.

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Varemia

 

I edited my last post to insert a video. In that video, a woman on the scene says and I quote "it sounded like 100 of those blackcat firecrackers lit all at once." Falling buildings do not make the exact same sounds as EXPLOSIVES, if you say they do then I will not continue this conversation because that is ridiculous.

I've never heard that. I've seen and listened to countless videos of the tower collapses and that has never been a feature of it. There was a lot of crashing and stuff during the explosion, but anyone would expect that from so much material hitting other material and buildings and breaking tons of glass and earth.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
You believe that story that it fell down the elevator shafts ?? Do you not realize those elevators did NOT go all the way down ?? But had separate levels of entry ? This is hilarious, the buildings were designed specifically so that scenario could NOT happen.

I don't know for sure if the lobby only existed on the first floor. I do know that it is indeed possible for flaming fuel to project itself downward. I don't know the exact details on the elevators, and it would be excellent if you could post some sources that demonstrate that it is impossible for flaming fuel to flow/explode to the base of the towers (or wherever the lobby where the firefighters commented on it.)

reply to post by Varemia


Although it is my opinion that explosions are clearly visible on multiple videos discussed countless times in this very forum, I tend to give more credence to those who were actually there on scene at the time of collapse than even my own judgement. The video I posted is just one of many that show without any question whatsoever that the overwhelming majority of the people who were actually there to experience the event were absolutely convinced that there were in fact explosions. What else is there to talk about?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by Varemia

 

Um.. remember that huge fireball that blew up when the plane hit?

Do you really think lots of fuel was left after that massive explosion?

Seriously?

I don't know for sure. It's the fumes and flammable material that were involved in the explosion. Did you know that it's the gas, not the liquid that combusts? That's how jet fuel fell down the elevator shafts and blew out the lounge that the firefighters entered when trying to get into the buildings.

The "jet fuel" is the convenient explanation for everything, ins't it? Watch this again. Do you REALLY think that anything flammable—if it didn't burn immediately,wouldn't have burned very shortly after...

Watch this again and tell me with a straight face that there was enough fuel to still be burning almost an hour later.



Remember... Straight face please..

reply to post by Varemia


The buildings were constructed as 3 separate pieces, so elevators would go up a third of the building, then there is a lobby.

If still going up you get into other elevators positioned some feet away. And so on with another lobby, then to the top, many, many links can be found about this, as well as how bizarre that Naudet film was...where did those guys go anyways :d

I have to go, will look for links later.

Without other evidence, I cannot rely on the findings of the EMRTC. They have financial and business ties to Fema and Homeland Security. For a CT this is not a good mix. These people have had many problems in conducting simple tests of this sort. Sorry but this is not going to convince me of anything.

Pacific Press

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Varemia

 

The buildings were constructed as 3 separate pieces, so elevators would go up a third of the building, then there is a lobby.

If still going up you get into other elevators positioned some feet away. And so on with another lobby, then to the top, many, many links can be found about this, as well as how bizarre that Naudet film was...where did those guys go anyways :d

I have to go, will look for links later.

According to this, there was one shaft that ran to the top:

science.howstuffworks.com...

This link, while using the persuasive argument for a conspiracy, demonstrates this:

Perhaps the most important aspect of Schroeder's testimony is his recollection that there was a distinct gap between the plane striking the north tower and the elevators exploding.

"We're standing there in the lobby....all of a sudden we hear (explosion noise) and the elevators exploded like something out of a Bruce Willis Die Hard movie," said Schroeder.
...
Schroeder said his team were in the tower for at least 5 minutes after the first plane hit before the elevators exploded...
the plane hit up on the 80th floor - 5 minutes later and the elevators are suddenly exploding on the first level

www.propagandamatrix.com...

This tells you that the fuel took a bit to apparently explode all the way down the tower, or that it hadn't quite flowed down the elevators while on fire until then. It's possible that some of the fuel was not burning and had pooled. Then, all it would take is one spark to light the elevators up.

Although I don't subscribe to the 9-11 conspiracies I do want to commend you on picking that up...that's a first because don't recall anyone else reporting on that...well done watson...