Proof that the Trusses Were Sagging

reply to post by Varemia


Excellent thread...however if the fires were hot enough to soften structural steel, then can you please explain for me the following:



1) How do people survive the "intense" heat? Hot enough to cause deformation of structural steel.
2) How come there is a complete absence of the glow from aforementioned fires?





That is a blow up of what clearly looks like a woman standing in the hole caused by the jet impact. But it gets better...there was more than just 1 survivor of these so called "infernos"...



Do you see him in the top left corner of the bottom image? I anxiously await your explanation as to these puzzling questions.

Originally posted by deadcalm
reply to post by Varemia

 

Excellent thread...however if the fires were hot enough to soften structural steel, then can you please explain for me the following:



1) How do people survive the "intense" heat? Hot enough to cause deformation of structural steel.
2) How come there is a complete absence of the glow from aforementioned fires?





That is a blow up of what clearly looks like a woman standing in the hole caused by the jet impact. But it gets better...there was more than just 1 survivor of these so called "infernos"...



Do you see him in the top left corner of the bottom image? I anxiously await your explanation as to these puzzling questions.

Well, to put it simply, the fire wasn't where they were standing. It was concentrated on other sections of the floor. Fire was very visible out of many areas on the tower even just before the collapse. Just check out the video I posted in an older thread I started about the tower's top falling over. Tons of other people decided to jump rather than be burned alive.

Edit: to elaborate on where the fire is visible on my video, you can see its glow through the smoke

Originally posted by Varemia
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:

I'll comment on the second video first, as I only looked at the steel in the demonstration. Then I'll go back and view both videos...

The steel used in this demonstration is a single I-beam. The twin towers used tubed steel-in-steel; plus, this steel is held horizontally whereas it's own weight can bend it. Stand the piece up and put a comparable load on it? Right off the bat, the second video is a fail. But I'll still view it and the first, just to be fair.

I see the metal bent in, good observation. Although I do believe the buildings where brought down I just don't know exactly how it was done. I can't concretely say they used conventional explosives.

How does a building collapse on itself when this building was constructed to hold up it's own weight ever since it was constructed?
It doesn't matter what floor you weaken. The lower floors will still hold up the weight of the upper floors. Let's say floors 80 through 95 where completely engulfed in jet fuel fires. Even so, how does the lower 80 floors totally collapse? Even if you heat the upper supports up how did it weaken the lower ones? Heat would not be hot enough down towards the bottom of the building to weaken the lower floor supports. Not with the heat that was there.
Pancake or core collapse still doesn't explain how the lower floors just gave up and didn't resist the upper floors making the buildings topple over, but instead just almost evaporated beneath itself. It's not like it left 110 floors stacked on top of each other. The floors vaporized. Not to mention 3 times to 3 buildings all in the same day. This alone should scream impossible.

reply to post by Varemia


Thank you for your faster than expected response.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was getting at. I am not contending that there were no fires, as there most certainly were. What I am saying is that, as evidenced by the first image...the fires by this point were for the most part, confined to small pockets, rather then being located globally across the entire floors. Also, the steel frame of the building itself would have acted like a thousand foot tall heat sink...meaning the heat would have dissipated throughout the structure, both above and below.

In summary, what I am saying that the fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough to cause the type of deformation you are talking about. But all of this is academic considering that the building fell at near to free fall speed through the path of most resistance..in essence, the support structure of the building below the impact behaved as if it weren't even THERE.

I believe that we can agree that the fires were certainly not hot enough or long enough, to cause steel deformation in the 75 floors below the impact point as well.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


Structural damage. That's the factor you are leaving out in your considerations. When you think about the parts of the building that were severely damaged, suddenly fire has more potential.

reply to post by deadcalm


Oh absolutely. No deformation could have happened on the floors below. The thing to consider is that when the tower started collapsing, it wasn't a perfect "steel impacts intact steel." The steel was twisting, ripping, jolting, and crushing.

Also, as a note, the steel was fairly insulated outside the flaming areas. The office stuff burning was also not helping ease the heat, though I agree with the notion that some of the heat was dissipated. Regardless, if you concentrate heat on one area of something, like say you have an erector set, and you expose a small part in the center to a small but steady flame. Though the structure will dissipate some of the heat, the metal will still acquire a great deal of heat in the concentrated area and fail if the pressures are enough.

What is the structural damage that weakened the entire buildings at the exact same time? I'm not talking about the top floors that where impacted but the whole entire structures. Three times in a row. Also, there should have been at least one of those buildings fall differently than the other two. At least one.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
What is the structural damage that weakened the entire buildings at the exact same time? I'm not talking about the top floors that where impacted but the whole entire structures. Three times in a row. Also, there should have been at least one of those buildings fall differently than the other two. At least one.

WTC 7 fell very differently. Part of the interior collapsed, and then as the base crumpled, the rest of the floors began to fall and collapse, allowing the exterior to fall as if it was encountering no resistance. NIST does not try to deny that it free-fell for 2 seconds, because it did, because 10-20 floors were severely compromised at the base, according to firefighter reports.

reply to post by Varemia


Well that perhaps would be a plausible explanation if the building above the impact had just twisted and snapped off and fallen to the street below. As you said the damage was asymmetrical. That heat was being applied to small sections of the superstructure in isolated pockets.

It is interesting that you noted that when the top of the tower started it's downward motion, it tipped ( at 22 degrees of it's axis to be precise) yet, in following few seconds of "collapse", it reduced itself to DUST. Now that is a very curious behavior is it not? If you watch the video that you provided, what you see is the demolition wave moving down the building just ahead of an enormous amount of dust, which is the completely pulverized remains of the concrete.This wave of destruction is uniform and goes totally around the building SYMMETRICALLY. Now this is not what one would expect if the damage as you say, was asymmetrical due to heating by fire induced by jet fuel and kept going by office furniture and such. What I would expect to see in such a scenario is a lot of deformation, twisting, chunks of concrete breaking off ect, but certainly not the complete and total destruction of the building in the manner witnessed.

Thanks again for your thoughts!

reply to post by deadcalm


They didn't survive - soon after this picture was taken the people here jumped to avoid the heat and smoke

The people clustered here are near the initial impact hole made by AA11 - the momentum of the plane forced
the jet fuel into the building. The fires started on the other side of the building and took little while for heat and
smoke to affect them.

Seem to have no idea what intense heat from fire will do to people.

Just listened to FDNY firefighter talk of surviving 50 foot fall from top of apartment building - he was one of 6
FDNY men who jumped from windows after fire on floor below burned up and cut them off forcing the FDNY men
to jump.

6 of toughest FDNY men bailing out windows. They were wearing full fire fighting gear and breathing apparatus
yet all jumped.

Read this account of so called "BLACK SUNDAY FIRE " from 2005 - maybe get some idea of just what people
pictured at window went through.....

nymag.com...

reply to post by deadcalm


No problem. I can't really theorize on how a building collapse would behave on the way down. There are just too many factors and I really don't have enough knowledge about it to fully understand or explain why it happened the way it did. I just don't see demolitions making more sense, since no demolition, even the concrete building top-down ones, have ever looked like 9/11.

I do think that it is safe to say that it did not reduce to dust. It was shrouded by dust, yes, but it didn't transform into dust. No building piece could survive an impact with the earth from 60-70 stories up. It would just look like a pile of crushed and twisted metal, just like the rest of the debris.

reply to post by Varemia


How exactly is the falling of WTC 7 different than the other two? Straight down into it's own footprint. If it was one building you would have a point. But let me reiterate that there was 3 buildings that did the same thing. Collapse straight down onto themselves with little to no resistance. All in the same day. That should be put up there with Jesus walking on water.

I know I won't get through to you, I knew this going in. I just hope others read this and questions it themselves.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


I've got no problem with questioning it, but the fact is that WTC 7 collapsed very differently than WTC 1 and 2. The only similarity is that it did collapse lol.

I read somewhere that when the planes hit at such speed..

most of the fuel ignited and blew right out of the building in a giant fireball..

Imagine that..

reply to post by Varemia


Then perhaps we should ask the firefighters that were there on that day what they witnessed to shed some clarity on what went on...


Or this...


Or this..


Can these men all possible be wrong? I don't think so. The collapses of these 3 bulidings had nothing to do with fire I'm afraid. There are too many videos of testimony of explosions to post them all here but I think you get the picture. We need to honor all the victims of this heinous crime by getting to the truth of what really happened that day...and threads like this start the dialog that will help expose that truth.

Thanks for the thought provoking post.

Sorry about the embedding issue...

reply to post by deadcalm


Something to remember is that not all explosions are caused by explosives. That's a simple fact. A LOT of things make explosive noise.

Well we know ( and knew long b4 9.11 ) that terrorists had the missing nukes from Russia and had got them Into usa - to use in capital citys at some point.

Has anyone ever thought maybe it was nukes planted and the govt didnt want to say ne thing since the big babes are still out there waiting to be called Into play? You know mass panic and all?

Just a theory - as I dont think It would of highlighted peoples feelings of safety knowing the big babes may be in their office block - not just the little ones the size of coins.

Originally posted by Varemia
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:

“A huge explosion now raining debris down all over us” from the reporters mouth in first video the last few moments of video…Yes, I saw the up-rights give the illusion of buckling inward. The illusion of buckling inward as the spine of the building crumbles into dust, allowing the tower to come crumbling to the ground. What made the core structure decide it wanted to come crumbling down to the ground, along the path of the most resistance? Why didn’t the top of the tower tip off over the edge? It came really close, but the core/ the spine broke? It was the core that each floor is tied-in to that kept it from severing from the rest of the structure.
The second video, are you serious? In the New Mexico desert, under the sun? I wonder how much it cost to produce that video, and pay those PHDs to buckle under pressure. I would prefer the money spent to dispel the myths was spent on a new investigation myself.

If these videos provide enough proof for you, that's your story, are you sticking to it? I would buy it too if I subscribed to the official story. Have you ever wondered why it is named the "Official Story?" It's the STORY officiated by the authors COMMISSIONED to give solace to the nation. Some people see through the lies, some don't.

As the top begins to descend, what is all that debris and fire doing exploding outward, and up? Do you OSers not comprehend that physical aspect?

reply to post by Varemia


Well they sounded pretty sure of themselves, but how about the traces of the demolition material that was used to destroy the buildings...and traces of it have been found in the dust recovered from Manhattan Island. But don't take my word for it...here is testimony from EXPERTS in their respective fields regarding this highly advanced material called Nano-Thermite.


And here...


And here...


As you can see...the experts are quite sure that this material has no business being anywhere near the Twin Towers or building 7.

I'm out for the night...but I will check back tomorrow for your opinion on this damning evidence against fire driven collapse.