That does look like a weak-ass floor truss design.
If I understand your explanation correctly, you are saying a number of floor trusses sagged, and failed, thus the perimeter columns buckled and failed. So we have both deformation (floor trusses and perimeter columns), and we also have the connections failing outright (breaking apart).
If anyone has any suggestions, I would greatly appreciate hearing them. I'm just wondering how weak the buildings must have been before and/or during the collapses.
The structural design of the twin towers was phenomenally strong before the impact. And what is lost upon a great many analysts is that the building code required design for floor loads which were in actual fact far heavier than those
existing at the time of impact or collapse. The floor structure was required to support a weight roughly translated as being the equivalent weight of one human standing on each square foot of floor. Considering the actual weight of furniture and the few people actually standing around at the moment of impact, and, at the moment of incipient collapse, the floor structure was actually supporting very little more than its own weight (always already accounted for by structural designers). The floor trusses were therefore stronger by a factor of something like ten or twenty than they needed to be. If we think of the time when they were supposedly weakened by heat soaking, and had lost half their strength, they were still stronger by a factor of five to ten than needed. If they sagged, they had little more than their own weight to use to tug upon the inner and outer columns. The inner and outer columns were designed to resist such inward tug (bedrock standard structural engineering practice since they were designed to resist the full maximum floor load).
The inner and outer columns were required by building code to be designed to resist the inward tug of a full floor load. The actual floor load was between one tenth and one twentieth of the designed floor load at the moment of impact or the moment of collapse.
The inner and outer columns supported gravity loads. In most cases, a column designed to support its gravity load will coincidently be innately able to support an inward tug far in excess of the tug provided by its floor trusses. The outer columns look as if they possessed such moment of inertia. They look as if they could have resisted an inward tug greatly more than the actually lightly loaded floor trusses provided.
The floor truss may look weak ass to somebody who has not worked professionally for years and years as a structural engineering designer. The perimeter columns may look weak ass to somebody who has not worked for years and years as a professional structural engineering designer.
Somebody who has many years of experience will tell you that the floor trusses looked very strong. Somebody who has many years of experience will tell you that the outer column design was phenomenally strong. And it is really hard to believe that the relatively small amount of damage done to the perimeter by the impact permitted collapse.
And it is really hard to believe that the supposed heat soaking eventually caused collapse. The heat would have been very rapidly dissipated throughout the outer column envelope. The outer columns could not have been raised to a high enough temperature to lose a significant amount of their strength.
I have some time ago examined the Pentagon crash also. I am amazed that the same class of airplane knocked virtually no holes in the Pentagon, but, knocked out patches of structural steel columns in the towers. Something is wrong with this picture.