WTC7 Simulation Evaluation - World Trade Center 7 Collapse Research Study
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- Simulated with completely new developed software designed for structural simulation, this revision of the old WTC 7 simulation attempt serves as validation case for the BCB software.
New in this simulation compared to the old one:
Multiple constraints per connection are used to represent individual degrees of freedom (DOF)
Breaking thresholds are computed from real world parameters
Correct steel thicknesses and beam dimensions are used
Plastic deformation is now simulated
While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because the removal of other columns led to much different collapses. More than that is hardly determinable, such a system behaves just to chaotic to tell what exact connection failed first. In this regard NIST might be wrong by declaring a specific failure point. However, I consider this not being an important question given the fact how compromised the structure around these three columns must have been exposed to fire for hours, a situation beyond any imaginable safety design specification.
Having said that, I want to emphasize that this video is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm deleting comments that include hate speech, so you better think twice before starting an argument about the reasons of 9/11 here. Instead, I recommend to read a neutral source like: en.wikipedia.o... to get some pros and cons instead of watching TH-cam videos.
This is a private project. There are no third parties involved. There is no scientific report available. No peer review has taken place. Thanks for watching.
Old simulations from 2014: • Early Attempt: Collaps...
WTC 1 from 2011: • WTC Simulation - World...
Simulation Stats
----------------
Element count: 28228
Constraint count: 702962
Simulation time: 10 h + 1 h building constraints
Render time: real-time
Model Specs
-----------
Group 'Concrete' mass: 100654 t and 93 kg
Group 'Steel beams' mass: 22942 t and 844 kg
Group 'Steel trusses' mass: 765 t and 292 kg
Group 'Facade' mass: 4341 t and 782 kg
Group 'Facade roof' mass: 147 t and 608 kg
Total mass: 128851 t and 619 kg
Credits & Links
---------------
Simulation and visualization by Kostack Studio
kostackstudio.de
3D software Blender: www.blender.org
Simulated with Bullet Constraints Builder (BCB): github.com/Kai...
Supported by Fracture Modifier build for better performance: blenderartists....
Software developed within INACHUS: www.inachus.eu
(Keywords: H2020, InvestEUresearch, EU-funded research, science)
at Laurea University of Applied Sciences LUAS, Finland:
inachuslaurea....
Jesus Christ what’s up with the mania of “truthers” in the comment section. It seems like the majority of y’all can’t even argue actually factual information and choose to blindly follow random people on the internet who clearly are pseudo-intellectuals with 0 logical reasoning whatsoever instead of actually taking the time to look at officially published reports, witness statements, or just general knowledge on how structural collapses work.
And I hate to say this again but an opinion is not a factual statement, therefore, stop making baseless claims about “cOnTroLlEd dEmOlItIon” when it’s VERY obvious that you have no logical reasoning or any evidence-citing skills whatsoever.
Oh and the evidence that you try to prove your already baseless claim literally contradicts everything you just said.
Jfc y’all you need to actually go back to school or something or go seek a therapist cause you REALLY need to seek help.
Funny stuff I found this good old gem that kinda spooks me out about this whole hoax thing :
th-cam.com/video/q638TUoHJU0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SDMTVUSA
It looks to be a good student/ rookie reporter documentary but the taxi driver story is kinda sus :\
And you are stupid ...
@@fiscalonline9642 Here's one specially for you :) th-cam.com/video/M1mcCBLU3tY/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=raspedine1
@ 21:06 I guess jet fuel can melt steel beams after all . But don't take my word since I'm the stupid one. Also NIST said it was burnt debris and molten aluminum from the plane but aluminium dosen't glow bright orange at 1000F and burnt debris don't flow like water. All I was trying to say is that there are a few parts of the official story that don't add up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You know you're right it wasn't demolition, must have been the bic lighters the dancing Israelis were using that did the deed,
@@hardyri lol
Wtc7 is the first building in the history that collapsed due to sadness
Oh
It couldn’t stand its brothers dying so it had to die too
Actually it was a hate crime, it didn't want any chance of any Muslims taking it down so killed itself
Yeah, although it was like the first tower which stood so strong after initially being struck suddenly lost it's will to live after it's twin in Tower #2 literally bit the dust, considering it too went down a half hour later.
Or will it have been out of sympathy, who knows. At least it wasn't because of fire.
Who made this film, Silverstein productions?
Yes, and they're coming for you
Could be. He made enough profit with the Insurance policies he took out just before 911 to fund this crap. He probably pays the nameless trolls too that try and sell the Column 79 domino explanation you see here. NIST originated it and it took seven years for them to cook up this crock.
Aparently it was M Fitz ^^^^
of course!
The maker of this video has not a clue what he is talking about either which is hilarious.
this was my Daddy's building. he is still here with us today, he made it out in time.
That's good to hear. We had so many amazing stories of friends who survived because of strange situations - like a friend who would have been just above the impact point but he had to wait for a plumber that day. Someone should make a documentary about all those stories.
I'm glad to hear that your father made it and by the way you are beautiful
Did anyone die in #7? I never remember hearing about that.
@@Lisapreps according to barry jennings he stepped over bodies. He was also killed
@@Lisapreps No, I think everyone was out before. But there's witness of explosions who was trapped but escaped. He died before he could witness though.
This is very easily explained: the walls of the building were made of toilet paper reinforced with poorly glued toothpicks, and the fact that the building collapsed at the speed of free fall onto its own foundations is a miracle.
It didn't collapse at free fall.
@@Charlie-fu6ep get yourself some glasses...
Lol
@@enmenduranna4552 Get yourself an education. It didn't collapse at free fall. Learn the definition of the words you parrot.
@@Charlie-fu6ep watch the real video, not these silly simulations, the building collapsed at the speed of free fall, vertically, directly on its own foundations... a perfect controlled demolition...
Why do demolition company need explosives when all they have to do is set a fire and damage a few steel beams! Then wait for a few hours!
The collapse of Building 7 damaged 30 West Broadway across the street beyond repair. It had to be torn down. It also caused a billion dollars in damage to the Verizon Building next door which took 3 years to repair. Steel framed buildings in urban areas are dismantled, not explosively demoed for that reason.
But they used magic fire which is much stronger than your ordinary everyday fire. Magic fire can cut right steel and burn under ground without air for a three months. Didn't you know that!
th-cam.com/video/d1QdzKAlQaE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/YNDX3kr72-M/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/qoOGGgiDOEs/w-d-xo.html
This doesn’t match the footage
Of course it doesn't. It's a model. But the initiation through progression mechanisms do and that is what actually matters, not what the exterior moment frame was doing 10 seconds later.
Isn’t it funny you can only find simulations now and one video that shows the collapse but says it was “due to fires”
It matches the collapse the black thing collies first then the tower collapsed
Kevin Larsen th-cam.com/video/IYUYya6bPGw/w-d-xo.html
Also funny how the emotional blackmail pinned comment at the top of this video doesn’t allow people to reply and it mainly similarly written emotional replies devoid of actual facts. They’re trying to get us to shut up about it but we never will.
This doesnt even remotely resemble the actual collapse.
How do you mean? See, you truthers always negate but rarely spend the time explaining your belief. According to vids of wtc 7 I've seen, it does match.
well, it's hard to see what the building looks like in real life while its collapsing because there's dust everywhere from two other collapsed buildings along with dust being created from parts of the collapsing building getting disintegrated. Also, I think it does look pretty accurate, as the first clip of this video shows.
th-cam.com/video/8WNk674LZrI/w-d-xo.html
As you can see, part of the top falls in several seconds before the rest of the building does, which indicates that the actual "building" part of the building is collapsing on the inside while the outer walls remain standing. You can even see the floors of the building collapse through the windows, I find this collapse quite interesting that even though the building has already begun to collapse, it's not obvious to somebody watching for several seconds.
@@tudorjason None is more blind than those who will not see. Please post a google search showing building 7 twisting and falling over. I'll go first; google video, 'WTC Building 7 collapse.' And, please, don't post a link to a computer-generated lie such as the one above.
@@kermitthemutantlevitatingfrog That you see dust obscuring 'building, 7' proves that whatever it is you are looking at, it is most definitely NOT building 7.
@@inkblot131 ? I'm talking about the collapse creating dust, which obstructs other parts of the building, just like you see when the twin towers collapsed earlier, the parts of the building actually breaking apart are obstructed by dust that is created from pieces disintegrating. Simulations normally don't add in the dust so you can see the parts breaking apart. As for the actual video, it is very clear that the building collapsing is 7WTC
In actual footage of the buildings collapse you can actually see the exterior near the roof bend into a v shape before collapsing, there's also another tape showing the back of the building collapsing, in that footage you could see the building tilt before hitting the ground.
It doesn't turn to dust.
@@MFitz12 I know it doesn't, it just looks like it in the footage 😅
@@lavernadavey1742 - Obscured by dust and smoke.
link?
We already know this was a demolition because we are aware of the israeli mossad involvement with the entire wtc compelex via gelatin, e-team (b-thing), dancing israelis, PNAC, Clean break memo, etc.
it went straight down, it didn't flop over
why so agressive
The Only True Orange - Absolutely. But duhplunkers think the animation is right and the real thing is wrong. Duhplunkers are special.
Kathryn Harris - Nobody cares if building 7 leaned to the south "towards the end". No surprise considering it's damage on that side. Many regular demolitions lean somewhat, particularly near the end (check them out). What building 7 didn't do, is flop over to the east. The Only True Orange is correct.
schmui It did Not fall. Completely straight down, it fell down at a slight angle, the east side leaning north and the West side leaning slightly to the south
Willy Whitten Why are you over here now babbling about something that I have already proved you wrong on? How does a floor system meant to hold a maximum of 1500 STATIC tons create and equal and opposite reaction to stop 100k tons of DYNAMIC force slamming into it? We already discussed this, you don't understand Newtons 3rd law, You're a fucking idiot.
undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-world-trade-center-collapsed.html?m=1
WTC 7 leaned in two seperate directions when it collapsed. The east side tipped slightly north and west side slightly to the south. So you didn't know this either, you really do not understand what you're talking about. I highly recomend you go to your local community college and enroll in some Physics courses.
Honest question with wish for honest answer: is'nt it inaccurate to simulate it with the building beeing completely empty. The weigh should be of because there was furniture in it and also in this simulation there are things missing from the building like the heavy elevator and walls inside the offices
Nevertheless this is amazing work I just mean this as constructive feedback
This is true, adding live load is a desirable target for future revisions. This requires a bit more research and there are still some deficits in the software to deal with too. But the first large step is done.
Kostack Studio thanks for the quick answer. Great work!
I really believe your splitting hairs with that comment.
hahahahhaha Furniture???! dude, thats like the weight of the flees on a dogs back.. it would not matter
This simulation does not fit to the original footage. Same problem we see at the NIST models. Reality ist obviously different.
Jan-Martin Mächler computers can get only to this level
It's better than ANY truther simulation
@@slamin2095 sam the troll!!!!
best truther "simulation" is "experts speak out" on TH-cam !!
@@4465Vman Vlad thinks a falling body can't crush a larger body
He has no evidence
if only the simulated collapse matched the real footage then i might of believed it
Christopher Bollyn
The NIST model literally matches up perfectly. Argument invalid, conspiracy retard.
it does it shows you what happens when you cause failure at those joint does the structure collapse? YES so yes that's how it happened. They just have to show you where the damage was then add that damage to the simulation if the building comes down in the simulation proves the collapse happened because of the damage to those joints.
@@beru_official lol, you can watch the actual collapse it looks nothing like any model that has been made
@@beru_official Woooooooooow .... You are sooooo smart.
*Sigh* go watch the video footage of building 7 collapsing again, and when you generate a simulation that actually matches what we see in the footage, let me know. This looks nothing like the footage of the collapse
Right. New examination prove NIST is LYING. watch this: th-cam.com/video/Xd7tqpwdlpQ/w-d-xo.html
It's way closer than NIST's simulation
@CoolNerd04 No. WTC 7 was there until 5:22 pm. and there was no substantial damage to WTC 7 to start a "flip flop" damage that NIST blames on column 79. Keep in mind also that BOMBS went off in WTC 7's lobby before the south tower (that exploded first) wen down. This is according the Mr. Hess and Barry Jennings who escaped from the building before all of this happened.
@@stevestars303 What the fuck are you doing over here? You ran away several times already after you were caught blatantly lying on the last 3 threads that you started and were hoping that I wouldn't come across. Do I need to start posting the accounts from Barry Jennings to prove that are a liar once more? I would strongly suggest you shut the fuck up because you have been caught many times now on this video jumping from thread to thread and posting what you *KNOW* are intentional lies to deceive as many people as you because for some reason you feel that its justified.
@@stevestars303 Oh really? you know for a fact that there were BOMBS that went off and not something else like a gas line or falling debris? According to two people who were in shock and full of adrenaline not completely sure of what was happening around them? You're a mouth breather, fuck off.
Was it super glued together? lol
It's a simulation of all support structures failing simultaneously idiot. With that said, was the actual building superglued together?
pearlmax its a joke, you dont need to be that dense
@@pearlmax . Yes failed. Using demolition. .. nat a photocopier fire.. 💣💣💣💣💣💣.. all in sync.
Did Silversteine pay for this.?
It's useless.
The building was made with carrot sticks and honey glaze.
My first impression when I saw these towers go down was similar, "Were they held up by jelly?" I instantly knew there is NO WAY two tiny (by comparison) planes in contrast to these huge buildings was going to make them fail from top to bottom.
Doesn't look like the footage from that day.
Yep, and all the delusional idiots will just gobble this slop up with no problems and ask for seconds.
coldaziceee yep
a boat load of chocking gob shit
Blake Hunt oh sure it would blake
Kaptein_kaos 100% doesnt
th-cam.com/video/4LUDXpMhkNk/w-d-xo.html
This video shows what the collapse would look like if it was initiated by the failure of column 79 and it doesn't look anything at all like the actual collapse footage which shows the building being expertly dropped into it's own basement. For WTC 7 to fall the way it did, all the columns would have to have been "taken out" at the same time, because as the footage shows, the steel structure gave NO resistance to the fall.
Building 7 did not have a basement. In fact, it was built on top of a pre-existing 3-story building - a Con-Ed electrical substation - which served as part of Building 7's foundation.
Since you got something that fundamental so completely wrong, what else did you cock up? How would you know?
Noone cares anymore. They know they can do anything. And in a few years. You will forget all about it. Now tik tok
Nice computer graphics, but still does not look anything like the real collapse footage taken on the day. WTC 7 neatly collapsed into its own footprint and hardly touched the buildings along side it. Also, where are the elevators and stair wells?
@12weasel100 How would elevators and stair wells affect the results? Are you kidding me? They are some of the strongest parts of a building. You obviously don't know anything about architecture and engineering. The actual footage of the collapse shows the building falling straight down into its footprint. This computer simulation does not. It falls sideways and collapses on to another building. That did not happen on 9-11.
The Column 79 lie is exposed again as a NIST lie. watch this: th-cam.com/video/Xd7tqpwdlpQ/w-d-xo.html
@12weasel100 Your the Moron, look at all the comments loFl you are alone buddy haha bwahaha
How fast the building fell is the key! Dew? Direct en er! G y!!!! We @pond!!!!
Dawg it literally hit the front of the Verizon office across the street. If you actually look at the footage, the roof collapses in 10 seconds before the shell falls. Never seen a controlled demo like that.
This looks nothing like what actually happened
Yes it does. You just need to know what it is you are looking at. Few people do.
@Coolio - Von Hoolio - Yeah, you copied and pasted that already. Let's try thinking for a change and not relying on shitty YT videos made by morons and a heaping helping of personal incredulity and use actual facts instead. That would be fun. Gotta hurry up though. I'm on vacation in a bit over and hour.
@Gus Lulu - Can I help you with something?
@Gus Lulu - You replied to me fucktard.
@Gus Lulu I didn't know what the fuck you were on about. Still don't. I suspect neither do you. Please go away.
The wtc 7 came straight horizontal down not what you can see here
It didn't.
@@rinse-esnir4010 it did.
@@marcelkamps7103 nope
Rinse-esniR Yep.
"Straight down" is a fabrication. The first move of the visible perimeter frame was over, with NO down move.
There is only one problem when I compared this cartoon alongside the actual video it didn't match by a long shot.
Which part? Collapse initiation phase? The transition phase from initiation to progression phase? The progression of the collapse from east to west through the core? Or just the last and least important bit, the drop of the exterior moment frame - just an empty shell by that point that was just going to do whatever it was going to do?
Oh I didn't realize you had xray vision and could see what the inside of the building was doing in the 9/11 footage... The way the shell collapses is completely irrelevant after the interior was gone... The wind could have blown that over... Besides this is just a simulation where data is input into a computer, and a model is shown for visualization. If building 7 were to fall 20 different times it would have fallen 20 different ways.
Really? th-cam.com/video/KkKgLKyhqHk/w-d-xo.html
@@MFitz12 This video does not match the Real World Event I saw broadcast on all the Networks. Did the real event fall slant over to one side as this clip shows?? Perhaps CNN cameras missed this vital moment?
@@strop9331 - The model matches all the important parts almost to a T. The trick is recognizing what the important bits are. The bit you are focusing on is the LEAST important bit, even if visually the most spectacular to the novice. Would you like to know why?
Although this seems to show ways in which WT7 could fail catastrophically, it does not show a view which exemplifies the the way it fell so evenly from both sides. Each view shows the inside failing with the outer walls falling together as a unit.
Exactly it was collapsing in a uniform fashion intil the top half of the tower hit the ground which naturally, since there was more damage on one side it fell to the side of least resistance.
It didnt. 1/3 of the building was gone, then it collapsed from a central point outward. You wanted it to be a conspiracy. Then insides fell, then the walls fell in. Just like any structure that load bearing elements have given way.
@@bartacomuskidd775 I'm not sure why you think I want a conspiracy, I'm just saying that the simulation doesn't really look like videos of the building falling down. Personally, I don't feel there is a government conspiracy but I do think that a lot of the way the ownership of the whole complex dealt with the situation as it happened and in the days following the event seem pretty shady.
@@bartacomuskidd775 "just like any structure" pffft. This is the ONLY steel high rise in history to ever fall from fire alone. It fell at free fall speed. Only a demolition can do that
For it to fall the way it did all the perimeter columns I believe 58 in total would have to collapse within a fraction of a second to produce the collapse we saw. I'm sorry but fire doesn't do that..
So I'm a bit confused here:
- How did you simulate the initial "collapse"? As in did you simulate softening of the steel by fires on the lower floors?
- How does a lower floor collapsing make all the floors above it collapse? Does a floor collapsing rip apart the nearby structural column or what?
- How likely is a building of this size to collapse this neatly due to the damage mentioned above?
-This model is agnostic as to initiating mechanism. For the purposes of the model it does not matter of that mechanism was fire, corrosion, metal fatigue, gross overloading, midgets with saws, harsh language or hush-a-boom sooper sekrit non-exploding explosives.
-Sections of one floor, dropping 14 feet onto the floor below which was not designed for that gravity load will cause it to fail, joining the mass of falling debris down to the next, rinse and repeat. Remove enough floors and the column they are attached to will lose sufficient lateral support that it will buckle. If that column happens to be one which carries a disproportionate share of the gravity load for the structure due to the structures highly unusual design and load carrying requirements,...
-100% likely since it actually happened.
@@MFitz12 Ok, thanks for the answers!
Also, what was so "unusual" about WTC7's design and load carrying requirements? I did read that it had a bigger footprint than planned and they had to implement accommodation in the foundation, as well as the core being kinda off-centered.
@@jesustyronechrist2330 - Really? Rather than a conventional box-grid sort of layout of evenly spaced columns, the original Building 7 was 47-story trapezoidal shaped tube-in-tube steel framed office tower built on top of an existing 3 story Con Edison electrical substation building of smaller footprint which served as its partial foundation. An odd shaped building built on top of another, smaller building which it overhung. Because the Cod Ed structure was designed to have a much smaller building built over it, Building 7 used a combination of existing and new caissons to carry the load. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Transfer trusses were used on the 5-7th floors to redistribute load to the foundation. In other words, several floors were devoted to moving the gravity loads around. Thus Building 7 had unusual attributes including transfer beams and trusses and other load transfer techniques that allowed the building to be cantilevered out over the smaller perimeter of the Con Ed foundation. These attributes affected the qualitative and quantitative structural redundancy in the building. Specifically, unlike say a traditional grid frame structure, large visible portions of Building 7 depended on relatively isolated structural elements and when those elements were compromised, it affected a disproportionately greater fraction of the structure.
Have you never looked at the floor diagram?
Simple once a major building collapses like the world trade centers did,the floors above have no foundation to stay intact
Fire will not melt steel and the simulation is based on research after the collapse. A controlled demolition is the only way to get a building to fall in it's own footprint.
Superb modeling. Major props to the people who worked so hard to put that together.
It's a shame that the simulation doesn't quite match the footage, but we're all human.
It's a model, not a photo-realistic artistic rendering. All the important stuff is there.
@@MFitz12 yessir, I mentioned that it was a model--and a really well-done one at that!
It's not the resolution or graphics that I was referring to when I mentioned the mismatch; merely the timing and nature of the different versions (model vs. real footage, as shown here th-cam.com/video/8WNk674LZrI/w-d-xo.html and here th-cam.com/video/8WNk674LZrI/w-d-xo.html ; different angles for comparison).
Still a truly excellent and carefully crafted model!
Cheers!
@@stanjohnson7754 - The only significant deviation from the real world event is a fraction of a second difference in timing of the buckling of 2 columns, which changes the visuals but is not otherwise significant. Same things still happen in the same order for the same result. Noobs get hung up on this because all they see is the superficial visuals, not the how and why. Again, its a model. Too many butterfly effects for any model to be a perfect match. The idea of a model is to get the mechanisms right.
@@MFitz12 structural engineers like me also get hung up on small differences, sometimes, because there are times where minutia matters.
My primary reason for pointing out the difference between model and reality is that if people only ever see the model, they may get an inaccurate impression of the event. That's all.
I think you're making a lot more out of my comments than is actually there. It's a very good model, and I've repeatedly said as much.
@@stanjohnson7754 - I agree. It is an excellent model. Also agree that people get hung up on the visuals at the very end, resulting in them completely ignoring everything that happens before that (all the important stuff) all the time.
I just wanted to point out for anyone watching that models test mechanisms, they are not intended to be 100% accurate down to the last bolt artistic renderings. Indeed, can not not be.
Quite a lot of folks don't get that either.
University of Alaska, Dep of Engineering, prof Hulsey has spent years making a digital model that will only collapse with explosives. He has published his model- NIST would never publish their model and yet they could not even make a fake simulation that resembled what we see: A building going straight down.
Correction: One obscure professor and (for a short time) a couple of grad students did a fairly low-rent and quite limited analysis of the collapse of Building 7. Nowhere in the final report this project produced does it say anything about explosives, let alone that only explosives could have caused the collapse. Hulsey merely admitted that he could not - after studying just one limited scenario - make the building collapse from fire (therefore it could not have collapsed from fire). That alone should tell you how much stock to put in the Hulsey report.
At least 4 other engineering studies have been done of the collapse of Building 7, all done by teams of far more experienced and qualified individuals working with much greater resources. All of those concluded the collapse was due to fire.
Yet another drive by truthing. Always a successful tactic.
@@MFitz12 Listen clown, the building can't fall at free fall acceleration unless the steel is taken out, *PERIOD*. I don't give a rodent's posterior about how many "far more experienced and qualified individuals" have studied it if they contradict that basic fact.
@@jamespenny9482 Listen clown, "the building" (defined as its center of mass) did not descend at a sustained rate of GA at any point during its collapse.
You've been had.
Also, more than one way to achieve an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. You need to think outside the box.
Or think.
@@MFitz12 is it possible that the "experts" that are hired by the government are liars?
Now I'd like to see a controlled demolition simulation for comparison purposes only. Great job though.
Rodrigo Guimarães Is this simulation meant to confirm or refute the official version?
He will never do it because he is a coward
th-cam.com/video/8U4erFzhC-U/w-d-xo.html
I would like to know how a controlled demolition was even mentioned and originally by whom, it would have taken days even weeks to drill all the holes to place the explosives, not to mention miles and miles of wiring, where was the detonation point , and once again by whom, so what actually is being implied here is mass murder by some say the American government, it beggars belief that thousands of people died in horrible circumstances and yet conspiracy rubbish comes before the footage of two, count them two planes which struck the towers..
yup
Excellent depiction! Bldg. 7 is often left out of the discussion but was in fact, a very large building, larger than the biggest buildings in most cities.
Have you seen the Mickey Mouse too ?
9-11 Math: 2 airplanes reduce 3 steel skyscrapers to rubble 🫤
It wasnt old either. They knew how to design fire safe high rises in 87.. Steel frame and fire retardant were no match for falling debris... Maybe they forgot to mention the "debris" was actually drums of jet fuel that kept select groups of floors burning long and hot enough to soften steel beams.. Shouldnt a fire coating, steal beams, modern construction, and limited fuel in office furnishings have saved it? Cant win them all.
@@TheSecondWitness Is this the best example you can come up with?
@@TheSecondWitness Ah yes 2 planes traveling at 430mph and 500mph fully loaded with fuel and weighing 450,000 pounds each couldn't possibly take down a building the was designed to be hit by smaller planes traveling at landing speeds, but we'll just chalk it up to an inside job using hundreds of pounds of explosives in two of the most heavily populated buildings in Manhattan and not a single person noticed. Seems logical 🙄
Maybe someday we'll be able to model things like this in real-time. Call me weird but I'm so fascinated by this sort of thing that I'd love to be able to set up a simulation of this sort and just watch it do its thing.
Model in real time??? Not sure what that implies. The geometry and materials have to be accurately defined for a finite element assessment to be accurate. I would not trust the comic book like analysis results of the truther 9/11 report they paid for from Fairbanks Alaska University (two of the 3 structural experts were Chinese nationals on education visas) that was peer reviewed by two guys in their mid 80s.
@mattaddison1910 The 9/11 Truther simulations are cartoonish and some believe they prove WTC7 was brought down via controlled demolition. While I don't believe everything the government says, I think the chances that the CIA was behind 9/11 is very very unlikely. The terrorists got lucky to have that level of impact and opened the door for a lot of conspiracies like the claims pushed by the 9/11 Truthers.
Man idfk
you can go and look at buildings collapse due to fire, and controlled demolition
Oh look!! there showing us how controlled demolition works without the explosives...
Not all controlled demolitions are done with explosives ----> ever seen a top down demo?
Just showing how the building fell, no mechanism for what started it given. That should tell u something.
@@genericdad6521 it was a domino effect one thing broke then it it multiple things to break then they caused more and more damage and etc until it spread through the whole building. I like this better than nist. Also, the whole building didn’t just collapse at once like the Alaska simulation. The roof started caving in in the original video you can see parts of the roof just vanish falling down then the exterior collapses.
by flying a plane into a building next to it .. yes
Just clam up dude you are embarrassing🙄
A simulation is supposed to mirror an actual event...an if i remember correctly wtc 7 fell STRAIGHT DOWN IN 1 PIECE....NOT PIECES!
Wrong watch this video please it didn’t fall down at once. Look closely at the roof. And then count how many seconds it takes for the exterior to collapse after the section of the roof goes and compare it to here
@KSI ♪ . That video isn’t the “full” video This video shows what I’m taking about. th-cam.com/video/e32QMAwYXmE/w-d-xo.html and what I mean by that is that a large structure on the roof collapses into the roof. This could only happen if there was nothing below to support it. So why did your video skip the penthouse falling through the roof? Which happened 6 seconds before the exoskeleton finally collapsed. why didn’t include evidence that supports that the collapse initiation started before the exterior collapses? Also to start a good investigation that will get you somewhere you need to follow some steps. First. You need to start at the official theory. And look for evidence that supports and doesn’t supports it. Then you look at theories that say different things and look if there’s evidence with real facts. And the two most important things you need to remember is not to read something because it says what you want to hear. You need to read everything unbiased. And the other most important part is recognizing Occam’s razor which means the simplest solution is most likely correct. Not every time. But usually. Also my reply earlier was kinda rude. If you don’t start at the same facts as everyone else you won’t even get anywhere. That’s how you investigate something
Also the video you posted never showed the other side of the building.
@@jonahmoran3751 the "official story" doesnt know what to do about building 7. it is a total anomaly.
Fake
IT was demolition
lol prove it then. nobody notice people rigging it ? you know long it takes to set up the gear to bring down a building? man you must be dumb.
david husband You are dumb if You think that was not a demolition.
How you know it was not a demolition is because you fucking idiots don’t realize that the people who witnessed all of this saw airplanes flying into the tower. Enough criticizing the people who are thinking the right way. Unlike you saying that basically the government secretly demolished the building.
@@gatogaming6093 NO VIDEO OF TERRORISTS
NO VIDEO OF A PLANE AT THE PENTAGON
NO JET FUEL GROUND CONTAMINATION AT PENTAGON OR SHANKSVILLE
NO WRECKAGE AT SHANKSVILLE
NO FIRE AT SHANKSVILLE
DEBRIS 8 MILES AWAY
IMPOSSIBLE PLANE SPEEDS AND ACROBATIC MANEUVERS
OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS FALSE FLAG OPERATION AS OUTLINED IN THE PNAC LITERATURE
NIST COVER-UP
PENTAGON COVER-UP
COMMISION REPORT COVER-UP, WHITEWASH, UNDERFUNDED, DELAYED
FBI COVER-UP
BUSH LYING
CHENEY LYING
RUMSFELD LYING
RICE LYING
KISSINGER RESIGNS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST
ACCUSED TERRORIST STILL ALIVE
BIN LADEN NEVER PROVEN TO BE INVOLVED
IMPOSSIBLE PHONE CALLS FROM PLANES
IMPOSSIBLE PLANE SPEED
MINETTA TESTIMONY
NO JET INTERCEPTORS
PENTAGON TRILLIONS
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
ANTHRAX AMES STRAIN LINKED TO U.S.
MILITARY GRADE NANO-THERMITE
FIRE BURNING OVER 3 MONTHS
MOLTEN METAL
NUMEROUS WHISTLEBLOWERS
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
FIREFIGHTERS
MEDICS
POLICE
PILOTS
MEDIA
THOUSANDS OF WITNESSES
PICTURES
VIDEOS
EXPLOSIONS
ILLEGAL TORTURE
FREE FALL
PULL-IT
PUT OPTION INSIDER TRADING LINKED TO WHITE HOUSE
EPA
AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON INTO EVERY ASPECT OF 9/11
reasonable doubt
just a little
@Christian DiPaola All owned by 0ne person and no other building collapsed, just the buildings owned by Larry
Demolition crew couldn’t have done a better job 😳
But they didn't.
Fritzbergsteinowitz seems to agree with the narrative 100% Give him a big Shalom and leave him be...
@@MFitz12 SHALOM>>>>>>>
Moron
@@MFitz12
You :
" - The steel in none of the buildings wasn't melted like butter so I don't need to explain anything about things that did not happen."
......
"I am more than happy to discuss actual true and relevant facts but there isn't even a place to begin here. You are so not even wrong the only recourse is for you to completely forget everything you think you know and start over clean slate."
So what was that bright orange LIQUID FLOW ???
Let's "start over clean slate"
You might not know the meaning of words. That would be a very long way to bring yourself up to date, to the rest of the people's universal understanding of them. Assuming you went already to those years of school. (or maybe not ?)
Neat simulation. You need the top to drop straight down though, not tilt to one side. It drops straight down at full ffa for about 8 stories, make it like that.
make it like that... (great scientific process)
Not one can recreate it... Only using explosives is the way... But they try and try to explain it with the same lies... I have been telling all the people that defends this ideas... Could you recreate the world trade center with wood... Use and antorch over 15000 centigrades degrees and show me twice... How it will fall 90 degrees perfect.. Not one can.... Fire doesn't produce it...
@@skaford thing that folks do not understand is tha temps they tell you jet fuel burns at is the combustion temp , not the temp if it is spilled out of a container onto carpet and roof tile etc then lit ...... temps inside an engine combustion chamber are way higher than just open burning flame
@@skaford planes did crash , but bombs were placed ..this goes back to money and war ..we trained bin laden we made a Enemy we could control this plan is beyond our understating it’s like a game of chess and that day a big move was made ..they can try and sell lies after lies ..but the truth can never ever Be known ..the US can’t say they killed innocent Americans , train a guy , then label them ..
If that’s even true, that heat would not be exist for long. And all the fuel was spent right after the impact. Sustained fires from paper and office furniture can’t melt steel.
The fires in 7 weren’t even that big.
There were so many different accounts - I remember a few stories on the news stating that 7 was brought down intentionally, for safety, due to damage because some rubble from the twin towers hit it.
I thought Silverstein pulled this lol.
that's what conspiracies lead you to believe. Be smarter than them.
@@mygetawayart Silverstein said it himself actually
@Occultist Aperta pull the NYFD away from the building otherwise they would have DIED. You conspiracy theorist make me gag, you gotta be really dumb to really believe in this sort of crap.
Occultist Aperta pull the contingent, or group of firemen away from the building. And it's his building, i don't know if it was his authority or not but the building was already been evacuated, they were only searching in case any other had remained inside. He deemed that operation inconclusive and just decided that it wasn't worth sacrificing more firemen that day, suggesting to get them to safety, watching, a few minutes later, the building collapse.
He's on record saying so - you have youtube - you can look it up! It's actually there.
Controlled demolition. Trust your eyes.
What about your ears?
No, reject the evidence of your own eyes
@@MFitz12in most videos of wtc sevens collapse the audio is completely cut until after the building has fallen indicating that they were hiding the sounds of the explosions and plenty of eye witness from that day say they heard explosions moments before its collapse and this was hours after towers 1 and 2 fell so there would be no sounds of falling debris or anything that simulates an explosion besides an explosion
@@Invictaplays_1 - How about this video? th-cam.com/video/3PC3HWdUPHU/w-d-xo.html
I would consider the audio and video quality excellent.
Let me know if you find any witnesses to those incredibly silent explosions. Names, sources, full quotes, etc,...
@@Invictaplays_1 "Most videos"? It would have to be cut in ALL VIDEOS to indicate a coverup. There are plenty of videos where the audio was not "cut" and no explosions are heard consistent with those of a controlled demolition. "Plenty of eyewitnesses" heard explosions? There were plenty more who didn't...of course you'll never see their testimony in any conspiracy videos. And speaking of hours after WTC1 and 2 collapsed, if WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, how was it possible for the multitude of explosive devices and wiring connecting them to survive the ravaging flames and extraordinary heat that develops in seven hours of uncontrolled fires?
this looks completely different from reality ...
Well yes, because this model shows everything that is out of view in the real world event - which is almost the entire collapse.
@@MFitz12 look at you coming here the whole 5 years defending whenever its needed like a lap dog. good boy
@@johart309 - Well that was pathetic.
Do let us know if you should ever manage to come up with anything of value or substance to add to the discussion.
I won't wait up.
did anyone do a WTC7 simulation as per a typical controlled demolition? The 23 vids of collapse look like a controlled demolition.
Agree. Unless somethings wrong with those cameras shooting while it collapsed. The building seemed more or less "plane" as it went down, like a controlled demolition. Not like on this video.
It's amazing how many people think they are structural engineers because they watched a video.
Including people like you.
It's amazing how many people think you need credentials from academic institution to see that a building clearly fell straight down, just like a controlled demolition. No fancy sounding credentials are needed - only basic intellectual honesty is.
It Looks like a house of cards: No elements attached to each other?! Only a Simulation ....
a bad one to say the least.
They were just not visually.
Yeah it's weird how the steel just ripples and falls apart like a weak set of scaffolding blown over in the wind...
My thought exactly, the steel bracing just quit? That's absolute bullshit.. there have been buildings with bombs go off inside of them and the steel remains intact.
This simulation is way the hell off.
cauz its bullshit of some kiddo brain. THE VICTIMS DESERVE THE TRUTH!!!! Also all NATO PARTNERS WHO WENT TO WAR FOR THIS SHITSTORY
After watching this video, I’m never going. Into any building that’s more than. One storey, it’s like legos in a cardboard box
That is decidedly the wrong reaction.
So ur not going into ur house?
I’ll never forget the day I trusted a building to stand up
Funny how never in history a steel building ever fell because of fire but we had 3 that day 😏
It's amazing what the failure of one steel column can do.
Depends on the column but yes.
There are contradictory simulations that imply the column connections from 7 floors would have to be removed to have a collapse as seen on 9-11.
In fact, Professor of Civil Engineering J. Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska led a 4-year (2015-2019) investigation titled "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7" which concluded thar "the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building".
@@kodowdus his 'analysis' is deeply flawed. Don't try to cherry pick just to conform to a preconceived ideology. All of the buildings around the twin towers were badly damaged; all of the WTC buildings were destroyed with varying degrees of full collapse or structural compromise.
This fetish about WTC is either dogmatic ignorance or deliberate, evil dishonesty.
@@kodowdus Funding: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
I could've told you what they'd find from that alone.
A perfect example of controlled demolition.
How so?
@@MFitz12 well watch it it was demolition so we're the towers
@@wolves1980 Such a great argument. "Watch it, it just is"
1. shut up the only reason it feel straight is cause, oh I don't know THEY WERE DESIGNED LIKE THAT, the builders intentionally designed them to fall down straight, so they wouldn't cause a domino effect, and the reason the debris shot out is cause of internal pressure, how would you feel if you survived a major terrorist attack and some braindead moron came up to you and said 'Uh, hey dingus that's actually a government ploy to destroy some buildings in Manhattan' just shut up, no one cares about 'the truth' you braindead asshole a fucking orange peel has more braincells then you.
imagine thinking they had to demolish a building to get rid of some papers when all the documents in it could very easily been backed up to a cloud server in 2001 when the internet actually existed
This is what the building "should have done" but clearly it did not fall like this
Hey, Weasel: tinyurl.com/kostackisfullofshit-png
You were saying?
The left is a screenshot from the video you are currently on. The right is footage from the ACTUAL collapse of WTC 7, sourced from the video "WTC 7 23 angles" here on TH-cam. It's not edited. I am illustrating the point that this "simulation" is intentionally misleading, and FAR from being even close to accurate to what happened in reality. You have to be delusional to think there is ANY resemblance. I urge any onlookers reading this, to simply look up the footage of the collapse, and see for yourself. You'll see that I am right, and Kostack and 12weasel100 are bold-faced LIARS.
steel buildings don't fall down without some "heavy duty" explosives ... thermite for example ..
12weasel100 you must hate physics do you.? haha the building didn‘t even fall like that you idiot.
Alain Demren Wrong. The buildong fell the north face tilted slightly to the north and the South face slightly to the South
I prefer watch Roadrunner animation ..beep beep
@Ashton Lovell hehehe
So you made an animation with captions.... And are trying to call this science.... Good lord. I'm an electrical and computer engineer. There's at least 200 different major physical and chemical processes taking place every millisecond that need to be simulated on an extremely powerful machine or cluster to even begin to get a decent simulation of this building collapsing due to.... Fires..... This type of work would require a team of at least 15-20 extremely skilled engineers and PhDs in multiple fields as well as some skilled software engineers to write and test and debug different scenarios and hard core new types of physical interactions into autocad.... This would be a million dollar grant project and would probably take over 2-3 years to get a working model. And that model would only be 10 seconds of video that can be slowed down by the millisecond with a ton, which means billions, of calculations taking place every frame..... And all of that work would result in the most obvious outcome.... The simulation would show building 7 burning indefinitely until the fire went out.... Because the most basic constraint, the melting and weakening temp of the supporting beams, would never even sniff the required levels to compromise the structure. And even if one floor for example happened to tilt or buckle, the 40 floors under it would experience absolutely no stress whatsoever.... Consider this for a second.... You can fit probably 20 thousand human beings above any given floor on those buildings. That's around 2,000,000 lbs of EXTRA force on a floor. Which is way more force than you'd expect
Structural steel loses most of its ability to support a load at less than half its melting temperature.
Stick to electronics.
@@MFitz12 Structural steel does not turn into dust when it loses it's structural integrity. You're making an argument for why the building should have bent at the point of impact and possibly tilted at the top level. That's not an argument for how dozens of floors with below it with no significant heat exposure thus no weakening of steel turned into polverized metallic fog in less than 10 seconds of a collapse. You really don't see how this the official explanation is physically impossible imploring the most basic understanding of classical physics?
When we do physical or chemical analysis we have to seriously account for all constraints and variables over the full timeline across the full spatial map which in this case is 3 dimensional. Sure you can easily make an argument that structural steel will significantly weaken in furnace temps (which is the MAX that we'd expect from burning fuel in a semi closed space). But that only accounts for the steel that is in the fire. And that steel only covered about 10 floors at the max out of dozens of floors. So even if those floors were weakened, what is follows (worst case) is that the floors above the 10 floors becomes too much downwards force for the burning floors, and all of the horizontal imbalanced forces kick BEFORE the vertical forces because the vertical upwards force is still much stronger in this structure than the horizontals.... So if we're going to see any motion due to compromised structural steel strength and overbearing pressure from floors above, then we will CERTAINTLY see horitizal movement before anything else... Which cool look like the top portion tilting over the side or slanting slightly .... Or maybe even worse the whole thing falls off the side (very unlikely given that there's not a significant ongoing horitizal external force). The last thing we'd expect to see is the top floors smashing down on the floors below causing a chain reaction of forces floor by floor. Why? Because even if one floor buckled and fell on the floor below and so on and so on, the floors that haven't been exposed to significant heat would stop immediately withstand the collapse.... Otherwise they weren't strong enough to support a skyscraper with thousands of people to begin with....
@@leonscott543 - Structural steel does not turn to dust, period. And it didn't on 9/11. Not sure why you would even bring that up. Beyond irrelevant. Did not read further.
@@MFitz12 Yes it did.... Everything turned to dust. You can't take a skyscraper and turn it into a small pile of rubble by just smashing it like a pancake...... That cloud of smoke on that day is white smoke is the color of polverized metal.... The only way to achieve that color smoke is by detonating high strength metals. Black smoke on the other hand is gas fire smoke....
@@leonscott543 - The 7 story pile of steel where Building 7 had stood says you are wrong. It was cleaned up with cranes, front end loaders, men with cutting torches and dump trucks, not with brooms and dust pans.
Each individual piece of the sim only becomes detached. The build of each individual piece doesn't break down further than that. My point... nothing breaks bends or shatters in this simulation it just becomes detached.
That's because it is simulating reality. Steel can't shatter in a building, it heats up and comes apart at connections.
But the problem with this simulation is that the building did not colapse like that
Sure it did. Collapse starts in the NE corner, with visible deformations and a vertical line of window breakage along the Column 79 line and a kink in the rooftop East Mechanical Penthouse roof. Collapse then progresses to columns 80 and 81 resulting in the EMP falling into the building. From there collapse progresses from east to west through the central core until the central core is gone, leaving just a hollow, empty shell still standing. Finally that empty shell does the only thing it can do and drops. That it twists a bit more in the Kostack model is of no significance.
Remakes are never as good as the original.
This simulation is much closer to what I imagined after reading the probable collapse sequence written by NIST. A vertically symmetrical fall, as shown in the video, is totally impossible if the collapse starts from one or several points inside the building. At some point, the external structure has to move inward.
Thank you very much for your work.
P.S. Please don't assert that Wikipedia is a neutral source, because it is not. It's good for science but not for facts of political importance.
Wow a simulator of falling castle of cards!
exactly
indeed!! not a huge cage of thousands of tons of structural steel, but rather...cards!!!
interesting how the facade wasnt pulled down by other stwel members but the interior just fell apart
That's not how the building collapsed. They'll think people are stupid
Part of it is underestimating us intellectually, but most of it is just trying to intimidate us.
You can never lie your way out of a lie no matter how well each new lie is crafted.
Tell that to Trump.
@@MFitz12 why is Trump your Idol?
@@jaspernewcomb5656 Just stating the obvious fact the man lies professionally and makes it work. Conspiracy believers love the shit out of that guy because he is just like them.
@@MFitz12 is a paid shill sponsored by Larry Silverstein's dermatologist to be here. Don't argue with this CIA BOT.
hahaha that robot really loves trump
It's amazing how powerful computers have become these days to be able to create simulations like these.
They've been that powerful for at least 20 years.
The power is not in the computer it's in the the human directed algorithm. This is essentially an imitation of the NIST model that took five years to come up with. By the way they won't share their input data.
@@akiracornell Probably because their data is corrupt or insufficient. Have your seen "Investigating the World Trade Center WTC7 Collapse | CSI | Forensics Talks Ep. 52 | ft. Roland Angle"? They claim WTC7 couldn't have collapsed the way NIST claims it did, sort of scientifically proven to be impossible.
@@akiracornell True !
*animations
I was watching these events as they happened and recall when a NYC government official (accidentally?) said live on air in an interview with the media that they were going to "pull" building 7. Although I have occasionally seen references to this incident, it sure seems that follow-up should have been undertaken in its regard, like posing the question "What exactly did you mean when you said: 'We're going to pull building 7?'.
Search this on TH-cam:
9/11 Bombshell: CNBC Anchor Says Building 7 a 'Controlled Implosion'
I would post a direct link but that would get shadow-banned just as this post very likely will, so I recommend you check it out soon.
None of that was accurate.
Pull it in this context means get the firefighters out.
@@NewJeffersonian Saying nonsense won't get you "shadow-banned", no matter HOW much of a martyr-complex you have. Nor does repeating that nonsense.
@@MFitz12
You didn’t know Larry Silverstein was the vice chancellor of nyc?
This video shows a controlled detonation plain and simple. Smoke and mirrors, I wouldn't be surprised that while all the focus was on Towers 1&2, the GOLD was being removed from Building 7!
How did you reach that conclusion?
@@MFitz12 Can three Buildings collapse in on themselves in almost the exact same way on the same day?
What could someone gain from such an operation?
If you wanted to steal millions and get away with it, how could you do it?
How long would you need to plan it?
Would your greed stop there? Or would you want to gain more through certain events unfolding that would influence the NYSE?
Has anyone released proof that all money was accounted for? Or do we just take their word for it?
9/11- A multi phased plan of deceit and murder.
@@mikeh3084 - What the hell kind of question is that? A million buildings can collapse in on themselves in almost the same exact manner on the same day if the circumstances are right. Its not like there is some sort of arbitrary cap on these things. Not that it matters since even three Buildings DID NOT collapse in on themselves in almost the exact same way on the same day.
Not even close.
You are making false technical claims because you think that will bolster your political agenda.
It doesn't. Never does.
@@mikeh3084 - Now then, if we could get back to it; What IN THIS MODEL shows any sort of detonation?
I would submit that - like everyone else of your ilk - you completely missed the fact no collapse initiating mechanism is shown. Nada. Zip. Zilch. zero. Not a chance you figure out the implications for what that actually means, bleeding obvious as they are.
@@MFitz12 So you believe 3 buildings suffered the failures where as only 2 were struck by aircraft and numerous firefighters and experts say there is no way Building 7 collapsed due to a simple fire. Keep in mind engineers took into account in the design of WTC for them to be able to withstand a plane strike. Your tbeory of opinion holds no water with millions upon millions my friend nor with me, you will not change my mind and do not care for the opinion of someone who is biased or naive. 3 Buildings, 2 planes, yet all fell into their own footprint? I'm to believe that? No thank you.
Could you please do a 3D simulation of the Deutsche Bank Building standing strong after the August 2007 fire? That would be really impressive to see.
That would be boring. Now St. Nicholas Church could be fun.
@@MFitz12 Really? What is mysterious or odd about a masonry low-rise building constructed in 1832 as a private residence being buried in hundreds of tons of rubble that requires examination? That building was obviously doomed.
@@sorcerykid - I just said it could be fun. The loss of St. Nicholas Church is no more a mystery than the loss of Bankers Trust. Studying either with models will do nothing to further the cause of improving building safety.
@@MFitz12 If the Deutsche Bank building was designed in such a way that it can withstand a sustained, uncontrolled fire with no working standpipe that WTC7 could not by its design, then yes it will go a long way to improving building safety. Saying that it won't is completely disingenuous.
@@sorcerykid - Are you talking about 9/11/2001 or the Aug 18, 2007 fire during deconstruction by which time the building had been emptied and reduced down to the 26th floor?
This looks nowhere near what happened that day. A computer model is in no way going to answer the questions, on both sides of the coin. Real-world experience cant be replicated like this. All your doing is trying to find something that can match as closely as possible the collapse of the building. Clutching at whatever straws u can doesn't mean anything. Until another highrise comes down to make a comparison well then it's not possible to happen the way u say.
Jimmy Thompson.
You are braindead.
CFD modelling is accurate you idiot.
How do you think they build ANYTHING these days???🤔🤔🤔
And another thing fudnut, YOU, ME and EVERYONE fucking else, ONLY saw the collapse from the outside ya plank.😂😂😂
Brian Cureton hmm let me see, u say everyone knows its accurate except braindead me, hmm ok so can u please point out the moment where it resembles what happened in reality? besides saying it collapsed and on the day it collapsed which is the only thing showing any similarity. Contents in each floor were disregarded and although having plenty of time and expertise on hand to painstakingly come up with a senario that fits they still couldn't come up with a match. If it is so clear in your mind that its right then your opinion and argument means absolutely nothing, just another dick with too much shit in your mouth. Why couldn't they come up with a simulation that matches if its so cut and dry? Why with repeated requests to see the data from this and the two towers was there a denial? National security? Haha a fucking joke, what by refusing the data does that achieve? its clear why it wasnt provided because u cant prove a lie, no matter how many dickheads like yourself shout and criticise it doesn't change the fact that it is a load of bullshit. The only thing that I enjoy with idiots like yourself is the blind denial that is astonishing it amazes me. How u and anyone can sit there look at all the events of that day and the subsequent massive amount of coincidences and 'firsts' and not c anything wrong or at least circumstances that by themselves warrant a new investigation is ridiculous but unfortunately there's too many fucking idiots like u that continually shit on all the families that want an investigation. U make me sick
Jimmy Thompson.
What part of "CFD modelling" is too fucking complex for you to understand???.
Jimmy Thompson.
Again I will repeat, the science PROVES itself ya halfwit.
All you have is cognitive dissonance, based in your failure to understand basic physics and engineering.
So if you are claiming to "not believe in physics and engineering", stop using whatever device to write your nonsense, get out of that house you live in that has been built using that very science and engineering you claim is false, and go live in the woods and whittle spoons out of wood for the rest of your days, you complete and utter idiot.😉😉😉
Oliver D This is the absolute dumbest comment I have come across to date. Tall steel framed buildings typically cannot fall over to the side very much because their connections would break before that happens.
Yes, it killed itself. Reporters knew how it felt and they reported it coming down before the building collapsed. All those documents came down and burnt as well, poor building, rip.
Seems accurate, if the building was constructed from tin and cardboard. . . . .
It is and it wasn't.
Everyone who says that was a Explosion haven't think about the fact that the fire took a lot of the load capacity. Over the half of it i guess almost 70%
@@MFitz12 Sorry but the juries back and NIST's version of events is impossible. See the documentary Seven, based on findings of a structural engineer at the U of Alaska.
@@darkmath100 - You are wrong again, but who cares. The Kostack model has nothing to do with NIST. You are engaging in that classic conspiracy believer tactic of internet debate trickery when losing an argument - the deliberately off-topic evasive derail.
And oh yeah, the Hulsey model was a money making scam, quite useless as actual science, explaining why AE911T are monetizing it on TH-cam and Amazon Prime instead of presenting it to knowledgeable, professional audiences like they promised. You've been had.
But again, off topic here. We're talking about the Kostack model.
@@MFitz12 Building 7 didn't lean when it fell as this simulation does at 2:37. Check out the original: th-cam.com/video/PK_iBYSqEsc/w-d-xo.html
Was wtc7 made out of match sticks?
Popsicle sticks. Lol.
And dominoes, yes. No glue though, that would make for a rather sturdy structure, that's cheating.
This is very funny a lot of imagination! Bravo
@Konto Testowe as a Swiss I totally agree. But greatest nation on planet😂😂😂
I- how is this funny? Nothing about 9/11 is funny? They are showing how building 7 collapsed that day.... I see nothing funny
J mld WTC 7 was 679’ (207m) to the top floor and 743’ (226m) in architectural height.
The tallest building in Switzerland is 584’ (178m) tall.
We don’t even think about you.
@@frankdevo5715 You must of not learned what happened on 9/11. The WTC 7 building was only one building to collapse. The twin towers were struck by plans that terrorists hijacked and crashed (twin towers being 110 floors). The pentagon was was struck by a hijacked plane. The 4th hijacked plane crashed in an open field because the passengers fought back! We lost 343 firefighters, 72 officers, 8 paramedics, and over 3000 americans! The WTC 7 building collapsed because of the fire and debri to struck it damaging it too much to continue to stand. Thousands of soldiers deployed that day and the days following because of the threat. Teachers were calling parents to see if they were alive (my family live in Virginia and my dad was military and my mom a teacher, we lived 45 minutes away from the pentagon). Search dogs were becoming so down and depressed from finding so many dead bodies, handlers and first responders would hide so the dogs would find them alive and lift there spirits so they could continue working. People jumped from the twin towers because jumping to their death was fast than burning alive. People got lung cancer from the amount of dust and smoke and would die years later cuz of this. The sound of bodies hitting the ground was so loud it traumatized people. Nothing about this is funny, a 'tiny' building collapsing was just on thing that happened that day, it still killed! If this were to happen in your country I wouldn't compare building heights and laugh. It's disrespectful, educate yourself then speak. I forgot to mention, the twin towers also collapsed. I think about other countries and their struggles and past tragedies, I don't find it funny. Learn some respect.
Last edit: It wasn't only American that died. Workers from other countries also died.
I was a firefighter and worked that day IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
Which house?
@@MFitz12 No reply. What DO you know...
But I'm sure there's nothing suspicious about that....right?
Interior of the building is falling like it's a house of cards. That's simply not how steel frame structures react. An actual steel structure would put up much more resistance than what's shown in this video.
If you want to see an actual scientific explanation of what happened (or what didn't happen, I should say), check out the work of Professor Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska.
correct
I recently saw a video I hadn't seen before
Of building 7, you could see the roof collapsing into the building before the entire thing fell
So the internal structure was coming apart before any collapse
I've seen some pictures of the other side of the building, the side damaged by the collapsing world trade buildings
It was hit by a lot of debris
Entire side was missing basically
The internal structure collapsing WAS the collapse.
@@MFitz12 right... I mean as opposed to the controlled demolition theory
@@Meowface. There is no controlled demolition theory. Never rises to that level.
@@MFitz12
The sounds of explosions all day in Building 7 . . . FDNY firefighters saying they will "have to bring the building down" and "Keep your eye on that building. It'll be coming down" . . . NYPD officer at Building 7 telling bystanders "The building is about to blow up, move it back" . . . CNBC financial anchor Ron Insana talking about Building 7 in a WABC radio interview and saying "So they did manage for one to take that down in a controlled implosion later on" . . . Numerous commentators stating on air that the collapse of Building 7 was exactly like a planned implosion.
No, nothing at all to support a controlled demolition theory. All just a fanciful fiction made up by some misguided people called . . . well, you know what we're called. Let's see you try to refute this with some facts instead of your typical baseless blather.
@@newjeffersonian6456 - Well, little if any of that is true and any that is, not relevant. But you keep trying. Maybe someday you can come up with an argument that has not already failed a thousand times before. Good luck with that.
Apparently the outside plaster was the strongest part of the building 😂
No plaster on the outside of the building. It was a moment frame.
The outer structure indeed was the strongest part.
It's a tube in a tube construction.
@@rinse-esnir4010 Office furnishings burned so hot it went clean through the retardant before morphing into a raging jet fuel fire that burned long and hot that thermal expansion ripped the steel floor from the steel frame. It just happened to be where the feds store a lot of files and offsite backups. No injuries and the office was at 50% capacity. At least they properly evacuated the building before igniting whatever fuel was used.
@@stevensgarage6451 What jet fuel are you talking about?
Looks like a perfect demolition!
This cartoon is not reflected the reality (
On actual field side tape that captures the collapse of building 7, looks like the top of the building collapsed straight down and all at once. It was commented later buy a structural engineering that the footage shows the building too collapsed at free fall speed, like there was no structural underneath to support it. Just like a demolition then all or most support columns are strategically blown up from bottom to the top so the gravity complete the job.
Also, this cartoon shows that all walls of the building was pushed outside on the bottom of the building and then collapsed at ground level. In reality, exterior walls on the bottom of building 7 was standing (bottoms floors), then the rest of the building was acutely collapsed inside as only interior structural was compromised.
What does a "perfect demolition" look like?
Why?
What does a building collapsing look like with no pre-planned demolition?
The Kostack model collapse mechanisms are accurate. Interior of the building fails first, then the hollow empty shell that remained on the outside dropped. Who cares how fast that hollow empty shell drops? Why does that matter? There was no support under it. The inside of the building (the support for the moment frame) was long gone. It's right there in the model.
No matter how many investigations of all types won't change the fact that innocent lives were destroyed, Families torn apart, planned futures, dreams and hopes gone because of hate, power and money. God bless you all and stay safe. ✌
@catlover2543 i agree with you 100% but if we are just "good vibes" and stuff we will never know the real truth, it's like, I'm sorry for the lives lost but i WHY did it happened, but i still agree with you though
@@gustavo.henri2 but the official investigation is most likely correct due to Occam’s razor
It didn't fall like that. Sorry
I saw a video that shows the detonations before it collapses
I've seen all 24 videos of Building 7's collapse. There were no detonations.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl then you haven't seen all the videos
@@nunisrebeiro - I have. I don't see you producing this alleged video that shows detonations when all of the known (real) ones don't. I doubt that will change. You don't have one of these either;
The collapse of the unknown and unimportant Building 7 - one of 6 buildings to collapse of 10 destroyed on 9/11 - confuses a lot of people, despite being one of the most studied engineering disasters in history. It was not famous, not a terrorist target, no one was killed in it and thus it did not get a lot of attention, so most know very little about it. Given the choice between long boring, hard to find technical reports and readily available, easily digestible fantasy on the internet, many turn to the latter. To counter that I prepared this brief summary explanation based on my own analysis. No politics, just engineering.
The North Tower collapse at 10:28am bombarded Building 7 with thousands of tons of burning debris, causing heavy damage and starting raging fires burning out of control for the next 7 hours. Half the responding FDNY firefighters having been killed, others injured, units in disarray, much of their equipment destroyed, no water pressure, and the greater urgency of Search & Rescue efforts, firefighting efforts at 7 were pulled as futile. The building couldn’t be saved and was left to its fate.
th-cam.com/video/g_SvpwyC17M/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MFitz
Collapse of a burning structure is always a concern for firefighters. Steel buildings subject to fire _rely on active fighting of the fires_ to survive. Left to their own devices they will collapse. Buildings are designed around 1 to 3 hours of fire resistance, allowing time for occupants to escape and _ACTIVE firefighting_ to get started, after which all bets are off. In B7 the occupants escaped, passive and active fire protections were compromised and *active firefighting never got started* which left the building to take its chances. It lost. Odds on Building 7 would eventually collapse,… and it did. No big deal in logic. That is the sort of choice firefighters make every day in brush fire situations - which houses to save and which ones to let go. Only real difference here is moving the decimal on the size and cost.
*FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro* ; _The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the buildings structural integrity was in serious doubt. I issued orders to PULL BACK the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; We could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to PULL EVERYONE OUT, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties and the collapse terrain_
*FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden* - _We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement in the building. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse in the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said 'In its current state you have about 5 hours_
With its deteriorating condition being reported throughout the day, the collapse of Building 7 expected by the FDNY, bystanders *and the media* meaning at least 24 video cameras recorded some or all of the collapse. Everyone at the time knew what was coming and why.
th-cam.com/video/OY5S5k3tMHI/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=911InvestigationVids
Building 7’s collapse was totally different to the Twin Towers, harder to understand and most of the details difficult to see. But we can sort out what happened through careful analysis and observation. What follows is *MY EXPLANATION* of the collapse sequence using the best available information and relying on no authority.
B7 was complex structure, a 47-story steel framed building built on top of a smaller existing 3-story building, requiring several lower floors dedicated to complex load transfer structures instead of usable office space. Of trapezoidal shape and all-steel tube-in-tube construction, B7 (above the 7th floor) consisted of a central core of steel columns carrying most of the gravity load, perimeter steel columns around the outside of the structure carrying the remainder of the gravity loads and long span beams and girders to tie those elements together and form the floors. On the outside of the building hung a moment frame - the last part of B7 to fall.
*Phase 1* : Collapse initiation for B7 is *notably quiet* with observers not realizing the building was collapsing! There was no audible warning in the form of say hundreds of ear drum busting 180-190dB explosive bangs preceding the collapse. The first externally visible signs of collapse initiation occurred at 5:20:28 pm. Here at 12:00 a local CBS affiliate reporter is talking 10 blocks from B7 when collapse begins. People don’t start to notice the collapse until 12:11. Then at 12:45 is the famous CBS fixed camera clip of Building 7’s collapse Again, note how quiet it is.
th-cam.com/video/t5tEy6mXSE8/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=fresnosean379
Collapse initiation was due to multiple lower floor failures above the load transfer region (7th floor) in the NE corner of the building. In this video at 0:45 you can see the NW corner from inside the building while under construction, Column 79 just out of frame on the left. That big, angled steel beam across the top of the frame connects to C79 at one end. The girders connect to the beam. The beam and all those girders _depend on just one connection_
th-cam.com/video/nP3TNHPCIVU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=EdwardCurrent
*Phase 2* : Lower floor failures left core Column 79 laterally unsupported over an excessive length and it buckled. If you look at a floor diagram of Building 7 (see above) and look at all the structures that depend on C79 you quickly realize *this one column was a relatively isolated structural element on which a disproportionately greater fraction of the structure depended* . Externally we see a vertical progression of window breakage along the 44-46 line and a kink in the roof of the East Mechanical Penthouse at the top of the building, consistent with C79 failure. The transition from full capacity to almost no capacity occurs in virtually an instant. *Once the buckling failure occurs there is almost no resistance*
Normally with a buckling column, the load could very well be redistributed to other columns, meaning the buckling could stop after a while. With C79 that is not the case - the failure did not redistribute the load, so the collapse rapidly progressed to the roofline, sinking the rooftop penthouse.
*Phase 3* : With C79 gone, B7’s progressive, non-symmetrical collapse continues with C80 and C81 at the east end of the core left laterally unsupported and quickly buckled and failed as well, sending the EMP down through the building. C79-81 all have no diagonal bracing, which I believe is a major reason why they could not redistribute a lot of vertical loads among one another.
From there *collapse progressed from east to west through the central core until the core was gone* taking all of the interior floors and structures and probably most of the perimeter columns with it. You can see the horizontal progression of window failures low in the building and the dropping of the remaining rooftop structures into the building. One of the big takeaways from the NIST Building 7 study was their modeling which determined C79 failing under _ANY circumstances_ would have initiated the same collapse sequence.
*Phase 4* : After about 10 seconds only the exterior moment frame - a hollow shell mostly supported by the 4 corner columns and quite unable to stand on its own - remains, creating the illusion the building is still standing since little has changed externally. That’s just hollow empty shell, like an empty cereal box. The north leans inward, forming a V in the roofline. The last remaining perimeter columns buckle under the strain. There is almost no resistance as the moment frame free falls, landing _on top_ of the 7-story high debris pile, blocked surrounding streets, heavily damaged the Verizon Building and destroyed Fiterman Hall at 30 W. Broadway, all well outside of Building 7’s “footprint”. It is only here, at the very end that a single utterly meaningless measurement of alleged _free fall_ is taken. Start to finish the collapse took 18-20 seconds, or *less than 1/3 of true free fall*. Not that we really care since how **_fast something falls cannot tell you what started it falling_** in the first place. The **_free fall_** argument is about the collapse of the outer shell *AFTER* all of the critical internal structure had already failed and completely ignores about 80-90% - of the collapse.
Building 7’s progressive, non-symmetrical collapse was incidental and unintended collateral damage from the combined effects of fire + time + gravity started by the collapsing North Tower. That is *true no matter who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks or why* . The collapse was of so little consequence it barely even registered at the time, a mere footnote.
I hope you found this helpful. It is meant to be informative, not adversarial and to solicit informed critical comment. If I made any errors of fact, logic or reason or left anything critical out, please let me know so I can fix it. IF you can offer a more plausible alternative be my guest. So far no one has even tried. Please start any reply with the words “Tits McGee” or I will know you didn’t actually read it.
This is what I have learned about 7. After the attack I was big on all the conspiracy theories. I looked at many different theories and one by one I found holes in them. As an engineer, I could not ignore glaring holes in each conspiracy I investigated. Along the way during my conspiracy research, I found many things about 7 that pointed me to a structural collapse and not a controlled demolition. These are listed in no particular order. It is my opinion that 7 suffered the same fate as 3, 4, 5, and 6. It was destroyed by having HUGE (hundreds of tons each) pieces of WTC 1 falling on it. 7 was right across the street from 1.
Just to be clear, each building was hit by pieces from who knows which building, you can make a good guess if you look at the layout of the site, but the twin towers were so huge, it is hard to say, but 7 was in closest proximity to 1.
One thing that was never really discussed was the WTC7 gash. This was a huge area along the back of the building where a large piece of 1's outer wall fell on the building and structurally severed it from top to bottom like a zipper that had come unzipped. many support structures were compromised by the gash. both vertical and horizontal beams and supports. This was the largest, most visible damage to the building from large pieces of debris falling upon it. There is a web site that discusses the gash. This gash is important later on in my discussion, because it is on the "floating" end of the building.
This an excerpt from a history channel (UK) article......................
As the North Tower collapsed, considerable amounts of debris smashed into the south face of WTC 7, effectively scooping out 25% of the building from the ground to the tenth floor, thus massively weakening the building’s structural integrity.
..............................................
Next, how the building was built. What kind of building was it? sure, a midrise structure, but it had some very unique qualities about it. This building was built on a site that had a pre-existing Con Ed substation already on it. This substation occupied roughly half of the property where they wanted to build 7, on the side of the property facing WTC1. Since it powered both towers, and much of lower Manhattan, and there was no other lot suitable to move it to, it could not be relocated, or moved in any way. This means they had to build 7 over it while it was still in use. Since the substation was already in place, there was no way they could dig down to make footings for building 7 for columns on the Con Ed site. This created a load path problem for the engineers designing the 7 building. All of the load paths to the ground would have to be on one end of the building. The side facing away from WTC1. They solved this problem by using cantilevered trusses on floor 4. This is how high they had to go in order to clear the substation. These cantilevered trusses extended all the way across the building and supported the half of the building over the Con Ed substation. So the load path on the WTC1 side would go from the top of the building, down to the trusses, across the building to the columns on the other side of the building, and to the ground. This is a very unusual building design indeed. Not normal at all!!!! It is likely that some of the trusses in the center of the building (on the WTC1 side, where the gash was) were damaged by the falling pieces of WTC1. I believe this unusual design was its eventual downfall. With half of the columns needed for a redundant structure already not in place the day the building was built, it had little room for survival of extensive structural damage. One thing you must understand when investigating how a building fails, is how it was built in the first place... what type of building is it?
(source - a history channel show circa 2005 where they interviewed the engineers and iron workers that built it) This show used to be on youtube, but it was removed.
If you study the failure of 7 in slow motion, several things stand out about the failure. On that history channel show, the head structural engineer of the project stated that he was certain the cantilevered trusses failed in a cascading event. Watch it in slow motion and you can see the order of failure more closely. It is too bad there were not more cameras watching it from more angles, but it is what it is, work with the record you have. Watching the failure in extreme slow motion was the nail in the coffin for the controlled demolition theory as far as I was concerned. First, whatever structure underneath, and supporting the penthouse failed. The penthouse structure fell in a good 5 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed. If it were a controlled demolition, the columns would have been swept out from under it simultaneously, or near simultaneously. It would not have dropped the center of the building first, to full collapse, and then the outer section. Additionally, if they blew the columns, which is what one would do if he wanted to fell a building, it would not have "blown up" first on the end that was floating. What is the point in that, when it would be easier to blow the columns on the other end? in the seconds AFTER the penthouse collapsed, the walls started to fall, again on the end where the building is floating. This is where it apparent that it is a cascading cantilevered truss failure, and that the gash played a role. look at the "right" half of the building, where it faces the camera. You can see that it falls out away from the rest of the building and twists, likely due to the cascading failure from inside to outside. The falling away is likely due to the fact the gash had severed many beam supports holding the two halves of the buildings together. Once the trusses started to fail, you get an overloaded zipper effect, and down she comes. (source - a slow mo video analysis of the building failure I saw somewhere, combined with the other facts I had gathered) I never noticed the penthouse collapsed well before the rest of the building until i had it pointed out to me on a slow mo video.
Another thing about the damage - People try to say 7 was well away from the towers - it was not, it was right across the street from 1. Large sections of 1 fell right on it. There is actually a video made by someone who went into 7 after 1 collapsed, and the inside of the building is devastated. He went in just minutes after the fire department evacuated when it started going unstable and they feared it would collapse. the title of the video is "Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse". worth the watch.
And that is my take. I think it was a failure of the trusses, that led to load paths to nowhere, and a load path to nowhere ends in a collapsed structure. The preparation a building must go through for explosive charges is extensive. It would have been noticed.
As for our government taking advantage of this event for its own gains? A total and resounding yes. As for whether we (the government) knew beforehand and let it happen? Wellllll, the jury is out on that one. Our government is a big, slow moving, dumb animal, where the head does not know what the tail is doing. We had enough intel to put it together, but it was spread out among several agencies. None had the full picture, all the pieces of the puzzle, and with the Clinton rule that made it a felony for the FBI and CIA agents to share information, there was no real way for them to assemble the puzzle.
So anyway, sorry for my TLDR, but there is no way to condense this into a few sentences.
Please just shut up. Wtc7 was controlled demolition. All that bullshit shout debris from the other 2 towers makes absolutely no sense. The other 2 towers eventually collapse from jet fuel melting the beam per say! What jet fuel melted wtc7 steel beams? If buildings can collapse that easily from falling debris. I wouldn't make a quarter mill annually as a demolition worker you dumb shit
@@csick11 Wow great argument real convincing
You took all this time to come to the WRONG brocoli
@aluminium5738 of course I know my stuff man. If you look at the hole in the pentagon and debris in shanksville. The story doesn't add up. I bet a plane was shot down on the way to DC.
@@csick11 all you said was "shut the fuck up"
This doesn’t look like the same collapse. The outside of the building pretty much fell straight down and didn’t tilt to the side.
Sure, but all of the truly interesting stuff happened on the inside. What happened to the exterior shell late in the collapse is of little consequence.
@@MFitz12 how have you determined that? Are you just assuming? The fact is you have no idea what was happening on the inside. What the video in the link.
th-cam.com/video/Xd7tqpwdlpQ/w-d-xo.html
These guys have been studying this for years. They have been trying to model how the building could have collapsed. The most likely outcome so far is it could not have just collapsed by fire. I think you underestimate just how strong a steal frame building is and the huge forces it would take to make it drop (free fall) like it did). That goes for the twins also.
@@chrisbarker5336 - My eyes work and I understand the design and construction of the Building. It is all very plainly laid out in the model above. Even Hulsey agrees interior collapsed first, then exterior moment frame. You should try reading his report.
PS
I've been studying this for at least twice as long as Hulsey.
@@MFitz12 No it's of great consequence if you are supposedly creating an accurate simulation. This does not reflect the reality. So your simulation is flawed- period.
@@levonparian6863 - Why is what happens to an empty shell at the very end of the collapse of great consequence? The building has already collapsed. What caused that collapse already done and gone.
Also, not MY simulation.
Well, this is where the conspericy is born!
No, this is where the conspiracy went to die.
Oh I didn't know that was made from puzzles...
And another dim bulb burns out.
hahahahah THIS made my day!!! the office here was shattering when we red this, THANK YOU MAN XD
On 9-11, I was an employee of an insurance company at the company headquarter in another city. That company has a branch that took up the top two floors of WTC 7 building. Everyone was trying to get the latest information on that day, but it was difficult. That building went down at the end of the day. All hundreds of employees on the top two floors run out on time, not a single person was lost. I think the conspiracy theories came from the fact that WTC 7 was fairly far from those two tall buildings, and how did it catch on fire in the first place?
The top 2 floors of Building 7 were actually 1 floor and it was a stock market trading floor.
more ignorance
Fairly far? Nope. This building was close enough for thousands of tons of steel debris from the collapse of WTC1 fell on WTC7 from 1100 feet in the air.
The debris penetrated the building, severing dozens of electrical cables and starting dozens of fires which eventually engulfed the building.
This is fairly basic and fundamental information about what happened to WTC7..
@Italian69Boi The towers were not like water fountains where the debris rained down in a consistent and even pattern. Only a fool would be believe that it should do so.
@@kyle381000mr cia man, have you been watching me eat plates of mayo?
It's amazing that 3 buildings in a densely populated area of skyscrapers came down pretty much in their footprints. What are the odds?
Footprint of one tower = 1 acre. Footprint of debris pile = 16 acres. Do the math.
Dude look up how many buildings were either destroyed in the immediate collapse or subsequently demolished. At least 2 additional buildings outside the WTC plaza no longer exist anymore due to the attacks
The odds are directly correlated with the amount of money spent on telling the story.
@@AAAAAAAAA7248 Did I fucking say 'exactly in their footprint?'
@@ericbartol nah but it’s always better to nip the bud before you start spouting the rest of your degenerate shit
Faker than Israel wanting world peace.
Oh but I mean the official theory, the simulation wasn't bad animated bro🙂
Thanks, you are also not bad at writing antisemitic hate comments, bro.
@@KaiKostack You are welcome.
And I knew it, unlike what the description says, your interpretation makes it a bit evident that indeed your video is meant to feed disproval for "conspiracy theories", if it comes from somebody that interprets my comment like that.
Your interpretation is just way too stereotipical (not to say also old fashion), judging as antisemitic a comment that rather has political backgrounds, not religious. It's actually refering to the "state" of Israel and it's foreign policies which according to some "conspiracis theories" (topic YOU bring up yourself in the description, also f you say it's "not your intention") has a lot to do with such event.
So, what a pity bro, the ghost of "antisemitism" is just in your mind, it came from your interpretation.
Way to stereotipical, bet your logic also tells you every german is nazj just for being german, any chinese guy is some evil comnunist just for being chinese, and every muslim is extremist just for being muslim ¬¬
Not interested in hate speech btw, also not adding further comments after this one if you think it's hate speech, but if it is hate speech, once again description aint very honest, because hey! my "hate" comment is still there!... oh but wait, you blocked me there, so you can have the last word and set up an ideologic show..
Oh right! thats why!
Guess it's a matter of perspective, I mean that comment as political sarcasm. And fits to the context of other comments and even your description.
Greetings.
@12weasel100 theres no point in asking me anything as long as the channel keep censoring me. Decididing what will be seen and what will not. I actually already replied to him, explaining your query BUT the guy doesnt want his answer to be proven wrong.
*Testing if this message will finally be accepted*
First of all, my comment has political background. And is related to the conspiracies theories, I see that topic ain't censored in the comments.
And I repeat, political! Speaking about the state! I said ISRAEL! not religious or racist..
What a pity, but that came out of Kostack Studio mind, just for the fact he understood it like that.
In the case of 12weasel I understand the confusion made by his interpretation.
I dont see anybody ever judging anybody of "racist" if you critizice Russia, or Germany, or the United Kingdom..
Oh but wait, nobody can critize Israel!!! Why would that be?????
@12weasel100 uhm.. hello? Middle east? Whos interests were pushed after this event?
Who is the biggest ally of the U.S in their agresive foreign policies like the ones in middle east?
Agenda that got actively triggered after these events? Uh?
And its totally worth mentioning, since it's been very recent the news of something ridiculous called "deal of the century" or something like that.
And you wanna speak about education to me lol
It's already too ignorant how you tried to lead these matters into "racism".
Not surprised since that's the best you got when you don't know anymore how to justify getting involved with criminal deeds in lands where the U.S wasn't even invited and which remains half a planet away from them.
I will go into demolition business. I never knew that to demolish a building, all you have to do is put fire in one of the floors
If only taking down a 47 story building were so simple
What is amazing is how a couple of office fires can bring down a whole building.
Not amazing. Fire destroys tens of thousands of buildings every year. Only conspiracy believing morons don't seem to grasp that bit of bleeding obvious. Human beings get it.
Minor office fires? The entire south side of WTC 7 was engulfed in a raging inferno. This video shows the extent of damage just a couple hours before collapse.
th-cam.com/video/Afb7eUHr64U/w-d-xo.html
U of Alaska got it right on this September 2019.
Did they, how so? Please describe in detail what they got right and how. I am interested.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
@daren darensky - Because I am asking YOU.
@daren darensky - Well come on then, you just showed you are out and about so how exactly did Hulsey "get it right". Be as specific as you can,... if you can.
@daren darensky - Why are you still bothering me? I can't make you see the bleeding obvious. That is not a me problem. Please fulfill your need for attention elsewhere.
"I'm deleting comments that include hate speech, so you better think twice before starting an argument about the reasons of 9/11 here."
Skepticism is now "hate speech"?!
Bro, are you fkkng kidding?
I'm expecting some sort of ad hominem marxist reply... bring it.
Skepticism is not hate speech. Why do you jump to that conclusion? Looking for an excuse to complain because you don't have a real one? Do you need some cheese to go with that whine? Better yet, do you have anything at all constructive to add to the discussion or are you just here for attention?
@@MFitz12 Are you confused?
@@HerbMoore3 Not even a little bit.
Well, since when are you entitled to spew around the content or your brain unimpeded? It's this person's channel, and project, and s/he can deal with it as it is deemed necessary.
This will always be an inside job in my mind.
ok prove to me how you can wire a building with dynamite enough dynamite to bring it down and nobody see you doing it. Not maintenance not security nobody. And nobody see a bomb strapped to a building joint and call the cops.
@@beru_official What is to prove? The way the structure collapsed speaks for itself.
at harrisonsaunders----The Plasco building in Tehran was only 16 stories, and therefore not classified as a steel frame "sky scrapper" same with the 25 story Edifício Praça da Bandeira building in Sao Paulo, also NOT a steel frame sky scraper. A building must meet certain prerequisites, one of which it needs to be at least 40 floors. Steel frame sky scrappers are built to a MUCH higher degree of stress tolerance.Take your own advice and do more research. You can't cheat the laws of physics. Steel frame buildings such as the trade towers don't fall at free fall speed, unless all of the main vertical supports are compromised in sequence, from top to bottom. A building can't drop at the speed of a wet blanket, if that blanket is laying over a multi level steel frame. that frame"s vertical supports have to be destroyed by an orchestrated, highly planned series of sequenced destruction.
Why don't you take your own advice and try reading non-fiction books on these, and other subjects, and then do a little observation and form your own opinions, Instead of adopting the opinions of others. You're obviously a complete moron with zero education.
You clearly don't have a clue what constitutes "high-rise". 15 stories and up is the accepted definition, not that it matters much because neither the building nor the fire knows how tall it is and therefore knows that if it is 16 stories tall or higher it can not collapse due to fire where if it is 15 and below it can.
Because,... reasons.
@@MFitz12 Don't forget the magic. Very important, the magic.
Good points here! Yeah this is a dividing issue... you have the deep state trying to still play cover up on this by standing on the graves of those lost. These people do not care about us they think we are numbers.
That's pretty wild. It's amazing that more buildings around it weren't more damaged than they were.
Cause it was controlled demolishing
Look up how many additional buildings were demolished ore destroyed than just the WTC’s.
You raise a very excellent point.
A church on the south side of the south tower got completely destroyed during the collapse of the south tower. They just finished building the new one. It's next to The Sphere that used to once be in the center of the plaza.
They were. St. Nicholas Church got completely annihilated, Deutsche Bank Building was so badly damaged it had to be demolished in 2007, the Word Financial Center sustained major damages, the Millennium Hilton sustained damages, the Verizon Building and US Post Office on either side of WTC 7 sustained damages, and Fiterman Hall, adjacent to WTC 7, sustained damages and had to be demolished.
Is quite curious that the three buildings fall down in a similar way, but for different reasons...
By different way you of course mean structural damage and fire, they also had the same basic open floor truss system.
The Twin Towers collapses are similar although there are significant differences. But of course, they were identical designs and suffered similar (but not identical) damage. Building 7's collapse could not have been more different from the Twin Towers.
@@MFitz12 Yes it could've. It fell right into it's footprints like the towers did. No other skyscraper in history has done that and collapsed in a similar fashion from a fire.
@@Isaistr8- You have obviously never looked at an overhead shot of Ground Zero. 3 buildings each with a 1 acre footprint create a 16 acre debris pile.
But each collapsed within its own footprint.
Your math does not add up.
Then there is the whole obvious "first time in history"' logical fallacy thing that isn't even a true fact. Do we really need to go there too?
@@Isaistr8 buildings tend to collapse like that because the force of gravity is greater than the rotational force that would make a building fall sideways.
The outer structure fell way more straight then shown here.
Yeah, but since that happened at the very end it doesn't change anything.
Bruh stuff only falls like that when you simultaneously knock out integral structural pillars and arches at the same time
You clearly were not paying attention to the failure mechanisms.
@@MFitz12 no. No. I was. I uhhh. State my case as an MIT engineer
@@MFitz12 who you….might I ask?
@@dumbidiot3650 Like you, I am not an MIT engineer. Unlike you, my brain works and I can describe what is going on in the model and the real event in some detail.
@@MFitz12 your an idiot
I thought the owner admitted they pulled the building so what's with all the simulation
Even if he would have wanted that, it is impossible to demolish a building within a day, especially a burning one.
Kostack Studio fair point
It was the fire department who said *pull it* to Silverstein, in which they meant to pull the rescue mission inside the building as they noticed the weakened structural integrity of the building.
Thanks for your biased, uninformed input you anti-semetic fucktwig.
Why do you bigoted truthtards always prove my fucking point in the first reply?
Amazing how the collapse of all three trade center buildings cause minimal damage to the surrounding real estate.
Yeah, it only destroyed 7 other buildings, badly damaged another 25 and damaged to lesser degrees another 100 more on top of that. So yeah, minimal damage.
Well if you know where to place those explosives this was well planned out
Two planes, Three buildings. Never before in steel frame skyscraper history have any collapsed due to fire. On that day three collapse, and only two were hit. Amazing!
2 planes, 10 buildings.
First time in history logical fallacy.
So, you missed in every single way possible. Did you work on it?
Not true. Plasco building was on fire, it to collapsed to the ground. São Paulo building was on fire, and also collapsed. Both were steel framed buildings. Before commenting these things, why don’t you do research? Why do you conspiracy theorist always lie? A tower with a reinforced concrete core and steel outer framing was on fire, but only the steel part collapsed. Reason being because when heated up, steel becomes a weak material. So, yes, towers and building CAN collapse due to fire. And why wasn’t any flashed heard when it was falling? Why wasn’t any flashes seen?
@@harrisonsaunders4117 The Plasco building in Tehran was only 16 stories, and therefore not classified as a steel frame "sky scrapper" same with the 25 story Edifício Praça da Bandeira building in Sao Paulo, also NOT a steel frame sky scraper. A building must meet certain prerequisites, one of which it needs to be at least 40 floors. Steel frame sky scrappers are built to a MUCH higher degree of stress tolerance.Take your own advice and do more research. You can't cheat the laws of physics. Steel frame buildings such as the trade towers don't fall at free fall speed, unless all of the main vertical supports are compromised in sequence, from top to bottom. A building can't drop at the speed of a wet blanket, if that blanket is laying over a multi level steel frame. that frame"s vertical supports have to be destroyed by an orchestrated, highly planned series of sequenced destruction.
Why don't you take your own advice and try reading non-fiction books on these, and other subjects, and then do a little observation and form your own opinions, Instead of adopting the opinions of others. You're obviously a complete moron with zero education.
@@ebozyn You clearly don't have a clue what constitutes "high-rise". 15 stories and up is the accepted definition, not that it matters much because neither the building nor the fire knows how tall it is and therefore knows that if it is 16 stories tall or higher it can not collapse due to fire where if it is 15 and below it can.
Because,... reasons.
Have you considered the possibility that NIST's collapse theory is incorrect and that's why neither you nor NIST could create a simulation that resembled the actual collapse?
Yes, but our simulations represent reality quite good for the technological limitations we are still facing. With more computing power and better numeric solvers simulations will continue to improve over time.
@@KaiKostack A better theory will improve your simulation.
@@ThaJoshynator - By all means bring it then. If you could you would be the first.
In 19 years,...
@@ThaJoshynator - I have neither the means nor the skill.
@@MFitz12 don't worry bro , I got this
In regards to WTC-7...it was a dead giveaway that it was a Controlled Demolition. You have to weaken the staircases and elevator shafts first which are specialized hardened structures. They blew them out therefore the WTC-7 penthouse collapsed first losing it's footing. The penthouse may not have been directly above 8 elevator shafts of WTC-7 but it was above them including staircases. Then the bowing was there...the inner structure going down just before the outer structure to contain the debris. Then outer structure was observed to collapse on all sides pretty much in unison and that's a synchronized collapse. Finally...a freefall acceleration phase confirmed. There you have it...the globally synchronized collapse! And a few columns can't initiate this event. It's done by finely timed demolition devices set throughout the building acting in milliseconds.
Here's a video that confirms almost everything you said:
th-cam.com/video/gNIzC4a8rLs/w-d-xo.html
Controlled demo buildings don't free fall, they collapse at near gravity 9.81m^2. Free fall is dropping.. NOT collapsing or imploding etc...
Also I would like to recommend watching blow down, the highly sophisticated planning and prep needed to bring down a building into its footprint using explosives and high tension cables to try and defy the laws of physics is quite a fine art which they never get 100% right, yet the official theory if correct makes them look like a bunch of con artist, ripping people off for millions when all they need to do is light a few fires and Take out two columns and job is done, they should be all lining up and investigating this theory because it's such a cheaper and safer way of bringing down a high rise. That's if you actually still do believe this theory is fact
Fire is one of the most destructive forces known to man. It destroys tens of thousands of buildings every year. Sometimes entire towns, even cities. The only people that have not figured that out appear to be 9/11 conspiratards.
Bruh, nobody demolished the building. It collapsed on its own.
Omg are you stupid? Two planes destroyed those three buildings, there were explosives inside those planes. That oil was important.
@@brotherkhrayn3525 Bruh, no i didn't... c'mon that doesn't even make sense. How can fire damage bring a high rise building down in such a way that it manages to remove key support parts basically at the same time on the entire construction? If you see the animation and the actual footage of WTC7 you can see that there was a sudden collapse of nearly every level of the building, not just that but it wasn't in randomised places but rather in a very focused place. Besides in the actual footage you can see some white lights coming from those exact same places that turned completely into smoke after appearing, those fit the description of explosive charges being detonated. Last I checked, a building that is on fire don't start systemic explosions in sync separated by a just a few parts of a second in descending order all lined up. It's in the footage everyone can see it. Sure one might not understand what those are, but given some time to watch and analyse the footage and becoming familiarised with how explosives charges work and look, it is very easy to identify them in the footage. Besides, there isn't one single theory to this day that can explain how WTC7 collapsed so fast, into its own footprint with just the fire and the debris from the other building. This simulation shows a catastrophic failure of not just one point in the structure but of multiple points all aligned with themselves all in a very short amount of time across all levels of the building, clearly the building wasn't engulfed on fire. The fire itself, compared to the size of the entire building wasn't even that big. There were no planes crashing into the building and the possibility of the presence of jet fuel on the building is just absurd. So something clearly happened to building that made it fell in just a few seconds not showing any resistance coming down and in a very "coordinated" way.
Sure the official reports say a lot of things, but one thing that they definitely don't say is how the building fell exactly. The reasons behind why they don't say it can be varied, some theories are over the top and some are plausible, but i won't believe in something that the government said just because they said so, i demand empirical proof before i believe in their claims and they haven't provided any during all these years. Usually the simplest way to explain something is right, and the simplest way to explain what happened to WTC7 with all the footage that is present is that the building was brought down. If this corresponds with the reality of what happened, i do not know, but every other explanation/theory lacks in certain details or fails to explain/demonstrate how it could actually happen. I do not really care about conspiracy theories and all that, but i do trust what i can see with my own two eyes and like i said before, i will not just trust the word of another without seeing actual proof. There are nutjobs in both sides of the 9/11 event, those that support the theory that it was an inside job and those that support the official statements of the government. I do have my own beliefs on the matter but i do refuse to accept one or the other simply on what they have said. If you do believe that the 9/11 event was terrorist attack and that fire destroyed WTC7 or the other side, it's completely fine by me and i don't care about your opinion, what i do care about and the reason for my comment is that you simply make a statement but fail to explain why your statement makes sense. Calling someone "bruh" as if the person you are referring to is a complete ignorant is not really the best way to refute what that person has said. I did start my own comment by referring to you as "bruh" because 1 you clearly lack respect for others and 2 because i actually made argument that defends my claim. I don't expect you to read all this but fuck it, here it is perhaps this maybe useful to someone that actually takes the time to read a long comment.
If you or anyone that has read all this, please share your opinions on the matter, i do like to know other theories of this subject regardless of them being pro or against the official reports please just do so in a respectable manner and present explanations for how it could "work".
The simulation is not accurate, the building hadn't leaned at all while collapsing.
That isn't the building. That is an empty shell, the exterior moment frame. The building long gone before it drops. Its all right there. Pay attention.
@@MFitz12 Your comment doesn't make any sense and don't match to what I've posted. Pay attention to what exactly, to your incongruousness?
@@jonnekjonneksson My comment makes perfect sense, you just don't understand what you are looking at. Go to the end of the collapse. The main load bearing structures - the core and floors and most of the perimeter columns (in other words, the building) are gone. All that is left is a hollow shell - the exterior moment frame. That is not the building, just a hollow shell that used to cover the building. You are complaining a flimsy hollow shell leans to much like that is in any way important. ITS A HOLLOW SHELL!!!!
@@MFitz12 No, it definitely makes no sense. The building absolutely was still there.
@@Aldaris1234567 Again, a hollow shell (nothing remaining inside) is not a building or THE building by any stretch of the imagination.
What is shown here is mere conjecture. The "simulation", if it can even be called that, does not even resemble the actual footage of the collapse. So you're going to tell me that every single bolted or welded joint in the structural steel let go without any resistance like the animation? Moreover, in the actual collapse, building 7 appears to sink down as one unit. There's no pancaking, twisting, or buckling that is perceptible. It is as though the entire structure just dropped into a hole.
Pancaking? Were you paying ANY attention at all
@MFitz12 pancake...what about the the whole heavy core in center
That would be still there... building n 7... Dropped all at once
It's the only conventional building
To fall at same way....makes question uh. What was that...
Pffffff fffftttttt!!! .... can you explain how the bbc said it had collapsed 30 minutes before it did on live air and then cut the live feed when they realised the building was still in the background....
It was 20 minutes and they were wrong. Add that to about a thousand other news reports that day which proved to be inaccurate. And no, they did not "cut the live feed when they realised the building was still in the background."
Can you explain to me why conspiracy theorists feel the need to lie so blatantly like that? All you dumb fuckers do that. Do you think that makes your case more compelling?
@KrispyKrackers88 - Why are you on nearly every video on 9/11? Are you stalking me? Some kind of creepy weirdo?
Curious you should make such a statement while responding to an 8 month old comment, so old I don't even remember making it.
@@MFitz12 Why so hostile? Only when you fear that someone may be right does some react with hostility. For example - What if I argued to tell you that the sky was green? How would you react? WOuld you say "FUCK YOU DUMB ASS, WHYARE YOU LYING??? WHATS WRONG WITH YOU??" or do you simply state" hey you are wrong, here is the evidence.GOogle it..and be done with it." All of this emotional attachment you bring to your argument only means you fear the truth is closing in on you and you have no where else to hide...So, like a racoon, caught in the backyard you turn vicious and full of vitriol its your only escape from reality.
@@xpez9694 If that is what you need to feel better, have at it. Have a nice day.
@@MFitz12 YES ITS WHAT I NEED TO TOP YOUR DUMB HOSTILE BULLSHIT. FEEL BETTER ALREADY!!!
bro i got so immersed in t he animation that i forgot what i was saying
The probability of a forty-seven-story building collapsing directly onto its own foundations at the speed of free fall due to localized fires caused by burning paper is zero.
Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion but no matter since that isn't what happened anyway.
Where is your structural engineering degree?
@@joshd3192 It's right from the University of Facebook
I like everything you said didn't happen
I liked the bit where everything in the middle suddenly disappeared, then the whole building fell into the hole.
I wonder where it went?!
The whole building is the middle bit. The exterior shell is just that - an empty moment frame. Where it went was on the ground, in a debris pile 7 stories deep spread out over several blocks.
@@MFitz12 prick
“Wonder where it went”
Watch until the end, dumbass
@@Goat_Lord what's dumb is that shills like Fritzberg want you to believe that normal office fires can make buildings collapse symmetrically at freefall speed.
@@Goat_Lord Yes I did and thanks for the name calling, that must have made you feel superior for a second.
Buildings do not collapse like that, especially from fires that would have weakened a particular area then toppled sideways
This is why thousands of engineers and architects came together to say it is physically impossible for a building to collapse like that without being engineered to do so.
i had no idea that 7 was so close to the others! Thank you for this great demonstration.
Great controlled demolition, thanks!
@@maximorlov8208 MF’s who think Building 7 was a controlled demolition when they learn that a tower twice its fucking size could damage it and thus weaken the structure making it collapse: 🤯
@@maximorlov8208in all seriousness: building 7 was 610 feet. the twins were *1,368 feet tall.* That is a quarter of a mile. Twice it’s fucking size. A building like that could damage any smaller building with ease and completely weaken its structure. I’m fucking tired of this “b-but the building was demolished! waa”
If you put the twins next to the Empire State Building, let alone the fucking Freedom Tower it would’ve well done the same result but not collapse it since ESB and 1WTC are literally the safest buildings in North America.
Therefore i have come to the conclusion your opinion is utter garbage and you should stop listening to truthers
@@baltimorefella8407 How do you know the WTC7 was weakened and collapsed because of that?
BAAAAAAH! 🐑
*Not gonna lie the 7 World Trade Center was so beautiful building I didn’t understand why they wouldn’t rebuild it ?*
They did? Of course it doesn't look like the old building but it looks very sleek and clean.
*The only building that is very similar with the old WTC7 is New York Marriott Downtown.* @@malusclarion3527
Two decades on the suspects are yet to face justice in a court of law.
NOt enough evidence to put them in a court of law. "hunches" and "I reckons" don't count for much in the court system.
@@Thisisahandle701
Yet there's enough evidence to keep them continually locked up without trial.
@@gww5385 My mistake, I assumed wrongly you were talking about the shadowy government lizards who ordered 9/11 to happen.
@@Thisisahandle701
Nope, I'm talking about the alleged suspects who've been locked up for more than a decade without trial.
@@Thisisahandle701
But that's ok because shadowy government lizards.... oops, I mean the only punishments given out for the institutional failure that was the 9/11 response, were promotions.