WTC7 Simulation Evaluation - World Trade Center 7 Collapse Research Study
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2017
- 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.org/wiki/9/11_co... 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/KaiKostack/bullet-...
Supported by Fracture Modifier build for better performance: blenderartists.org/forum/showt...
Software developed within INACHUS: www.inachus.eu
(Keywords: H2020, InvestEUresearch, EU-funded research, science)
at Laurea University of Applied Sciences LUAS, Finland:
inachuslaurea.wordpress.com - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
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.
I saw a lot of videos on World Trade Center 7 on the day it happened... This is not at all how it fell. It came straight down.
Exactly, it fell perfectly straight down into it's own footprint, as it should in a controlled demolition. It did not topple off to the side as in this BS simulation. Anyone with an analytical mind who spends time looking into the events of this day emerges a changed person.
@@davidroscoe3815 no, not even a controlled demolition can do that. Where’s your common fucking sense?
@@davidroscoe3815 I was definitely a changed person.
@@davidroscoe3815 So correct David---this was a crime scene. If people just study this with a little independent thought you will see, just by looking at the video and the sounds this was a planned, controlled demolition. Silverstein said he told the fire department to 'pull' the building because there was so much loss of life that day--that was the least he could do. And by the way, Silverstein missed his 8 am breakfast meeting in Tower 1 the day of 911; he never missed a breakfast up on the Windows of the World, except that day-he had an 8 am dermatologist appointment, because you know how those dermatologist have those 8 am appointments. Still his daughter that was suppose to meet him there that day to meet clients also didn't make it, but she did not have a dermatologist appointment; she just decided not to go; but the clients made it unfortunately. Its a classic free fall velocity speed and controlled demolition. The charges were set (and heard going off in sequence by fire fighters and on video) at 5 PM column by column so that there was no resistance below each floor. You can see the Penthouse collapse first on the top floor onto itself and then the other floors follow. How could columns on 3 and 4th floor cause the penthouse to collapse first at the top. Its ridiculous---the model doesn't match the video---maybe they should watch the video first and then create the model of how it collapsed. I checked the seismic activity in the area and nothing-----so maybe we may want to review this a bit.
It’s literally coming straight down in this video lol
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.
The mental gymnastics required to rationalize #7 perfectly collapsing due to some small fires and superficial damage, is more impressive that the feat itself.
How do you define "perfectly"?
How do you define "small fires" and how does that compare to the actual fires reported in the real world event?
How do you define "superficial" and how does that compare to the actual damage Building 7 is known to have suffered.
My expectation BTW is that no meaningful response is coming. I have little doubt you won't disappoint.
@@MFitz12 How do you define $h!ll liar? I define it "M Fitz".
@@MFitz12 *whistles*
@@coyotebones1131 You do seem to enjoy Zombie threads. Feel free to actually contribute something of value at any time.
If you can.
"World trade center 7 is the first known instance of a tall building falling primarily due to fires"
The explanation given is weak and unsupported by evidence. As unsubstantiated as controlled demolition is in your opinion, the official story will always be less supported by evidence. I was part of those who believe the official conspiracy for a long time until I took a good hard look at the evidence, realizing there isn't any. Then I actually took the time to play devil's advocate and look into the evidence for conspiracy, it became obvious very quickly that I had been duped into putting blind faith in the official report. Simply does not stand up to basic scrutiny.
I have been an ironworker for years and i can guarantee you people that there is no damn way that building could crumble like that.
Like what?
M Fitz
In free mode
That’s only happens if you put explosives
No dam fire can do this to any buildings
I agree with you 100% sir. I've been doing ironwork my entire adult life and there is no way whatsoever a regular fire can bring down a building like that. This was a controlled demolition and that's all there is to it. The government at the time was completely behind 9/11
Im not allowed to believe you since you dont work for Cnn or Fox.
@@MFitz12 like in the video you are commenting on. You fucking ignoramus.
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 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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@kermitthemutantlevitatingf7836 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
Sorry. The simulation does not look like the actual collapse.
DougTeague
Precisely. The simulation doesnt look anything like the actual collapse.
Professor Leroy Hulsey's detailed analysis is due to be published around Mar2018
Thank you.
A simulation would rarely look exactly as the collapse. What simulations are intended to do is provide a likeness for collapse. They use statistical modelling based on the best available information. No one can ever know all of the relevant data to produce a collapse exactly as on 9/11 so the best we can do is use the information we have. That is why the simulation looks as it does. On the other hand, it would have been easy for the simulation to be manipulated to look exactly as WTC7 fell on that day. The reason that wasn't done is because it is intellectually honest.
woden1809 agreed and given the parameters. The first few simulated collapses do prove the theoretical physics of a total collapse at near free fall speed with the top section staying intact from certain perspectives as seen in the real world. Fascinating work.
DougTeague 100% correct doesn't look anything like it it falls straight down not at an angle
_"Any rational person can see the evidence for an inside job is overwhelming"_
I would say the opposite.
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.
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.
Thank you for uploading this video which helps everyone to understand that this is possible only with the controlled demolition.
I know this went right past you but there is no collapse initiating mechanism in this model. Think about that for a day or two. Heck, take three. Then when you still have not figured out why that matters come back and ask.
Nicely.
@@MFitz12 Please understand the irony. You’re right as long as you ignore the basic physics.
@@user-pq3jo1dw1p - Again, I am right because I am right and this did go right past you. No basic physics or any physics ignored. You just don't have the slightest fucking clue what is going on in this model and I suspect that, for all your feigned bravado, no amount of explaining will get you there.
@@MFitz12 You’re wrong. Because you intentionally or naturally ignore any physics. You have strong intention to deny any doubts about the 911 official story. I think the person ‘shill hunter’ may be right. You must be a government shill. I don’t know why you have plenty time to post every comments on TH-cam about 911. But you’re useless. Because you don’t even persuade anyone. You’re only repeating yourself the official bullshit far-fetched story. You’re a fanatic missionary. Impossible to communicate.
www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/why2p5.pdf
@@user-pq3jo1dw1p Pleasecexplain the physics you think is wring in as much detail as you can. I believe I already asked for that once and you buggered off. I won't wait up.
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.
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.
You'll have to wait for quantum computing. Simulating each particle in such a large scale simulation would take astronomical processing power. Classical computers cannot keep up with such a demand, it would take thousands of years. On a quantum computer it would take an hour, tops.
@@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
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
"This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST."
Well, I patiently watched the whole video, and I did not see a simulation that mimicked what I observed in the videos of the actual collapse!
What the actual real-life video shows is the entire external facade descending in one piece, almost without visible tearing, for about half of its height!
I'm very sorry, but this does NOT prove NIST, not at all.
Thank you. Chris Moyler
Kostack's model also shows the exterior moment frame descending in one piece. It just behaves slightly differently. It is also the LAST THING TO OCCUR and therefore the least important part of the collapse, therefore difficult to model accurately. How the moment frame behaves is almost irrelevant. Sure the most spectacular looking to the layperson but of zero importance to understanding how the collapse occurred. It was after all just an empty, hollow shell by the time it dropped. How it behaved at that point is really neither here nor there. How about the bits that actually matter? What did you think of those?
The computer "simulation" looks nothing like the actual free fall symmetric drop of WTC7's hurricane and fire resistant steel frame..
Here's a challenge I like to put out to followers of the government's
physically impossible and intelligence insulting 9-11 grand conspiracy myth. WTC7's free fall symmetric drop alone is irrefutable
physical proof of controlled demolition, even without the molten and vaporized steel, the nearly inextinguishable extreme high temperature underground fires, and the presence of highly refined military grade nanothermitic material in steel and dust samples.The challenge:
Let us know if you disagree with any of the points below, and if so,
which point(s) and why, exactly. Documented proof of WTC7's free fall symmetric drop as well as NIST's reversal of its 8 year denial of WTC7's free fall are shown in the video linked at the end.
1. Video evidence reveals that the top of WTC7's steel perimeter frame
transitioned from stationary to a symmetric drop in a fraction of a
second, and did so at a rate that is indistinguishable from free fall.
WTC7's free fall is now a documented, non controversial fact that's acknowledged by government hired researchers at NIST as well as
independent 9-11 truth researchers.
2. In order for an object to accelerate at the rate of free fall, all of its gravitational force must be used to create downward acceleration.
3. Therefore, free fall acceleration leaves no gravitational force
remaining to bend, buckle, crush or shear structural steel supports.
Prior to finally acknowledging WTC7's free fall drop, NIST stated that free fall can only take place "when there are no structural components below" - one of the few things they got right.
4. The structural supports must be destroyed before free all can take
place. They can not destroyed by gravitational force, because during
free fall, all the gravitational force is used to create free fall acceleration.
5. If gravitational force had been used to bend, buckle, crush, and
shear support columns, then free fall acceleration could not have
occurred. The massive resistance would have used gravitational force
which would have slowed or stopped the acceleration.
th-cam.com/video/Rkp-4sm5Ypc/w-d-xo.html
@@MFitz12 They should do a model of the Deutsche Bank building -- which didn't suffer a total collapse or even a partial collapse or even any collapse despite having a 10-story fire that lasted 7 hours due to non-working standpipe just like WTC7.
@@sorcerykid - Why? What exactly would be modeled? The building remained standing for years after the event, was extensively studied, then carefully dismantled. What new would be learned by modelling?
@@MFitz12 "What new would be learned by modelling?"
Why one high-rise of steel beam/column/girder construction with composite shear stud floor deck and giant gash in the side and non working standpipe with uncontrolled blaze for 7 hours across multiple floors would have not a single critical column failure or floor collapse or suspicious "bulge" appear in the side and yet why another high-rise of steel beam/column/girder construction with composite shear stud floor deck and giant gash in the side and non working standpipe with uncontrolled blaze across multiple floors for 7 hours would have a suspicious bulge appear in the side and cascading floor collapse and suffer complete structural failure.
It would be essential to learn how these two buildings of relatively similar structural design with compromised structural integrity would perform completely differently in an uncontrolled fire. Dare I say the Deutsche Bank building, if anything, was even more vulnerable since the fire-retardant was already stripped from the steel beams and the fire doors removed in the process of deconstruction allowing unrestrained spread of smoke, heat, and flames. Firefighters also reported a lot of combustible debris on site.
*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.
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
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 ?)
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 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
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.
Hey Kostack Studio I wanted to ask if you used the real to life physics filters in Blender? Thanks for the answer.
i think there are rigid body simulation in blender would need to verify
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.
If the collapse/melting of 3 pillars can cause the whole building to come down like a house of cards, I am never walking in a high rise building again. Besides, your simulation confirms AE4truth's position that asymmetrical damage causes an asymmetrical fall. Have you tried running the same simulation but with a symmetrical failure on the other side? does the building collapse look more like the real thing then?
That is an incredibly ignorant statement.
They don't, we would have see it many times before if steel buildings suffered from instant collapse. Termite residue and microscopic iron balls and sulfer found all through the dust. The well connected new owner of the wtc, double insured the complex for terrorism. We all know there was prior knowledge of the comming attacks. Abestos filled only 60% occupied losing money. Lmfao!
Champlain Towers in Surfside, FL is an example of how a single failure can bring most of if not all of a building down
@@MFitz12 Kaching!!! How much you get per comment?
There was no melting of 3 pillars. This collapse theory was based on thermal expansion of one beam pushing an adjacent beam off of column 79. But absolutely, where was the Resistance from all of the adjacent structure? All of the bolted and welded connnections. plus the model did not include the sheer studs from the cross beams into the concrete flooring that also ties it all together. But you're right this theory acts literally like a house of cards.
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.
1.) Building 7 was not as damaged as shown in the simulation.
2.) Building 7 did not collapse as shown in the simulation.
3.) Building 7 was imploded.
How can you be so sure about 3. while most experts don't think so?
Idiot, you are such a idiot
Look a this documentary make by experts, Look this documental, then talk th-cam.com/video/IYUYya6bPGw/w-d-xo.html
oh yeah... the twin towers fell right next to 7 and NO DAMAGE occurred? you sure are ignorant
Gaming Palooza Empire it was not you moron. Crack a book instead of a beer.
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.
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
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.
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..
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 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.
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 animation is so good at leaving out the part where the whole thing turned to dust in mid air
Wrong building. Try again.
@@MFitz12 m.th-cam.com/video/Mamvq7LWqRU/w-d-xo.html
@@americanmale2011 Yep, I've seen Building 7 collapse. All 25 known videos. Doesn't turn to dust. Just collapses. I can explain what is happening and why down to the faction of a second if you want. Not sure what you are on about.
@@MFitz12 I am not interested in your opinion. Unless we agree this was controlled demolition.
@@americanmale2011 - I offered no opinion. I stated several objective facts and I asked you a question,... which you very much want to evade answering. Love your open mindedness BTW. Only want to talk to people who think and believe just like you do. Another genuine truth seeker! Me, I'm just the opposite. I pretty much only want to engage with people who have different ideas than I do. It's called learning.
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
@4:00 We can see you placed the charges on floor 2 and 3 in the middle of the building. Where else ?
Which controlled demolition company is this ?
There are no charges. The model is in fact completely agnostic as to collapse initiation mechanisms.
@@MFitz12 So what you are trying to suggest is completely absurd if there is no initiation of ANY collapsing. Wow ...
@@-First-Last - Basic English comprehension not your strong suit I see.
Try again, slowly this time;
There are no charges. The model is in fact completely agnostic as to collapse initiation mechanisms.
That statement is a true fact.
No collapse initiator is specified in the Kostack model.
There is no fire.
There are no explosives.
There is no termite.
There is no corrosion.
There is no metal fatigue.
There are no midgets with saws.
Paul Bunyon and his Big Blue Ox did not sit on the building, overloading the structure.
Godzilla did not stomp on it or melt it with his atomic breath.
One critical core column is failed. That's it. what caused it to fail is not important, only that it failed. From that initial failure there is an inevitable progression to total collapse REGARDLESS OF WHAT CAUSED THE INITIAL FAILURE. From the point where collapse is initiated all the way through the progression stage the collapse is near-as-makes-no-difference a dead ringer for the real world event. The same progression of failures occur in both.
The ramifications of this should not need to be explained but I suspect I will need to anyway.
Not sure how many more breadcrumbs I can leave than that.
@@MFitz12
Yuuuuu Huuuuu .... Mr. Fritzzzzz !
You didn't said anything yet about this :
"Probably the better question is why do you think the steel in all 3 buildings was melted like butter, with many beams left with holes which look like Swiss cheese. How do you explain steel being melted by office fires? Also how do you explain complete and catastrophic failure of all 3 buildings, all collapsing at free fall speed. Or beams being ejected straight out from the sides of the buildings at 70 mph with one end burning and leaving a smoke plume from it's still burning end? Or the enormous temperatures recorded 3 months after the collapse directly under the piles of buildings? Explain those and then we can move onto some more questions "
Crickets ???
@@-First-Lastexactly! No black boxes recovered from all 4 planes! Mic drop!
that building collapsed better than some controlled demolitions. it came down perfectly. just look at videos of it. i cannot blame people for wondering what really happened
Define "perfectly".
@@MFitz12 lol, i am sure you do not know what a woman is either way too funny
@@samusvi2693 - Deliberately evasive derail noted. Now please answer the question or admit you can't. Thank you.
"Pull it."
-Larry Silverstein
No. That would be stupid.
You quote him, as if he has something to gain from the horrific PR of having to kill thousands of people, including some of his own insiders.
If you weren’t an ignorant person and actually analyzed the quote, he was referring to pulling the fire fighters out of the building, as Incase you didn’t know, two towers collapsed and people were trapped and needed to get out. And also, “no amount of evidence can persuade and idiot.” - Mark Twain
@@propqnvity575 YOU ARE WELL NAMED!
THE WTC7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.THIS SIMULATION IS A CLEAR DISTORTION OF HOW IT ACTUALLY FELL.
ALSO.....THAT BUILDING WAS EMPTY AT THE TIME IT FELL.
OH....THE BBC ANNOUNCED ITS COLLAPSE NEARLY 20 MINUTES BEFOREHAND.........HOW'S THAT FIR PREDICTING THE FUTURE!
YOU CAN WATCH THAT ON UTUBE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.......THEN YOU CAN GIVE US THE .....GOV SPEEL........IF YOU STILL WANT TO?
@@luigicorvi1661 upset are you? Someone has a differing opinion than yours so they are wrong? Cap lock key stuck? Chill boy.
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.
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! 🐑
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.
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?
How many CPUs for this simulation? Did you use a Linux server ?
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".
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 🙄
Brilliant! This is another one of those videos out there that will eventually help those still in doubt after so many years understand that it was a controlled demolition. Keep up the good work.
How did you reach that conclusion, based on the results of this model? Asking for a friend.
And that's what I thought.
@@MFitz12 haha, as if. i didn't reach any conclusion based on this 5:51 lasting animation, other than seeing another hopeless effort to explain away the obvious. It proves absolutely zero, and how could it anyway. Have a nice day.
@@wegenDES - What is it you think the Kostack model is trying to prove exactly?
@@MFitz12 apparently this video is supposed to support the official explanation nist gave as to why wtc 7 came down, which allegedly was due to fires. And i for one, having looked into a lot of this stuff as good and as much as i could over the years, have come to the conclusion that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition (not only because Silverstein himself even admitted the building had been pulled). So any attempts like this to me is only another one of useless efforts to explain away the obvious, which is a controlled demolition. And if wtc 7 was a controlled demolition, then even the most naive ones should understand that 1 & 2 have been brought down in a controlled way. And that is regardless of the exact method it was done by, be it nano thermite, directed energy weapons as judy woods claims, nuclear devices (khalezov), or possibly a mixture of all three. Osama's 19 were hardly involved in this thing.
This is one of the best simulations I have seen for this building
Thank you for putting it together & putting it out for us all to see
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...
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🙄
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.
Does this "simulation evaluation research study" explain why the fall of building 7 was reported before it actually happened even with building 7 standing behind the reporter ?
Doesn't need to. The answer to that absolutely meaningless and pointless irrelevant question has been known for 21 years.
@@MFitz12 th-cam.com/video/PK_iBYSqEsc/w-d-xo.html
Good simulation. Those office fires were sure hot! Ok I'll type the /s
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
All the other buildings near wtc didnt fall but this did... amazing.
Actually the entire WTC complex got destroyed (7 buildings).
And St Nicholas Church AND 30 W. Broadway and the Bankers Trust Building. All destroyed of damaged beyond repair.
@@KaiKostack Asbestos was in the concrete and the steel beams were sprayed with it . You are aware this is why they demolished the towers? If you think you can come on here and lie your deluded . I mean do1 im sick of it
Damage and fire.
@@dr.emilschaffhausen4683 lies the jew owners need to pay compensation to the people of Manhattan.. No ifs no buts no computer sims .. The truth is out .. Now shut the fxck up we've had enough ..of this. JEW HOAX . AND GUESS WHO'S ON HERE DEFENDING THE LIE A JEW..LOL DON'T TAKE THIS PISS
What does bother me is the lack of curiosity by government and media about Bldg. 7, because if it really did collapse due to fire then it needs to be studied and understood in it’s entirety, because there are thousands of similar buildings all around the world. Are they ticking time bombs? The fact that the debris was so quickly removed rather than retained and analyzed is also troubling.
3 major engineering studies, about 2 dozen articles in peer reviewed engineering journals and it has (quite wrongly) been the primary obsession of the CT crowd for 15 years.
In short, it's been done to death, quite the opposite of the lack of attention tou claim.
"Are they ticking time bombs?" High rise fires are typically fought.
It wasn't feasible to fight the fires in 7 after the towers severed the water mains, so it was left to burn. Steel structures have a fire rating for how long they can withstand being on fire, firefighters of the FDNY knew 7 was unstable and expected it to collapse.
Cool computer simulation Bro! Too bad the actual collapse looked nothing like it.
It did. You just don't under what you are looking at or how models work. The failure sequence and mechanisms are damn near spot on. You could learn a lot if you paid attention to the details.
@@jamescollinson2456 - Uh huh. Whatever.
So, would YOU like me to explain what is happening in the Kostack model, why and how that compares to the actual event?
The OP apparently couldn't be bothered.
@@jamescollinson2456 - I observed it. 24 cameras observed it. I spent ages studying the structure and reading engineering reports.
But hey, you do you. How's that sand taste anyway?
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.
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 😏
The outer structure fell way more straight then shown here.
Yeah, but since that happened at the very end it doesn't change anything.
I wonder what that must've sounded like if you were still halfway up in that building and you started to hear the whole opposite side of the building from where you are start to collapse before the whole thing went down.
WTC 7 was completely empty when it collapsed because all roughly 4,000 people in it at the time were able to fully evacuate, since it fell about 7 hours after the first two towers.
@@szinpad_kezedet
I know. I was just speaking hypothetically.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
"AND he reared up the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand, and the other on the left; and called the name of that on the right hand Jachin, and the name of that on the left Boaz." (II Chron. 17.) Like the entrance to Solomons temple the same pillars are represented in lodges amd temples around the world
Incredible simulation
I once had a bit of a Kitchen cooker fire and my house never imploded or demolished itself.
Guess I must have been lucky. And next door Neighbours house may have demolished it’s self in sympathy. Like they do.
Or at least that’s what I’ve been lead to believe is the norm.
I think someone is pulling my leg.
And im guessing your house isnt steel framed, coated in a fire retardant or cost 100+ million to build. They knew how to make fire safe building in 1987. Weird how falling debris and fire retardant couldnt protect a steel building from disintegrating. Nothing else weird about the situation either..
@@stevensgarage6451 I think you’ll find if my little box did fall why would a incredible steel and concrete building ever come down. I worked a similar building I’ve even been in charge of lagging the beams and find it very hard to believe the melting beams.
Good thing that observing small cooker gave you knowledge required to say something worthwhile in completely different case.
@@cyjanek7818 good thing making a stupid comments shows the whole world what a dick You are. Tool
@@stevensgarage6451you know, maybe a massive explosion and plane slamming at near full speed into a building would cause the fire retardant to, idk… disintegrate or get blasted off?
The real footage of the collapse is different. The building falls down straight and simetricaly.
And you did this according to the official explanation that says one column fail produced a quick and simetric collapse of an entire building.
Logic not found
Exactly. The simulation shows how the "official" story goes against physics. Steel skyscrapers don't just fall at free fall speed from asymmetrical damage. That's the point of this video. IF the building collapsed like how NIST claims, it would look roughly like what you saw here. In reality it din't look ANYTHING like that.
No, it absolutely did not fall straight down symmetrically.
I don't know just look at this video :th-cam.com/video/38Vsv0eve_U/w-d-xo.html to 2:28
Fall starts at 7:24?
It didn't, actually. In the original video, you can see the penthouse on the top start to collapse on one side before the rest of it does. Basically, the side facing away from the camera collapsed first, and all you see is the empty shell at the back. Just like in this simulation.
Never knew WTC 7 was a hollow building with no core. I must have missed those units on building 47 floor structures without a core element. Would my license still be valid?
You must have, since the core is very clearly shown in the Kostack model. Your eyes do work, right?
@12weasel100 mostly hollow? The WTC cores were massive. They each measured 133 x 87 feet. The cores housed stairs , elevators and services. These 50,000 ton structures were self supporting super structures themselves. To suggest these 110 floor towers were 'Mostly' hollow is like suggesting all cruise ships are mainly hollow. A cruise ship is not an empty structure devoid of decks , bulk heads , bunkers , services , machinery , reefers , fuel , stores , furniture etc. Anyone posting False material depicting the WTC buildings as being Hollow will be corrected.
@@MFitz12 you again?? Are you a stalker??
@@yabbadabbadoo8225 - You blind? And dumb?
@@yabbadabbadoo8225 Without the exterior columns and floors holding the core up it buckled under its own weight... Although a good portion of it remained standing after the collapse a good 50 floors or so.
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...
It's so sad and also satisfying to watch the building collapse from the outside
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.
Are you ever going to redo you’re collapse of the Twin Towers simulations?
Here is a possible reason they destroyed wtc7. There were sensitive government documents that had gone missing in the building prior to the department moving to another location, (the building was virtually unoccupied!). So the best way to disguise that fact was to "pull" the building at the same time as towers 1 & 2 were "attacked"! (they too had explosions go off as they fell at the speed of gravity! As seen on countless video clips!).
Well, none of that is true.
It was partially the command base for the operation
@mfitz1969 That's what the government wants you to believe
Low IQ comment john
@@MFitz12 lulz.......... lulz................ 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
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
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?
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.
The only three buildings in the history of mankind to fall like this. It's hard enough with controlled explosive experts.
Well, wide body airliners don't crash into buildings on the daily, so,...
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
So unless I have missed something here, Im interested in what ssimulated action you used to initiate/catalyse the collapse? Did you remove column 79? Buckle it, or slide it away from its initial connection? or something else?
Also Im interested if you have seen the UAF report on WTC7 2017?
Horizontal and vertical connections around columns 79 to 81 were weakened in this simulation to enforce the collapse.
I'm aware of the UAF report and while I acknowledge their efforts to do further research on the matter, I don't think they can reach their target to ultimately prove that fire wasn't the cause. Maybe NIST didn't determine the correct point of initial failure but this doesn't rule out fire. Don't have to high hopes for revolutionary new insights from their work.
"Horizontal and vertical connections around columns 79 to 81 were weakened in this simulation to enforce the collapse" - Ok I appreciate your reply, but that to me is consigned to the values and tolerances of your software, which 'could' be way off reality and 'could' essentially mean anything.
I have used 3DS Max since 2003 so have some insight into these processes!
"I'm aware of the UAF report " - Ok but you havent taken the time to watch the presentation, and yet you say "Don't have to high hopes for revolutionary new insights" Hmm why would you dismiss them so quickly? Do you think they would have a motive to lie?
"Maybe NIST didn't determine the correct point of initial failure" The NIST model is an absolute joke and barely resembles reality, and they said fire alone was the cause!! What do you think?
Obviously no-one can recreate the event to 100% accuracy, but curious to know if you think your model would be more technically accurate that the UAF one? because your sim although very impressive still does not resemble how the actual footage shows, the corners and the roofline are a big problem here!!! and im no technical slouch, I just cannot find any other way of explaining this other than CD.
Peace
It's just a cartoon.
The 4-year investigation (2015-2019) led by Professor of Civil Engineering J. Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska titled "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7" ultimately concluded that "the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building".
@@kodowdus And one have to be naive to believe it (if not stupid).
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?
this is legit. I built a tower of cards to create my own simulation, after throwing a grape at it it fell instantly.
No you didn't.
Yes he did,,, I seen it 😎
@@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 ?)
Good one !
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..
@@kyle381000yet buildings 4 5 and 6 were right under the towers and they didnt collapse lol not even the hotel (building 3) did with a massive cut through the center
@@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.
I prefer watch Roadrunner animation ..beep beep
@Ashton Lovell hehehe
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
Impressionnant !
Your collapse model no way resembles the actual footage, from any angle. Especially the colossal chunks leftover in the rubble. From every angle it's seen at, a perfectly fine building sinks into the earth and becomes so much powder and steel fragments.
Actually its almost dead on except for a few minor details.
That is Almost scarrier than the Other two collapses 😨
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.
bro i got so immersed in t he animation that i forgot what i was saying