WTC7 Simulation Evaluation - World Trade Center 7 Collapse Research Study 

Funny stuff I found this good old gem that kinda spooks me out about this whole hoax thing : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-q638TUoHJU0.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 :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M1mcCBLU3tY.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

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.

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

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.

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...

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!

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-d1QdzKAlQaE.html

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YNDX3kr72-M.html

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qoOGGgiDOEs.html

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.

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.

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.

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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8WNk674LZrI.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

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.

It doesn't turn to dust.

@@MFitz12 I know it doesn't, it just looks like it in the footage 😅

@@lavernadavey1742 - Obscured by dust and smoke.

link?

We already know this was a demolition because we are aware of the israeli mossad involvement with the entire wtc compelex via gelatin, e-team (b-thing), dancing israelis, PNAC, Clean break memo, etc.

It'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.

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 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IYUYya6bPGw.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.

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

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.

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.

Right. New examination prove NIST is LYING. watch this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xd7tqpwdlpQ.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.

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 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8WNk674LZrI.html and here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8WNk674LZrI.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.

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 RU-vid !!

@@4465Vman Vlad thinks a falling body can't crush a larger body He has no evidence

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.

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 ?)

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

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

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4LUDXpMhkNk.html

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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Rkp-4sm5Ypc.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.

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

Yeah, but since that happened at the very end it doesn't change anything.

@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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xd7tqpwdlpQ.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KkKgLKyhqHk.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?

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

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.

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

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..

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!

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.

-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.

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🙄

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...

Rodrigo Guimarães Is this simulation meant to confirm or refute the official version?

He will never do it because he is a coward

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8U4erFzhC-U.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

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?

Part of it is underestimating us intellectually, but most of it is just trying to intimidate us.

Search this on RU-vid: 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?

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.

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.

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

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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e32QMAwYXmE.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.

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".

Wrong building. Try again.

@@MFitz12 m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mamvq7LWqRU.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.

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.

Well, wide body airliners don't crash into buildings on the daily, so,...

i think there are rigid body simulation in blender would need to verify

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 🙄

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.

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?

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 :ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-38Vsv0eve_U.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.

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.

I have several. How many do you need?

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 😏

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.

Actually its almost dead on except for a few minor details.

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 RU-vid. 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

lol prove it then. nobody notice people rigging it ? you know long it takes to set up the gear to bring down a building? man you must be dumb.

david husband You are dumb if You think that was not a demolition.

How you know it was not a demolition is because you fucking idiots don’t realize that the people who witnessed all of this saw airplanes flying into the tower. Enough criticizing the people who are thinking the right way. Unlike you saying that basically the government secretly demolished the building.

@@gatogaming6093 NO VIDEO OF TERRORISTS NO VIDEO OF A PLANE AT THE PENTAGON NO JET FUEL GROUND CONTAMINATION AT PENTAGON OR SHANKSVILLE NO WRECKAGE AT SHANKSVILLE NO FIRE AT SHANKSVILLE DEBRIS 8 MILES AWAY IMPOSSIBLE PLANE SPEEDS AND ACROBATIC MANEUVERS OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS FALSE FLAG OPERATION AS OUTLINED IN THE PNAC LITERATURE NIST COVER-UP PENTAGON COVER-UP COMMISION REPORT COVER-UP, WHITEWASH, UNDERFUNDED, DELAYED FBI COVER-UP BUSH LYING CHENEY LYING RUMSFELD LYING RICE LYING KISSINGER RESIGNS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACCUSED TERRORIST STILL ALIVE BIN LADEN NEVER PROVEN TO BE INVOLVED IMPOSSIBLE PHONE CALLS FROM PLANES IMPOSSIBLE PLANE SPEED MINETTA TESTIMONY NO JET INTERCEPTORS PENTAGON TRILLIONS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ANTHRAX AMES STRAIN LINKED TO U.S. MILITARY GRADE NANO-THERMITE FIRE BURNING OVER 3 MONTHS MOLTEN METAL NUMEROUS WHISTLEBLOWERS ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FIREFIGHTERS MEDICS POLICE PILOTS MEDIA THOUSANDS OF WITNESSES PICTURES VIDEOS EXPLOSIONS ILLEGAL TORTURE FREE FALL PULL-IT PUT OPTION INSIDER TRADING LINKED TO WHITE HOUSE EPA AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON INTO EVERY ASPECT OF 9/11 reasonable doubt just a little

@Christian DiPaola All owned by 0ne person and no other building collapsed, just the buildings owned by Larry

Building 6, which never had a center. That was an open mall.

@@MFitz12 Ok. Thanks 👍

There is lots of progress, I'm just brute forcing through all the possible uncertainties to find the most likely settings.

@@KaiKostack Go at it. Somehow I just know you will be able to come up with yet another fabricated false bogus fictional counterfeit and completely nonsensical piece of computer generated deceit. I await your coming fraud with all due disbelief.

@Ashton Lovell hehehe

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.

Is the simulation entirely done in Blender or just the model? Does blender have engineer-grade physics?

You mean the Con Ed substation, a 3 story building which served as part of Building 7's foundation? Its the foundation. Visible at the bottom.

@@MFitz12 Would that imply that the substation was integrated into the structure of WTC7? Or, was WTC7 built above and around the substation without sharing any structural elements? I always understood that it was the latter, and that the support structure above the substation was a contributing factor in the collapse that may not have been present in a more conventional foundation.

@@kyle381000 - The sub station was there first. 7 was built on top of it with the sub station serving as part of the Building 7 foundation. This did result in unique design characteristics, particularly regarding load transfer in the lower floors which I suspect were a contributing factor in the collapse.

@@MFitz12 My understanding was that the substation did not form any part of the WTC7 foundation. Instead, the vertical loads would have needed to be redirected to the columns in the interior perimeter surrounding the substation. This configuration would have meant that if one corner of WTC7 were compromised then the support for much of the building would be significantly reduced.

@@kyle381000 - Your understanding is in error. The substation was always intended to serve as the foundation of some future construction. The load transfer region on floors 5-7 was specifically designed to deal with the complexities of load distribution caused by putting a larger building on top of a smaller one. Don't get me wrong, if there had been no substation and a more conventionally designed B7, it would still have most likely collapsed in the same conditions. The collapse itself would have differed however, taking into account the differences in building design.

That's because it is simulating reality. Steel can't shatter in a building, it heats up and comes apart at connections.

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.

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?

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

Sure it did. Collapse starts in the NE corner, with visible deformations and a vertical line of window breakage along the Column 79 line and a kink in the rooftop East Mechanical Penthouse roof. Collapse then progresses to columns 80 and 81 resulting in the EMP falling into the building. From there collapse progresses from east to west through the central core until the central core is gone, leaving just a hollow, empty shell still standing. Finally that empty shell does the only thing it can do and drops. That it twists a bit more in the Kostack model is of no significance.

Which one? There are 24 different camera angles of the actual collapse on RU-vid.

@@MFitz12 the one where you can actually see the flashes of explosives going off simultaneously. I saw it way back when, now it's gone forever. But even the ones that are still here are ridiculously unexplainable by any fires. The collapse was instant, complete, the building went straight down in a 3 second free fall.

@@oneleft7068 It isn't gone forever. I have the link. I know the guy who faked it to test how easy it is to fool conspiracy believers. Turns out it's super easy to fool conspiracy believers. Like hand grenading fish in a barrel. You lot will fall for almost anything.

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?

@catlover2543 i agree with you 100% but if we are just "good vibes" and stuff we will never know the real truth, it's like, I'm sorry for the lives lost but i WHY did it happened, but i still agree with you though

@@gustavo.henri2 but the official investigation is most likely correct due to Occam’s razor

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.

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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Afb7eUHr64U.html

Even if he would have wanted that, it is impossible to demolish a building within a day, especially a burning one.

Kostack Studio fair point

It was the fire department who said *pull it* to Silverstein, in which they meant to pull the rescue mission inside the building as they noticed the weakened structural integrity of the building.

Thanks for your biased, uninformed input you anti-semetic fucktwig.

Why do you bigoted truthtards always prove my fucking point in the first reply?

Not true or relevant.

@@MFitz12 It is true, check it for yourself. I know you think that is an unbelievable coincidence!!!

No, tis not, Even if true, not relevant (certainly not to the subject of this video) and therefore irrelevant,

@@anti-imperialistleague - Read the OP again. Word for word.

@@anti-imperialistleague - Your command of history again proves poor.

It was pulled. Why won't you people even consider that possibility? I know it has ugly implications, but the truth often hurts.

@@Alex462047 that's all you got? not much of a rebuttal

No rebuttal is needed for that utterly retarted comment.

@@Alex462047 You folks really like to throw that "pulled" quote by the FDNY around a lot when all it meant was they were going to pull all firefighters from the building, because they knew it was in danger of collapse.

Mary Christie It was nearly identical, it just didnt fall sideways, it went more straight ish.

Er, which version in this video do you mean? Cause they're all different & all much slower, with the colapse being far more uneven. I'm no dummy, but I just can't think of too many reasons to make this crappy, lying video.

#ZIONIST911

In which video?

Truthers don't even understand what a simulation is.

Sure, but all of the truly interesting stuff happened on the inside. What happened to the exterior shell late in the collapse is of little consequence.

@@MFitz12 how have you determined that? Are you just assuming? The fact is you have no idea what was happening on the inside. What the video in the link. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xd7tqpwdlpQ.html These guys have been studying this for years. They have been trying to model how the building could have collapsed. The most likely outcome so far is it could not have just collapsed by fire. I think you underestimate just how strong a steal frame building is and the huge forces it would take to make it drop (free fall) like it did). That goes for the twins also.

@@chrisbarker5336 - My eyes work and I understand the design and construction of the Building. It is all very plainly laid out in the model above. Even Hulsey agrees interior collapsed first, then exterior moment frame. You should try reading his report. PS I've been studying this for at least twice as long as Hulsey.

@@MFitz12 No it's of great consequence if you are supposedly creating an accurate simulation. This does not reflect the reality. So your simulation is flawed- period.

@@levonparian6863 - Why is what happens to an empty shell at the very end of the collapse of great consequence? The building has already collapsed. What caused that collapse already done and gone. Also, not MY simulation.

Well, 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................ 🤣😂🤣😂🤣