Відео

Well, you do seem confused. All of the _relevant structure_ is shown. Anything that is not load bearing structure is not shown. Anything you just made up is also not shown. This is an impressive project for single individual and an amazing static model of Building 7, which given the limitations of what he is doing and the tools used gives a reasonable facsimile of the collapse, more than sufficient for comprehension by the layperson. It is far from a perfect model, being a high level approximation of the structure and much less exact than NIST's models but it doesn’t need to be perfect. The point here is it provides an excellent illustration of the very broad general principles and characteristic of the collapse and is certainly the best independent model available. He even goes the extra step of adding observed physical damage to the model. One can quibble with details such as the Kostack model showing corner column 15 intact, when there is photo evidence it had displaced when hit with debris from Tower 1. I don’t think this fundamentally changes anything though. There is no fire in the Kostack model. No explosives, no incendiaries, corrosion, metal fatigue or midgets with saws either. Kostack quite simply failed Column 79. That’s it. The result was an interior collapse that followed the same pattern as the real world event. Kostack did not perform any fire simulation; he merely assumed the failure of certain components and then his model provided a dynamic analysis of what would follow. The end result followed the same progression of failures we see in the real world event; C79 failing (in the real event this created a kink in the roof of the East Mechanical Penthouse) followed by failures of C80 and C81 which resulted in the EMP dropping into and through the building. From there collapse progresses from east to west through the core, taking out all of the core columns in series and with them the attached floor structures until the only thing left standing was the exterior moment frame - a hollow, empty shell with no supporting structure remaining behind it and essentially held up by just the 4 outer corner columns. That would never last and inevitably those four corner columns fail and send the hollow shell crashing down on top of the pile.

No this is a 757

All commercial real estate is insured against terrorism. It is a standard rider on commercial property insurance policies. The Twin Towers and Building 7 had different owners. The terrorists who attacked the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and attempted to attack the Capitol didn't give a shit about insurance. You should find another dead horse to beat. This one is a proven guaranteed loser.

What basement? There was no basement. Building 7 was in fact built on top of another pre-existing building which served as its partial foundation. The failure in the model clearly takes place above the 5th floor.

Clearly twisted into a shallow S-shape and leaned to the south as it dropped. Also, only the upper 40% of the building is visible here. The Kostack model is not intended to reproduce the exact collapse of Building 7. This model tests _one specific failure mechanism_ . The end result though _strongly resembles the specific characteristics observed in the real event_ which strongly indicates _columns 79 to 81 were the first columns to gave way_ .The _removal of other columns leads to much different collapses_ And yes, this does very much follow the collapse progression sequence of the real event _if you understand what you are looking at_ . Sure, at the very end of the collapse - well after everything any reasonable person could describe as a building is already gone leaving just a hollow empty shell - there is a fraction of a second difference in timing of the last 4 failures which changes the visuals, but it doesn’t change anything important. That’s just Butterfly Effects - unpredictable variables as mentioned in the description which will invariably lead to (mostly minor) discrepancies. Don’t get hung up on visually striking but insignificant from an engineering standpoint details. _All of the important stuff_ happens before that and is _near-as-makes-no-difference dead on_ to the real event. Laypersons tend to look at something like this model and expect it to be an exact duplication of the actual event, every single one of the millions of different components in the building failing in the exact same sequence and in the same way as the real thing. If you give it half a second of thought obviously that is beyond stupid, simply not possible. There are too many possible unpredictable variables for that sort of perfection to ever be achieved. It also completely misses the point. The Kostack model is *not intended as an exact replica* of the real world collapse (no model could be), yet is quite accurate in all the critically _important_ details. The sequence of failures is spot-on. Like most laypersons (and even some “experts), you just don’t understand what you are looking at and have unrealistic expectations of what you should be seeing, which is perfectly understandable. Let me explain. Of course it all doesn’t look exactly like the real footage. For one, it’s a _model_ not a photo-realistic artistic rendering and the purpose of a model is to test mechanisms. Secondly, since _most of the collapse is not visible_ in the real footage because it occurs within the four outer walls, this model gives us soooo much more information than any video could give since it allows us to peek inside. Finally, the collapse initiating mechanism in the model is not specific. Kostack simply buckled Column 79. Still, the Kostack model is a *good approximation of the actual collapse mechanisms and sequence* for Building 7 and is consistent with ALL of the 24-25 known videos of the collapse of Building 7 IF you understand what you are looking at and why, which almost know one does. This is all the more remarkable as the actual damage to the building at time of collapse, after 7 hours of un-fought multi-floor fires was almost certainly far greater than is shown in the model. In the real event the first visible signs of collapse initiation are at the NE corner with a vertical progression of window failures along the 44-46 line followed by a "kink" appearing in the roof of the rooftop East Mechanical Penthouse, consistent with the failure of Column 79. Remember that guy? This is followed by the EMP dropping into and through the building, consistent with the failures of Columns 80 and 81. Collapse then progresses from east to west through the core until the core is gone, taking all the floors with it. This is evidenced in the videos by a horizontal progression of window failures, mostly low in the building, the dropping of remaining rooftop structures and the north face of the building leaning in to the now empty void inside. Then the exterior moment frame - the hollow empty shell which was all that remains - dropped. A minor variation in timing of the failure of 2 corner columns at this point - the absolute end of the collapse - is the only significant variation between the model and the real event which makes it visually different but functionally no different. It means nothing. That very last bit is the part you are complaining about. Real event follows the same sequence as the Kostack model, or vice-versa if you prefer. Progressive failure of central core columns from east to west starting with 79 and proceeding through the core until the core is gone, taking all the internal floor structures with it and leaving just the exterior moment frame - a hollow empty shell - remaining to fall last and land on top of the pile. Worth noting there is no fire in the Kostack model. No explosives either. No midgets with saws, rust, Jewish space lasers or Godzilla's foot. Think about the implications of that. The above all true BTW *no matter who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks* or why. I sincerely hope this helped. Questions and comments are welcome. Ad homs and slander will be given all the attention they deserve.

Because this one fits their narrative better. All one has to do is look at the Bill Biggart photos of the Marriott being pummeled and any hopes of selling some vast secret _controlled demolition_ fantasy fall to bits. But Building 7 was perfect for a movement which had utterly failed with tales of demolitions in the Twin Towers, missiles at the Pentagon and shoot-downs over Shanksville.

That just adds to their argument lol

Ragebait

Well, IF you had been paying attention you would have noticed the objective of this exercise was not to create an accurate sim of how 7 collapsed but to model one specific failure mechanism and see what happened. IF you had been paying attention you would have also noticed only one sim is shown here it is just shown from many different perspectives. I would also note you just don't understand what you are seeing - which is fair enough since almost no one does. It’s hardly simple, but the collapse sequence shown in this model is generally correct; The Kostack model is not intended to reproduce the exact collapse of Building 7 but instead test one specific failure mechanism . The end result though strongly resembles the specific characteristics observed in the real event which strongly indicates columns 79 to 81 were the first columns to gave way .The removal of other columns leads to much different collapses 1. Collapse initiation occurred in the NE corner of the building. In the real event this was due to multiple lower floor failures in that corner causing critical core column #79 to be laterally unsupported over an excessive height, resulting in that column buckling. In the Kostack model he simply fails column 79 (2:27). 2. The failure of column 79 in the real world event results in a visible kink in the top of the rooftop East Mechanical Penthouse (EMP) and a vertical progression of window breakage along the perimeter column 44-46 line. These effects are not visible in this model, which is incapable of producing them. 3. The loss of 79 results in a critical loss of lateral support to core columns 80 and 81. These buckle and fail causing the EMP - which is held up by those 3 columns - to drop into and through the building. This happens in the model as in the real event (2:28-29). 4. In the real event with the three eastern most core columns (79-81) gone, the loss of lateral support they provided results in a progression of core column failures from east to west until the core is gone, taking all of the attached internal floor systems with them. We can see this externally by watching the remaining rooftop penthouses fall into the building as well as a horizontal progression of window breakage from east to west and ripples/distortions in the north face of the exterior moment frame - the outer shell of the building. In the Kostack model collapse progresses from east to west through the core, taking all of the internal flooring with it just as in the real event (2:29-2:33). Most casual observers completely missed everything I just covered, which is about 80% of the collapse. You are likely one of them. We will get into the reasons why. 5. With the interior of the building - all of the core columns and floors - gone, all that remains standing is the exterior moment frame - a hollow, empty outer shell. To the casual observer this still looks like an intact building and the fact it is just a hollow empty shell is not immediately obvious. With no structure remaining behind it, the north face of the moment frame leans into the space formerly occupied by the building, causing a distinct "V shape" kink in the roofline. We can see a similar effect (more a U than a V) in the Kostack model at 2:34. 6. Quite unable to stand on its own as it is primarily supported by just the 4 outer corner columns, in the real event the exterior moment frame drops when those columns inevitably buckle under the strain. The moment frame drops. In the Kostack model this occurs just like in the real event, except with a fraction of a second greater variation in timing between failure at the east and west ends. This causes more flex and distortion of the moment frame than in the real event, but is of no consequence. Nothing important changes, it just gives a somewhat different visual. This is where most people lose the plot. 7. In the real event the moment frame drops on top of the debris pile just as we see happen in the Kostack model. The exterior moment frame can only end up on top of rather than mixed in with the pile if the moment frame was the last man standing. Hopefully you found this helpful. This is intended to be informative, not adversarial and to serve as the basis of productive discussion. Serious comments and questions are therefore welcome. No Gish Gallop and no deliberately evasive off-topic derails please - just one on-topic point at a time to stay focused.