Which part?

That's because the fires were primarily external and the building was constructed of concrete, not steel. And a huge-ass plane didn't crash into it or a skyscraper fall on it.

@@KZbinSucks_1 What happened to Fitz? Are you the new gov troll?

@@81overon - That was the butthurt response. The correct response is "thank you"

@@KZbinSucks_1 External fires. Right. I remember a structural engineer commenting on the collapse of WT7. He stated that for the building to collapse like that, every vertical support had to fail within 1/10 of a second.

@@81overon - That person was not a structural engineer. I think the label you are looking for is idiot. The facts I presented on Grenfell Tower are accurate and you have done nothing to move the needle on that. While analogies are never evidence, your choice was not even analogous.

2/2 Summarizing: The STATEMENTS of an INDIVIDUAL scientist or expert do NOT necessarily correspond to the facts in many cases. They arise unavoidly-exclusively under HUMAN INFLUENCE. The result of an analysis can differ greatly depending on which species he himself and his employers or commanders belong to. Their THEORIES can be categorized as follows: - highly probably - very probably - probably - rather improbable - highly improbable - completely improbable - completely probable is n/a, because it is an impossibility. Even explained by the very best real expert, it is and remains a theory, his personal SCIENTIFIC THEORY, and not a fact, and this is already proven by the fact that “completely probable” as an expression DOES NOT EXIST!. - at least not in the field of science. Consequently, a single scientist (a person with his own opinion, his own imagination and his own superior) with a pure conscience is able to tell the truth. Another one with a dirty conscience, on the other hand, will most likely tell a lie. ATTENTION: A scientist who presents a lie as truth is not expressing his scientific opinion or theory, but a "SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY THEORY"!! If several scientists were to make the same claim, the only question would be whether they are independent workers or whether they all have a common commander. And as we all already know: in the end of the day they are all just little stinkies! THE TRUTH can ONLY be COMFIRMED as "completely probable" by PHYSICS and MATHEMATICS, since laws and formulas are applied where no human could ever succeed in exerting any stinky influence on them. ...........AND NEVER BY SCIENCE FICTION!!

...and (un)fortunately all claims related to 9/11 have been proven “false” by physics and math - where SyFy is not included at all and which is only of high importance to “fantasists”!

Its not funny

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.

You're welcome

@@MFitz12 Are you the arbiter of this video? If anyone makes a comment that doesn't completely line up with the official story, you're responsible to push the official story. I find your type on videos that deal with the moon landing and the JFK assassination. Are you paid by the word or by the comment?

@@81overon - I noticed your comment, found it incorrect and posted the correction. IF I have made any errors of fact, logic or reason then please feel free to point them out and I will make the necessary corrections. If you can find no errors of fact, logic or reason in my post then,... you're welcome. Glad I could help. Now you know more and knowing more is always better than believing wrong. If your only complaint however, is that you were wrong, your ego is now bruised and that makes you butthurt, well that is very much a *YOU* problem. PD It takes a special combination of hubris and stupidity to believe that someone disagrees with you only because they are being paid to do so. Have a nice day.

@@MFitz12 Thanks for your time and info. Have a nice day, troll.

They were heated by jet fuel that was 1500 degrees so they bent

@@TigerVol4-sf9wp jet fuel only goes up to 1300 with full air, or the maximum temperature, the steel melts at 1500.. besides, that event has not so much air so you see the suffocating smoky fume, so the temp was much much lower And remember the lower part, majority of the building have not started being heated at all, and excepting the impacted region and exploded regions on the impacting floors, ALL the layers of concentric structural steal beams in that building have been sprayed and coated with isolation foam

@@jmssun kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKupYn6viK2gi6Msi=ROQqd6l72RBu5nWG

What about the bolted connections between units and assemblies? Or are you operating under the delusion building 7 was carved from one solid block?

Nothing?

Also only in cartoons planes are able to fly through any object at that speed! This is "education" at the lowest level, for blind believers only!