Kai Kostack made a widely-watched YouTube video looking at a recent UAF 7 World Trade Center study's results.

In it, he displayed the NIST simulation for comparison.

From the video, this is supposedly the NIST simulation Image purportedly from the NIST simulation.

Ignoring his conclusion about the UAF simulation, his "NIST simulation" looks nothing like the real collapse.

Comparisonenter image description here Simulation compared to real footage

The diagrams I saw in the NIST report look unlike the video provided:

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 p.588

Was the video attributed to the NIST simulation an accurate portrayal of the results of the NIST report?

  • 3
    Not having spent hours of my life staring at pictures of WT7 collapsing, I find the claim "it looks nothing like the real collapse" vague to the point of meaningless. It seems this has a bearing on answers, because whatever is "wrong" with this picture may be sourcable even if the specific image is not.
    – IMSoP
    Aug 26, 2021 at 6:51
  • 1
    I did not downvote either. However it is still unclear to me exactly what the claim is, why it's notable, and why you're skeptical of that claim. Is it this? "Someone (who?) claims that the UAF simulation doesn't match the NIST simulation." This seems like a rather arcane claim by a random youtuber, unless you can explain the significance.
    – LShaver
    Aug 26, 2021 at 14:04
  • 1
    Edited the question to avoid the subjectivity (see IMSOP's comment) and to be clearer to avoid @LShaver's confusion.
    – Oddthinking
    Aug 26, 2021 at 15:57
  • @Oddthinking the comparison to the real collapse also seems to have nothing to do with this question? It should either be removed, or included at the bottom as aside.
    – LShaver
    Aug 26, 2021 at 16:05
  • @Oddthinking somehow, this is so much better. Thanks. I was originally unsure as to whether it would be confusing or off-topic if I mentioned Kostack by name. Aug 26, 2021 at 16:35

2 Answers 2


The video appears to be from the LSDYNA NIST Model of the WTC 7 collapse.

From the NIST website itself, we have the link to this video, which I have linked to the time in which a very similar simulation appears.

The video is also available from Wikimedia Commons, where the entire video, in its parts, are available to view. While the original sources from the bottom of the Wikimedia Commons page appear to now be down, they all link back to NIST websites.

Youtuber Mick West appears to have the actual LSDYNA model in his Youtube video Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report. He even addresses the issue with the deformation seen in the LSDYNA model.

You also see this deformation here, which you don't see in reality. A lot of people point to that as being a problem, but really that's just kind of indicative of the complex nature, the chaotic nature essentially of simulations like this. Once you've gone past the initial point, the actual outcome can vary quite a lot.

  • How would you even be able to tell from looking at it, unless you had built the simulation? The simulation is not the images -- it's the math and equations behind them that can be visually presented in myriad ways.
    – LShaver
    Aug 26, 2021 at 3:39
  • The simulation in the NIST video does not display for long enough to show the substantial distortion mentioned in this question. So it's really hard to tell. Moreover, it seems very strange for the Youtuber to make such a mistake. Aug 26, 2021 at 4:16
  • 4
    Because all youtubers are professional experts in the fields they youtube about and never make common amateur mistakes and then spend 30 minutes howling about how they've accidentally discovered something the 'deep state' has tried to keep hidden? Aug 26, 2021 at 6:19
  • 3
    @Shadur This does not fit well with the context of the question. The guy involved is not a truther. Aug 26, 2021 at 7:38
  • @Abdullah People arguing in good faith, even for their own position, can still make mistakes. Though perhaps the haranguing about the 'deep state' was uncalled for in this case.
    – Zibbobz
    Oct 13, 2021 at 14:53

Kai Kostack made a mistake.

The simulation he used is the case without impact damage.

enter image description here

Whereas what he should have used is the NIST simulation with impact damage.

enter image description here

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .