And you are implying what? Are you saying level 10 did not support levels 11 through 110?
I am pointing out that your wording is very nonspecific. When you press an elevator button to go to level 99 do you consider yourself as going to a specic location along the vertical supports of the structure, or are you going to the floor at that location?
Moreover I said
"What you mean to ask is what load the column system at each vertical location along their length was capable of supporting.".
So my intent was quite clear.
In addition the load capability of a column at any specific location along its length is rather an odd thing to ask for. The core columns were made up of segments a max of 30 feet long ( that was the longest piece of steel that could be trucked into the construction site in the 70s) so columns spanned several floor heights. What the could support at the bolted connection to the next lower column would be their max load.
However. The floors connected to it actually allow greater capacity by supplying lateral bracing as well as contributing to the load on the column by virtue of having their mass supported by the connections to the column.
If a column is braced and loaded and you simply take away the brace while still under the same load, the column will have a lesser capacity. Do the enough in a tall structure and the column will fail.
You can CLAIM to have explained whatever you want. But the purpose of models is to determine what really happened.
psik
So let's ignore all the questions of applicability and scaling and look at two models put forth already.
Well we have your column crush model then. It seems to demonstrate that column crush propagation would arrest.
Then we have Mick's model apparently demonstrating a floor connection failure will progress the entire height of a structure and the columns will fail as a consequence of that.
By that metric , floor collapse explains the progression of collapse since you apparently show column crush was not the mode of collapse.
In fact although you complain that there is no empirical evidence of floor collapse driven progression ( an incorrect assumption but let's give you that for the moment anyway), you have no empirical evidence to support the notion of column crush, or column failure by other direct means, dominated progression of collapse either.
Furthermore we do know that a sophisticated full scale computerized model of collapse initiation was performed that shows at the end of its simulated time period, massive overload of the floor/truss/connections was inevitable.
AND
There is no equivalently detailed model showing a progressive collapse accomplished by a column failure dominated mechanism. For instance , just as an example, no computer simulated model showing progressive column failure mechanism by use of explosive charges.