The reality is not 'it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed', the reality is it does showseveral central columns being severed. There - I've said it for you. Why introduce doubt into your statement? - that is what the video shows.
Quite right. That is what it shows. That was the result of at least one run of the simulation with scientifically plausible parameters and models.
A simulation is a model of reality. It allows you to see what might have happened. You can vary various assumptions.
Simulations can be stable, in which you get a similar same result pretty much all the time, or unstable, in which small changes in initial parameters yield quite different end results.
Aspects of this simulation were stable (the plane was pretty much destroyed), or somewhat stable (some interior columns destroyed), or unstable (where the rudder ends up). When you tweak the parameters, then the end results will differ, with the more unstable elements in the simulation differing more.
But the parameters, and the model, are all designed to be physically accurate. They are all designed to follow all of Newtons laws (and several other laws). The actual state of the building immediately after the crash will never be known. But we can create plausible models in simulation.
Why not build a scale model? That's a good question. But it's the same basic reason we don't crash-test scale models of cars. Firstly it's very hard to perfectly scale everything to the correct physical size, and secondly some things just don't scale. Volume change is the cube of length change, surface area change is the square of length change. You can't use 1/100th size molecules, so materials, fluids, and the air all behave differently. For something as large and complex as the WTC, a scale model would have to approach 1/10th size to tell you anything, and even that would suffer from scaling problems.
Aha, you might say, bu what about the coke cans? Well, there they are not trying to determine what actually happened. They are trying to determine certain mathematical relationships. - Given a certain velocity, mass, and aluminum thickness, then in what pattern, and over what time scale does the energy transfer occur. They can create a simulated model of the coke can, then compare that to physical result, and see if it's accurate. This then allows them to adjust the underlying constants in that aspect of the simulation, which can then be scaled
in the simulation.
Your analysis is full of equivocation, mine has none.
Perhaps therein lies your problem? We don't actually know what happened inside the building. All we can do it to try to carefully calculate the range of possible scenarios. It turns out, after careful calculation, that severing columns (mostly by the fuel tanks), is a plausible outcome.
Your analysis seems to be "Plane weak! Column strong! Column win!". Maybe a little equivocation is actually required?
What do you think would happen if one of the fuel tanks in the wings hit a column at 500 mph?