let's say I put a monkey in a two room apartment in order to observe its behaviour. The monkey goes in the other room so I can't see what it's doing. I create a computer simulation of the monkey and the apartment and set the parameters of monkey behaviour into my program. I run the program and it shows the monkey masturbating in the other room. Now, we don't know if monkey was knocking one out or not, only he knows that. So we made the final cut out of it anyway.
Oh yes, I forgot to say that the parameters of monkey behaviour were set by the program makers - there were only two possible behaviours set: one for yes, he was knocking one out, and two for no he wasn't. Heads or tails. It's a pretty hopeless attempt to justify the animation which presented as its final cut - after years of research, according to you - images of an aircraft airframe and wings shattering multiple massive steel columns. Despite all the equivocation you indicate in your language, in this film there is nothing equivocal about what it portrays. If this 'simulation' business is so hopelessly inaccurate, why would anyone spend 'years' coming up with something which is so inherently unreliable? Flipping coins and masturbating monkeys have nothing to do with it.
Let's say I toss a coin, but the coin lands out of sight.
I create a physical simulation of the coin and the surroundings in a computer, I run it, and it comes up heads. I then create a video of the simulation results.
Regarding that video, it shows what seems to be the coin landing on heads, it's quite possible that is is not an accurate representation of what happened.
The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.
See?
What I see is some verbal gymnastics designed to somehow legitimize your backing of this video. In spite of what you say, there really is great difficulty to reconcile these two statements:
Regarding the film, it shows [what seems to be - we have agreed this edit] several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly(sic) that that is not an accurate representation of what happened.
and:
The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.
The statements are pretty well opposed, either it is not an accurate scenario or it is one that makes physical sense. I think what happened is this: I asked you (repeatedly) to look at the film again after you presented it with the question, what is wrong with this? On finally reviewing the film, you made the first statement, which very strongly indicates you think that it was not a likely scenario that several steel core columns were shattered by the aircraft. A glimpse of the truth in a moment of honesty. Subsequently you went all around the houses as you soon realized that defending this 'simulation' was very important to your whole belief set. Accepting that the makers presented what they did in the final cut as unreliable and inaccurate would require a pretty hefty diversion for you, a difficult psychological shift, initially made as the truth was unavoidable for a moment - but now you have regained your 'equilibrium' and are using every trick you can think of to attempt to justify it. Verbal gymnastics.