Sorry, but I can't.
I tried to find the right words, so to not incur the risk of gratuitously offending you, and to not risk falling into the trap of lack of constructivism, but I'm no Eric Weinstein vs Terrence Howard. So, please excuse my French, but this has to be one of the crappiest meshes I have seen.
View attachment 73390
View attachment 73389
I'm only commenting because, based on your youtube channel history and the passion you show in some of your videos, you've been obsessed with this for over 11 years; however, your modelling skills are stuck at the first month pressing random buttons in FEA software. It seems to me that you've got a case of Dunning-Kruger effect in civil engineering.
There is no other way of putting this, but the reality is that the collapse of the towers is beyond your knowledge, skillset and technical level by orders of magnitude. This is a multidisciplinary problem between civil engineers, mechanical engineers, and FEA specialists from both backgrounds, actively collaborating with each other, and with access to more physical information about the event than you will ever have from your armchair across the globe. This is a job easily in the tens of thousands of collective professional hours.
No simplified model will ever provide a definitive conclusion. Moreover, no complex model on its own will do it either without proper calibration against known actual data from the buildings, from the collapse, lab tests, physical models, and independent replication.
No unchecked/unverified work will do. But you are on your own without peer review. So, this is a nonstarter. If your objective was to learn about the subject, without any bias, out of passion for the field of engineering, then you would find plenty of people willing to help you acquire the skills. But the only thing you are achieving is using your own bias to press buttons which produce results that convince you more of your own bias, and your non-technical audience will cheer you along the way, passionately pushing you deeper into the +12th year.
I know you are familiar with the NIST report. I mention it to serve as a reality check against the model you have produced so far. I understand you are going for the Reduced Global Model on page 67, but that model was not born first out of thin air, it was part of an intricate process, and unlike yours, that model does not exist on its own, it requires the detailed shell models, all the analyses carried out with them and independent verification:
Source for the images below:
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/04/28/June2004BaselineStructuralAnalysisPrint.pdf
View attachment 73397
View attachment 73395
View attachment 73398