Do you really want to learn? Or do you want to preserve, hang on to, your suspicions about CD?
If you want to learn there are several paths you can take.
One path is the "direct" approach - discussing the actual collapses which occurred. I recommend starting with the easiest part which, coincidentally, is the bit we have been circling around in recent comments. The progression stage of Twin Towers collapse and why it was so fast because the falling debris missed the columns. Take that one first.
NEXT look at the "initiation stage" for Twin Towers. It is several grades more complicated but the main elements can be explained simply. AND that stage is essential to overall understanding of why there was no need for CD. (Because IF there had been CD it HAD to be at that stage - think about that and the reason should be clear.)
Another path is by discussing rebuttals of truther false claims. one of the first rebuttals I needed to do was of an early video by David Chandler. Which may interest you given your regard for David Chandler. BTW do you know Chandler's early history and why he became involved in the Truth Movement. He like many early truthers had genuine concerns about the politics which I respect and agree with. Sadly, like so many, he shifted focus onto false technical claims. AND for those of us who are familiar with the history - he made the very same mistakes that the early debunkers made.... Some ironies in that history. About 7 years where both "sides" were wrong and made the same type of error. (Ignoring the real collapse - favouring abstractions and gross modelling)
But, back to the offer I am making. Do you want to learn by direct discussion of the actual collapse physics? OR do you prefer to discuss the claims of Chandler, Szamboti, Coles et simile?
Or do you want to still keep going round in circles as long as the moderators tolerate the rambling?
- it's your call.