This is an outstanding effort demonstrating "ROOSD" - the pancaking or runaway collapse of the Open Office Space or Outer Tube.
Just a couple of cautions about where this model fits relative to recent discussions of claims.
The first comments are serious technical suggestions as to caution.
As far as ROOSD - outer tube - collapse is concerned you started with an understanding of the actual WTC "ROOSD" mechanism and modelled that. We should note that this sequence reverses the logical sequence that Cube Radio and aka are insisting on viz - you cannot understand it (rather "it cannot be understood") without a model. You understood it before you modelled it
AND could not have modelled it before you understood it.
Recall also my comments in previous thread(s) that there are two classes of models viz:
"Demonstrations" which explain the mechanism for those who lack the mental visualising skill to "see" it without a physical model; AND
"Scientific quantifiable models" which can provide measurable data for use in analytical calculations.
We are definitely in the arena of demonstrations - as are most of Coles models except the one "borrowed" from Bazant which does not apply to WTC collapses (Bazant was wrong to apply that model to WTC
- and Cole was right to identify it as being erroneous.)
Now your first step of incorporating core collapse is not based on prior understanding of the actual 9/11 WTC mechanism for the core. And it skips straight to the final stage which is (Sort of) Euler buckling instability of the "spires. Sure it happened - lots of visual evidence BUT it skips over the actual "how it got there" causal processes. Which I have postulated as "beam strip down" and analogous in the core with ROOSD on the office space. In effect it is the same as your ROOSD model BUT starting at the last step with the floors removed - no dropping weight - and the perimeter columns ready to topple. The floors/weight dropping >> joint shearing are the key parts of mechanism. To be a valid model for core it needs to model those key steps.
So IMO your ROOSD demonstration is very good for it's purpose of demonstration
because it models reality. For the core mechanism to be a valid demonstration it needs tki also model the same steps of reality - what removed the beams to leave the columns unstable?
I'll leave the technical details there.....
.....let's look at the process reasoning.
We are here partly because some people cannot visualise the mechanism without a physical model. (Or claim that they cannot visualise.) Despite differences in style both aka and Cube Radio have been asserting that they need the model.
Most of the rest of us insist that we have no problem visualising. So be it. Let's take it as true that some can and some cannot visualise.
The reality is that you and others of us CAN visualise. AND had to be able to visualise before you or we could build models. If you cannot visualise what you are building you cannot build it. So visualise comes before build. BUT once built it can assist the "non-visualisers" to "see" what happens - even tho by definition they could not build it for themselves.
Which actually proves some of the key points I have made many times elsewhere and here over recent months. These two will suffice for now:
1) The physics is elementary and can be easily visualised by many persons;
2) The building of a model neither proves nor disproves the reality of mechanism. The model can help those who cannot visualise to understand the mechanism. In that sense alone it could be regarded as "proving" the point for those persons. The rest of us don't need the model as "proof" - it is redundant.
I'll leave the topic there - congratulations on the progress to ROOSD stage and take care if extending into core.
AND - finally - a "tongue in cheek" comment for those with a sense of irony and humour.
Recall that the Coles models demonstrated arrest. Your model demonstrates"no arrest".
And we have been reminded many times that in the presence of many "arrests" one lone "no arrest" is extraordinary and needs extraordinary evidence to prove it.
So as it stands your model is unproven. We only have visual evidence of no arrest when all those other models did arrest.
So I've just debunked your assertion of no arrest - until you provide extra and extraordinary evidence.
We must see extraordinary evidence....