Keith, the point of constructing a model would be to gain experimental validation for the theory of how the collapse occurred by showing it is, in principle, reproducible. You can't take the footage of the event you're seeking to model as if it itself is a model of itself -- that doesn't achieve validation of anything. Reproducibility and validation are such fundamental elements of the scientific method that I feel if you were really an engineer you would understand this. Instead you assume the terms of your argument: in philosophical terminology this is called begging the question.

Two gravity collapses, oops, reproducibility. A floor of the WTC can hold so much weight, that is the key to collapse of the WTC. The video of the WTC collapse shows a gravity collapse, if you struct the WTC at the top and only had 5 or 6 floors slowly collapse to the lower section, maybe the collapse would stop. You can do the math, no need to waste money on a model.

I am really an engineer, and since I can calculate what floor in the WTC can hold, there is no need to study the collapse, only the start. The collapse is the full up model. It would be a waste of time to model the collapse, it serves no purpose. As an engineer, I would stop your model work, it is waste, unless you are doing some hollywood CGI to make lots of money. Once started given the condition of 911, the collapse would not stop until the bottom. AND, we have two examples of full up MODELS to prove it. I only have a masters degree in engineering.

Why would you model the collapse anyway. 911 truth can't understand the model for WTC 7, and have no idea it is a model of initiation, and get all upset the model doesn't look right. You would not be happy with a model anyway, it would not look right. Thus, I did a math model, and understand why the WTC collapsed like it did.

Reproducible. - Bingo, WTC 1 and 2 both collapsed, and the collapse part looks similar, the initiation is different. Reproducible is met with full up models.

You make no sense.

E=mc

2 the simple math model for an atomic weapon. We can fill the entire room with equations if you wish, go get a physics - he can show you.

And here is the full up model -

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/8ea139507d5b54224dd3a707da0ebb91.jpg
You are saying a full up model is not good enough, and you say the math model is not good enough. What do you want? I can show you many atomic tests, do you still need a model.

Okay, we take flight, we work on the EoM for flight, and seriously we use all the boards on 4 sides of a room doing the equations of motion for flight so we can build flight control systems, or a simulator. We take terms of lift due to the rotation of the earth and cross them out, they are negligible except for flight at MACH 3 and above. Are you upset we dropped out terms, gee, the autopilots used for your flights use this model, are you going to accept dropping out terms?

We now have filled up all the space on the boards, and have the answer; we had to linearize some things, and make assumptions. We had to base the equations on some big assumptions - we can't really model flight perfectly, but we can try.

Then I show you the model, and you are happy?

Wait, I have a plane and it flys, full up model, and it works.

I have a 767, it flies, and you want a model to prove it flies?

I have the WTC, it collapsed due to fire, a gravity collapse, full up model. Now you want to model something we already have seen is possible; for what reason.

Reproducibility and validation are the end result, you have it backwards, the full up model are the Reproducibility and Validation of any model you can build. So go to engineering school and model the WTC collapse, I think pure study is great, and out of big studies comes great things like Tang, WD-40, STP, etc.

Do you what a computer model, or a scale model? I already have two full up gravity collapse models on 911, now what kind of model do you need...