It has been and is understood by any with legitimate standing to question the mechanisms. The burden in not on "us" (AKA "you" as referenced,.) And it is the wrong burden. The burden here is to explain the applicability of models. Your lack of understanding the collapses does not impose any burden on "us" to explain the collapses to you. The obligation (not burden) is to explain applicability of models..If you really think the mechanic of the most catastrophic structural failures in history has been understood, the burden is on you to demonstrate that understanding experimentally, using a model (either virtual or physical).
The scientific method is not relevant to the extent that you assert. The topic is one of engineering forensic investigation of an event (or two events or three) which actually happened. Some of the principles of "Scientific Method" are applicable. Some are not. Replication of the events either at full scale or smaller scale is not required to explain the collapses and - as explained in detail months back - other than a "demonstration of gross mechanism" for lay persons - no one yourself included has demonstrated a valid professional reason to conduct scientific grade experiments by models.This is the scientific method.
You have not established that there is any aspect of physics involved in WTC collapse that requires experimental modelling. Whilst your moving goalposts target - currently loosely focused on "explain to my children" - remains moveable and undefined to suit your whim.
The ball is firmly in your court to take step one - decide whether you want to add to scientific understanding OR you want a simple demo for the kids. If you are demanding scientific rigour I have already several times explained why that is either of no professional value (progression stage) or not practical (initiation stage.) Ball in your court to define and fix those goalposts.
Whilst that point - that assertion - is true - it is irrelevant since WTC collapses are not situations pursuing Scientific Method in support of a new theory.You suggest I am trolling for repeating a simple point -- that the scientific method demands experimental verification for any theory..
There is no such legitimate burden. If you were to state specifically which "idea" you object to it may place an obligation on some of us to respond. A minor obligation and discussion courtesy - not a firm burden. But you wont define what you are seeking and even if you do it does not place burden. Merely an obligation to voluntarily assist you through your lack of understanding....again fail to address the simple point because of the burden it places on you to produce some experimental verification for your ideas.
At the risk of taking your comment out of context that statement is true - for reasons I explained on previous occasions..3) It simply can't be done with any model that can be reasonably taken as a simplified representation of the towers.
Put very simply:
1) It cannot be done validly for "initiation stage" - the cascade failure; AND
2) It serves no valid scientific purpose for "progression stage" - the "Three Mechanisms" clearly understood by those who need to understand and have standing entitling them to explanations.
3) The same reasoning applies to WTC7 - except the references to stages which are Twin Towers specific.