Everything I have seen so far suggests that a physical model of the towers collapse would provide a much better realistic model of the collapse sequence than most rigid body simulations in physics sandbox games would give. One thing that would be important when constructing such a physical model would be keeping in accordance with scaling laws and not designing a physical model that has parts that are too strong for that smaller scale. The physical model would have to be at a smaller-scale because a full-size model of the WTC towers is obviously infeasible for the average person to finance and construct on their own.
A thread about one type of physical model of the towers is here:
This first thread thread (especially towards the end) focuses on the possibility of constructing physical models made with pasta representing the rigid outer perimeter columns and floors represented by wooden blocks. I think this is an interesting model to set up because of its relative ease in construction (needing mainly pasta, wooden blocks and weights), although the core columns in such a model might be more difficult to construct and make the physical model unrealistically sturdy.
Another thread about a different type of physical model of the towers is here:
The second thread focuses on other physical models, such as a free-standing wooden floor model with magnets, plastic, and screws being used to represent the seated connections connecting the wooden floors to the wooden exterior columns.
An added benefit of the first model imo is that compared to other models (such as a free-standing wooden model), provided that the correct method of inputting energy is applied (such as through steam and not through fire, the latter of which would likely burn the dry pasta to a crisp), the softening of the pasta in that physical model would better represent how steel softens and gradually loses its rigidity under higher temperatures than a free-standing wooden model would.
IB stands for inwards buckling (of the exterior columns as a result of sagging floor trusses) in this context?
OOS is the abbreviation for Open Office Space right?
I assume that the progression sequence for the south tower would be notably different for the south tower (which I believe OP was trying to model from their video), as the plane impact damage and fires were much more concentrated away from the core region and more focused on the south, east, and north sides of the building. Also, it appears from visual evidence that exterior column failure was much more pronounced just prior to collapse for the south tower than for the north tower. The south tower collapse visually appeared to start with buckling of exterior columns on the south and east sides of the south tower and then the top block leaning to the east and falling down, with a progressive collapse of the south tower then ensuing. The north tower collapse visually appeared to start with hat truss and interior column failure (and the antenna leaning and falling to the southeast), the top block coming down, and then the exterior columns at and just below the plane impact floor region buckling (aside from the exterior column buckling that was already taking place at the south face where the most active fires appeared to be raging at the time of collapse of the north tower), with a progressive collapse of the north tower then ensuing.