Without doubt it is a good model and goes a long way to demonstrating the key feature of the WTC "Twins" progression stage collapse. But the issue of objective or purpose remains implicit. And your criticism of NIST does not follow. There are two main issues of relevance: 1) NIST made a choice to not detail the mechanism of the inevitable global collapse. From a professional engineering point of view that was a legitimate option. The contention only arises in the setting of conspiracy based criticism of NIST. A topic I am willing to discuss in a more appropriate thread. The bottom line is "how far should a public funded investigation go to guess and forestall false claims from conspiracy theorists?" There could well be a valid public policy choice to go further - but discussion is not the topic of this thread. 2) What is the purpose of the model? Read the two (?) year history about choice of goal or objective. The reality is that most parties with a legitimate interest in understanding the mechanism ALREADY understood the actual mechanism it was modelling. So the model adds little if anything to understanding of the mechanism. Wrong - the "loaded emotive" term "didn't care". NIST chose not to and read their brief as permitting that choice. NIST was statutorily obligated to the US Government which has NOT asked NIST to go further. NIST has no statutory obligation to predict and forestall false clams based on conspiracy. There could be a valid argument for "better PR" BUT it is hindsight. It could well be that any future such brief extends beyond technical minimal scope and ventures some distance into PR. Again - a topic for another thread if you want to explore it. Why not drop the innuendo of the last sentence and state what you mean explicitly. Preferably in a different thread.