I think the NIST report covers all the bases pretty well, maybe they could release the FEA model, but I suspect that would just lead to more opportunities for misinterpretation of the kind David Chandler does.
Any structural model is going to be a simplification of the real world, and of necessity full of assumptions about fuel loading, structural integrity of the steel framework, etc, etc, I don't regard the model of the collapse as being sufficiently wrong as to indicate a demolition. The three stage collapse pretty much matches video observations.
The "it must be demolition because of free-fall argument" that Chandler is pushing is a deliberate misinterpretation of the reality of how the building collapsed.
You actually raised some reasonable points and I will give them a lot of thought.
At this point I think we will have to agree to disagree, I respect how you put forward your arguments in the last half of our conversation.
Bear in mind this is just one point of the story that doesnt add up for me. I don't have an engineering PhD but I know a few guys that do and think the free fall shouldn't have happened.
Thank you for the debate I enjoyed it.