I doubt very seriously that there is all that much data available on what happens when buildings collapse from a variety of causes, i.e., earthquake, being collided with by an airliner, fire (either accidental or arson), vast amounts of time and general decay, controlled demolition, uncontrolled demolition, being struck by cannon-fire or a large stone hurled by a medieval trebuchet, or any combination of the aforementioned. Experimenting with models or computer simulation is not necessarily going to produce data that is accurate in the real world, and experimenting by causing full-size buildings to collapse in a variety of ways and then documenting all the minute details for future reference might prove just a bit costly.

So—although we may know generally quite a bit about the details of how a specific building collapsed by applying principles of physics and knowledge of architecture and engineering, much of it, especially the finer details, is going to be a matter of guesswork. And that would be by experts.

When attempted by non-experts, it is sheer speculation. And in this case, that speculation is strongly colored by people's preconceptions, further complicated by the blizzard of misinformation (some of it severely twisted to fit those preconceptions).   

Considering the fact that none of us knows for certain what happened, it is really a bit silly to get offended and/or nasty and/or abusive if someone else doesn't agree with your pet theory.

By the way, this is a general observation. I'm not addressing this comment to anyone in particular. If you found yourself taking it personally and getting your neck in a bow, you might just want to think about that.

Don Firth