Here's the thing the "official" narrative involves the work of hundreds of experts if not more. And it's been peer reviewed. And outside experts have modeled it. All the data is available. So at some point, it just becomes science.

If AE911 Truth wanted to create their own computer model and submit to peer review, they have had this opportunity for a decade now. They won't do it though. It's like the work they did trying to show thermite, that paper is a mess. The tests they did were not the tests to determine if the material was actually thermitic. When this was pointed out to them they said they would run those tests. That was like 6 years ago. There's super easy test they could run to see if they were on the right track. Thermite will ignite in an oxygen free or "inert" environment because it contains its own oxidizing source, Fe2O3, ferric oxide. The thermitic reaction frees the oxygen and that's what it uses to burn. You can run this one test and immediately see if you do not have thermite. (You would need different tests to determine you do.) They won't do it.

it becomes very odd to me that, based on the animated model above, ALL of the steel vertical beams fail nearly simultaneously on the right side of the building. If there was some* resistance, or even a topple to the left, or a crumple effect,

If you look towards the bottom of that gif there is a crumple effect. You can see the corners turn in. Basically, you have an avalanche of structural failure going on. Failing parts, fall and pull down intact parts with them until parts that are not being pulled down can't bear the weight it's supporting. This is how any progressive collapse happens.

For example, imagine 1,000 people holding up a giant platform on top of which is some great weight, say 50,000 pounds. So every person is bearing 50 pounds of weight and it's manageable. Now lets say people start taking their hands down quickly in succession. Starting with the people on the middle left, then moving to the middle right. The folks on the edge don't take their hands away they stay as long as they can. Let's say there's 300 people on the edge who will never take their hands down. Soon you have 900 people all bearing 55 lbs. Then 800, then 700, then 600. Now everybody is holding up 83 pounds. So the load is getting redistributed and each support is carrying more. People keep taking their hands away, 500 supports, now 400, now 300. Would it still stand? Now people are having to support, 100 pounds, 125 pounds. With only 300 people left they each would have to support 166 pounds. They would just give out wouldn't they, they would go down in a heap. It probably would collapse before it even gets to the 300. It's the same principles, just the weight that massive steel columns would support would be much greater, but at some point, they would be all be overloaded and it's a simple chain reaction at that point. The other point to make is these massive columns need side support. WTC 7 was 600 feet tall. You can't simply, bolt a column to a height of 600 feet and expect it to stand. When the lateral support is removed the columns can now hold less. This is very good example of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGhTTUBuMYo

, or even a topple to the left, .......the firefighters rushing out saying "it's coming down soon"

People who have really looked this videos say, if you look at the top corners of the buildings you can see they are not 90 degrees that one corner wants to fall one way and the other side wants to fall the opposite way. And that we had an overhead view of the building this bending/twisting would be more apparent.

The firefighters thought 7 was coming down for a few reasons.

A. Two towers just fell.

B. The building was creaking and moaning, you could hear the steel beginning to fail.

C. There was a lot of fire going on for hours in WTC. Relatively small fire is absolutely false. WTC 7 was an enormous building. It was 600 feet tall had a floor size that bigger than a football field from goal line to goal line (if I did the math correctly.) It might have been a bigger fire than than the towers because it was on many more floors. The south face of the building shows smoke pouring out what seems like every floor. Fire was confirmed on like a dozen floors. And the building burned for 7 hours. The fire resistance was " two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and trusses, and a three-hour rating for columns."

D The building was visibly bulging which is a real bad sign. If you go back to our metaphor of the people, holding up a great weight, if their arms or knees start bending, you know they won't be able to hold it for long. It was a minor scandal in NYC that the NYPD got its people out of the towers after it saw large chunks falling from tower 2. The helicopters could see the buildings were slowly becoming compromised stucturally. The NYPD told its people to get out, but their radios couldn't communicate with NYFD radios

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Collapse_of_the_South_Tower

At 9:52 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there". With the warnings, the NYPD issued orders for its officers to evacuate. During the emergency response, there was minimal communication between the NYPD and the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), and overwhelmed 9-1-1 dispatchers did not pass along information to FDNY commanders on-scene. At 9:59 am, the South Tower collapsed

15 minutes after this the NYPD helicopters say WTC 1 wasn't looking good either. 8 minutes before the building collapsed they reported the roof was leaning to one side.

the top of the tower might be leaning", and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south"

So because of this the NYFD had a surveyor's transit looking at the roof of WTC7 and they saw it was no longer 90 degrees but, bulging out.

You really think all of that is just coincidental nothingness? 3 buildings on the same day, disappear, in unprecedented fashion, and nearly identical destruction sequences. While 1 of those buildings wasn't even hit by a plane?

Personally, I would not trust a building with wide open offices built to Port Authority standards during a fire. If I was in one of these building during a fire, I would try to get as far away as possible. These three buildings shared somethings in common. The Port Authority was the controlling authority, not NYC and they had GIANT wide open offices (i.e less columns.) Look at the amount of space around the critical column in WTC7, number 79, the one that was right under the Penthouse on the roof.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/images/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc082108.jpg

Because of 9/11 building codes have now been revised for buildings with long span floors. They are required to have many more hour of fire resistance. I read a report by a NYFD fire inspector who believes the radical and novel design of the WTC 1 and 2 contributed to its collapse. They used far less concrete than say the Empire State Building. WTC 7 had spans up to 54 feet, longer than average. There's no way to do fire testing on a 54 foot system. I believe the biggest test furnaces are like 18 feet, so they test the components, not the assembled system.

And yes other buildings have burned longer, but they had different designs. A school in Holland had a partial collapse after 9/11 due to fire, the steel part of structure collapsed and the concrete part stood standing. And in Iran another building completely collapsed due to fire.