I don't know why you keep trying to deflect with this nonsense. I know I'm not distracted by it. We get it. You don't know how to describe the collapse with math. That's fine.Reality didn't work before mathematics was invented?
The Romans didn't really build that column 1900 years before Euler came up with that equation.
Math has to conform to physics. Physics is inanimate and incapable of giving a (*)(*)(*)(*) about anything.
What's annoying is that you refuse to admit that your model supports a flawed argument. I've explained to you why your model does not describe, model, or even remotely resemble the collapse of the WTC. I've done so with fancy calculus that you don't understand in the past, I've done so with simple physical models most recently. Your model shows crush failure mode of the design of your paper loops. It does not show or represent the failure mode of the design of the WTC buildings.
Now, back to the discussion where we left it. Are you willing to admit that your columns are pinned by the center support dowel, and that the center support dowel creates an unreasonable amount of stiffness in a structure purported to model the collapse mode of the WTC towers?