...I disagree with ozeco...
You are welcome to disagree provided your reasoning is sound. It isn't. I was pleased to see you trying to think through the issues and so as to not discourage you I was diplomatic:
I said "I doubt that." when I could have simply said "You are wrong."
I said "I'm not comfortable with some of your details and explanation but let that pass for now,..." When I could have said "your explanations are crazy." I didn't and the hint to keep trying should have been strong enough when I said "Your core claim is on target."
I can still help you to understand the physics - if you are willing to discuss and learn.
So I'll take off the kid gloves of diplomacy where your most recent post says:
...postulate that the physical form of the forces we are talking about came down to a huge ramming tonnage of debris that lay on top of a clean steel floor pad face for each split second that it impacted each new floor. This intense piston created forces so strong that when its pneumatic blast shot outward towards the inner core it blew it away and broke it apart.
That is simply not true. And I already offered you the key reason. You are considering two aspects. 1) The descending physical mass of debris AND 2) the body of compressed air that the descending mass has created and which proceeds ahead of the mass of debris.
Now pause there, stop throwing out words and think. The air is going near enough the same speed as the debris mass. No way can the "bow wave" of air exert the same impact force as the solid bits of debris. That should be obvious even though I am so far only responding to your statement.
Now feed in the big bit of explanation you are not considering. We know how the debris mass reacted with the OOS floors and how the falling top part of tower impacted with the core. In both those areas a falling solid mass either "Top Block" structure or debris struck the horizontal beams of the core or floors/floor joists of the OOS. That falling impact was several times large enough to shear off the beams in core and joists in OOS.
And the air pressure pulse was - must have been - at least one order of magnitude smaller the falling debris impact.
So stop, take a deep breath and count to ten and rethink. I am trying to assist you and I am not likely to get this sort of physics wrong. So if you want to show me that I am wrong you will need strong arguments not just personal incredulity.
As I said it is great to see you thinking. And the core of your claim is pointing in the right direction. Not bad going. So let's get the next steps back on track.
A word of advice about the next bit:
...You see Szamboti uses a 2 dimensional static model that relies solely on vertical static resistance.
No need to try to prove Tony wrong - he does a great job on that by himself. BUT let's be clear. he does not use a 2 dimensional static model. He uses one D plus dynamic -- i.e. 1D plus time therefore 2D if you count time as a dimension. Tony's models have only one"physical" dimension. That is one of the two main reasons he gets most things wrong. He is wrong but not for the reason you claim. And it is irrelevant to understanding the collapse whether Tony was right or wrong. The collapse happened and it makes no difference what T Sz or NIST or Bazant or ozeco41 says years later. What happened actually happened. I have (in serious fun) blamed Santa's custard for causing the WTC collapses. That is stupid. It didn't. BUT the same goes for any claims, reports or papers. History happened and false claims don't change history.
So get to understand about the falling material - initially a structure of "Top Tower" - progressively turning into debris from break up.
Your next bit is fantasy:
...However the pneumatic air blasts we are talking about would be focused most intensely on the outer ring of inner core columns in a lateral manner the core columns were not designed for.
Then this next bit is true but irrelevant because it didn't happen that way:
...The core columns were very strong vertically however they were vulnerable horizontally and were not designed to resist intense air blast explosions hitting them from the sides.
and now you drift into ambiguity/unclear definitions.
... This would quickly disconnect the trusses from their thin seats and instigate a rapid runaway floor collapse progression as was seen in the videos.
When you have difficulty with thinking clearly try coming at it from the other direction. So ask "What did the falling mass of debris do? How could it stand aside and not get involved whilst my compressed air did the damage?
Are you saying that the falling mass of debris would not sever the joist connectors?
If you are not meaning that then you must be saying that the air blast was strong enough to shatter the joist connectors immediately before the falling debris struck. It should be obvious why that it not true. But the physics is harder to explain.
You got off to a good start. Don't abandon it.
...It's not too difficult to understand.
TRUE
... It's also backed by the evidence.
FALSE.
Keep going forward. Ignore the noise from the sideline.
The ejection velocity is the speed of air out of a focussed orifice. And those orifices quite limited in area. So the pressure acting on the floors is the pressure needed to produce ~2-3-400 mph velocity through the hole of the escape. And it is probably coming along accessible corridors from some of the available vertical plenums--the elevator shafts being obvious candidates. IIRC femr2 et al over on 911Forum have shown that is the likely path. (I haven't checked but am relying on memory. 2013-1941 problems may intrude 
) (And those preceding bits of "guestimation" are pseudo static. The situation was dynamic with very high speeds involved so there is another layer of complexity we need to remember. I think we are on the "safe side" but....)
