Utter rubbish. The Balzac-Vitry demolition proves you wrong.
Further, you just completely ignore the fact that the collapses occurred not because the columns were crushed, but because the floors that held them in place were smashed loose by an over-load.
Your modelling of the towers as ships colliding is BS because when ships collide, all the momentum built up over mioles of acceleration is spent in the initial impact, and there is not time for the screws, turning at full speed to restore that momentum, thus leaving the weight of the ships useless for further work. When two ships, their momentum spent, sit nose-to-nose, the weight of either is irrelevant to the other. Only if one still has power (and most engineers will immediately disengage the engines after a collision) does either continue to effect the other. If one ship has power, it can move the other.
The stuff that fell from one floor to another in the towers continued to effect the floors below because it represented a massive overload, even as a static load. That stuff was continuing to fall from above after the static overload limit was reached made it dynamic.
Once your ships have collided and stopped driving forward, all forces, if any, that they create are statiuc.
You get a ham-and-cheese-sandwich-at-a-Bar-Mitzvah fail.
Sorry the Balzac-Vitry demolition is not a one-way crush down of any type. It is a controlled demolition of say 25% of the structure to initiate a drop of an upper part that is then destroyed in contact with a lower part, the latter not really totally destroyed. Thus no upper part is one-way crushing down anything there.
The challenge here is to produce a theoretical structural model in 3-D where an upper part C of said structure will one-way crush down the lower part A when C is dropped on A, where A>10C. Part A is supposed to be fixed to ground.
As encouragement I have offered $1M to anybody who can produce said theoretical model.
This encouragement requires some clarifications, e.g. what constitues a one way crush down by part C of part A.
The structure A+C must first of all be initially stable, i.e. A carries C and all elements in the structure are under internal loads. Then C is detached from A and dropped on A from a specified height, e.g. a proportion of the height of C, let's say 1/10 of C or 1/100 of A.
The structural elements making up part A, there are both vertical and horizontal elements as structure is 3-D, each having a mass, must become detached from one another, so that they no longer represent the original structure. And this shall only be done by part C assisted by gravity.
Elements becoming loose in part A due to part C contacting them may assist in the one-way crush down.
The task includes to describe the initial energy available, the forces that develop at contact C/A, the deformations then produced and how failures of elements then develop. You should be able to trace the path of failures through part A so that all elements in A get detached from one another.
In another thread,
The Heiwa Challenge, the task is just to produce one real structure A + C that can demonstrate the above without any theoretical considerations.
To be perfectly frank, both tasks are impossible as a part C of a bigger part A of same 3-D structure, cannot one-way crush down part A.
But you can always try to prove me wrong.
There are plenty of papers and software describing how to carry out the structural damage analysis of C colliding with A in The Journal of SNAJ (Society of Naval Architects of Japan) from 1990 onwards. Also in the magazine The Naval Architect of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London. With luck you may find an article by me.
... and get rich!
