If the simulation is only explaining the global collapse and the events "after the initiation of the global collapse" differ from observation, then this is not a simulation which accurately explains events. Other NIST answers champion the simulation as "These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred." This is clearly wrong if their simulation of the exterior differs from observation.
The exterior structure of the building becomes severely deformed as it falls in the NIST model.
This is the deformity we are talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQtSprGafUNIST is correct here in their simulation. There should be severe deformity. It should not come down like a controlled demolition.
It seems like NIST just had a goal of simulating a global collapse caused by fire, and that's as far as they got in explaining the events. They simulated one thing and couldn't go further. They could not simulate what we saw, which is a disproof of their explanation.