I thought west's video showed the graphic of the 'perfect collapse' simulation that supposedly matched the video, and comments that it isn't dynamic analysis either - which is obvious to look (maybe I misunderstood and there's a deeper modelling that is not used in the graphics, but why not show that graphically? (maybe he did and west cherry picked) - the way the penthouse falls in that graphic is well false-looking, overall it looks more dubious to me than the nist one - accounting for NIST being a proof of concept and not a direct simulation (which would be impossible without knowing exact temparatures etc (initial conditions).
As I said there are obvious issues with NIST (which I've read posters on that debunking site give a decent rundown of actually), and reasonable doubt whether the specific sequence of collapse they put forward is what happened, but that doesn't;t help the counter theories prove anything on its own.
One of the big complaints about nist is them not releasing raw data of their models for people to play with - despite initially indicating that they would, hulsey's lot haven't released that sort of data either as far as I know so we can't see what they base those dodgy graphics on - even less info on it than nist really. If they can't match the complexity of the modelling of nist either (processing power shouldn't be such an issue these days), and their criticisms of nist are based on dubious assumptions/models which they won't give details of (as in west's vid), I'm not so inclined to give benefits of doubts regarding their claims. I'll change my opinion when they address this stuff I guess (they possibly already have).