"In addition, up until 9/11, it had always been the goal to show that a building 'stayed up' in a fire. When attempting to model the WTC towers, the intention now became to demonstrate 'global collapse'."

That didnt make it past the final edit, but the tracked changes are intact:
http://911datasets.org/index.php/SFile:I3Y5436QFZJFA4ASBDB6N6K2L36YPIBU

More raw data NIST's inability to simulate "global collapse": http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Archive_Copy_Of_NIST_Building_Fire_Research_Laboratory_Public_FTP

This FEA project happened ultimately because NIST released SOME of the WTC7 structural drawings and people looked, compared and found there were "issues". Would also love to see what conditions would need to be applied to a FEA of a tower through initiation to progressive collapse. I don't actually think a model of the towers would be as difficult to produce as WTC7. Some of the angles, particularly around Column 79 are tricky, as a look at E12/13 framing plan shows. There's also the complication of the pre-existing con-ed, so not the easiest building to model I would imagine.
Obtaining the drawings remains key re the towers. NIST knows that, and they must be hurting over the recent evidenced revelations that they knew key, pertinent, structural details re WTC7 but failed to disclose these details when asked through the proper channels to do so. I think they may have learned a lesson here about what happens when you give honest people facts and data to chew on, and in particular, what happens when you give researchers structural drawings that allow them to check the work NIST did.
NIST have already been refuted by one FEA, carried out by ARUP and presented to a US court in evidence, but on the other hand, I suppose NIST's opinion could end up being endorsed by this project. I doubt it though, but not as much as I doubt NIST will risk inviting similar scrutiny on the towers than that which got them into this mess re WTC7.