It's been a while, so perhaps you're researching the phenomenon. Still, my food's about done cooking so I'll post this here in case you do get back about it.
Was this wind resistance? No. Wind resistance does not break stacks. I showed an example of one in coastal Florida to accentuate that. Hurricane winds, especially those just coming off the ocean, carry heavy rains, vastly increasing the density of any given volume of wind. This also increases the force applied, so a stack built to withstand hurricane winds won't break due to wind resistance from a brief fall.
As the stack collapses, the top moves at a higher velocity than the bottom; in fact, it experiences a different acceleration as well. This causes different parts of the tower to experience different forces (since we see that force is defined as mass x acceleration). Since the stack is all connected together, this variety of forces causes shear. The shear results in the stack splitting apart (
roughly near the middle. Consider: if the stack had been wider at the base, would the split be nearer the base or the top?). A stack makes for an ideal example because it is all connected, and it is very simple (so we don't have to consider complicated additional forces): if you had very sensitive instruments, you could see that a hard push on the base would cause a tiny movement at the top.
Because the building is all connected, something happening to one part has an effect on other parts Consider
a Truther video of the 7 collapse. Do you see at 2:09 the beginning of collapse? Do you see the clear damage rippling through the building for fully seven seconds before the exterior walls give out? This is internal collapse. As parts of the building fall, they not only stop supporting themselves, but they also overload adjacent supports. This means that there are many complicated forces on the inside acting on the entire building (because it was all connected, and forces acting on one part of a connected structure have an effect on other parts), and so considering only one tiny piece of the puzzle (as your video from yesterday did, again and again) is not merely inadequate - it is dishonest and inherently wrong.
So why does this make the free fall consideration meaningless? You saw from the simplest example that collapses happen both in free fall, and not in free fall, during the same collapse. It was exaggerated in the stack collapse (so as to be easier to see and understand), but even in a near-vertical collapse, forces acting on one part of the building will change the collapse rate of other parts. Seeing free fall behavior in a collapse absolutely does not require explosives. It can be from a variety of causes, and the NIST analysis demonstrates them.
Doesn't it look bad that NIST had to go back and change their explanation? No. That's literally what competent science requires. When a potentially valid concern is raised, it is appropriate to go back, reconsider your assumptions, look at data again, and if necessary change your understanding. There is no need for conspiracy, demolition, or gross incompetence to explain why a draft explanation was changed before being given as a final explanation.