A) None of your examples you listed had a neat pile of floor stacked on top of each other (and I'm not even sure the 1918 example you showed is even a steel building, since you didn't provide links to anything). They all look kind of messy to me.
B) Scale. Your examples are tiny and very short compared with the WTC towers. I can't totally picture the force of a tower that size as it's collapsing, and it seems, neither can you. But it's a lot of force, a lot of mass, and a lot of kinetic energy being imparted as they come down. And you expect a neat pile of 110 floors stacked neatly on top of each other like CD jewel cases from all that? That's laughable.
C) What were the floors made of? The floor slabs used in the towers were 4-inch lightweight concrete slabs. This isn't exactly the most robust material here (6 inch concrete floor slabs is the usual standard), and you expect it to stay together in one piece like a CD jewel case after falling from hundreds of feet in the air, crashing onto the ground, and receiving the force and weight of the rest of the building to fall on top of it?
Also, I love your choice of words here. Because I'm supposedly missing a piece of information in my post, my position must then be "100% inaccurate". Learn to be a bit less hamfisted before you try to debate someone next time.
