While I think you are right in that the Static Model contradicts the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument, I have read that Aristotle at least used a form of the Contingency Cosmological Argument to conclude there were either "unmoved movers" or an "unmoved mover" beyond the Greek gods (who were themselves contigent, just vastly more powerful than mortals on his view).
Between the two, I find the Contingency Cosmological argument more convincing since the premises are easier to establish. But I may be biased, I had thought of this version of the argument before I had heard of it, although I had not developed and defended and clarified it as well as the great philosophers.
Still, I think the Kalam argument is easier to understand the deduction of so I like it better in that respect. And I think it may appeal to the irrational modern impulse to regard an argument as more sound if it uses recent scientific discovery in some way.
I have read that Aristotle at least used a form of the Contingency Cosmological Argument to conclude there were either “unmoved movers” or an “unmoved mover” beyond the Greek gods (who were themselves contigent, just vastly more powerful than mortals on his view).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aquinas, being a scholar in Greek philosophy, simplified and formalized the argument for Catholicism.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefont/2014/10/aquinas-and-the-unmoved-mover/