OK... My rejection of NIST's sagging truss pull in causing buckling of the exterior of the twin towers includes:The primary mechanism of the initiation stage of the Twin Towers collapses was a sequenced cascading failure of columns losing their capacity to carry vertical loads. That process does NOT require: "...that the collapse would require almost all the trusses to behave like that in the same time frame..." NOR does it require: "...that the fires were throughout the footprint over entire floor area.." So your conclusion is moot (irrelevant) and not supported.
they provided evidence of this at only one location on the east side of the south facade on 1WTC. Cameras were trained on the towers continuously after the plane strikes. No evidence of large portions of the facade being pulled in or "buckling" in either tower
If the trusses were to pull in the facade as a result of their being heated and sagging... one would think that there would be excessive heating over all or most of the length of the truss for the entire truss to sag. If this is true it would mean that the entire outside for core floors were engulfed in flames. There is no photographic evidence of this.
The pull in would be 1/2 as much on the short span trusses (not that it matters)
It makes sense that the fuel from the plane would not be distributed equally throughout the foot print
Considering 2WTC almost all fuel would be in the SW and little no not on the NW side of the tower. In 1WTC it appears that the fuel would mostly be in the core area where is could enter and fall down elevator shafts. NIST's pull in tower 1 was the furthest from the plane strike. How did that work?
Econ41 correctly explains how a progression of column failures likely occurred in the core region and load redistribution could drive overall capacity below service loads leading the the tops dropping and tilting and the top blocks sheared floors, crushed floors and became the mass which in a runaway fashion rapidly destroyed the floors sequentially from the plane strike zone down the the ground.
For some reason NIST ignored the most logical hypothesis for the tops dropping... lost of column capacity in the core.... and choose an illogical one of the perimeter buckling.