Comment: "The only other area of evidence that really convinces me..."

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I think (see in situ)

fireant's picture

"The only other area of evidence that really convinces me..."

There are other possibilities other than all beams (columns, actually) cut at the same time. This is the crucial mistake in thinking I hear repeated over and over. When the "impossible" label is applied, it is thus easy to assume only CD could have brought the building down.
Understanding that the visible descent of the building was primarily only the outer walls, since the interior had already collapsed, folding and breaking of the grid-like structure of the perimeter walls could also produce free fall speed for the distance from the ground to the point of folding, or buckling. Ignoring this possibility is a glaring gap in truthful thinking. Ignoring evidence which supports this possibility is sloppy at best, and evidence suggests this indeed, may be what created rapid descent for 8 stories.
The structure did not drop straight down, as if it's underpinnings were suddenly removed. It teetered, with a visible shift to the east as first move prior to descent, which actually was the east half of the structure falling over towards the north. The west half fell to the south. This shift continued for the first roughly third of total descent, indicating lower support indeed was folding. Structural remains show very large sections of lower perimeter wall broken at it's connection points.
Sudden removal of support columns would indeed cause the structure to drop straight down, but that did not occur with 7WTC.

Undo what Wilson did