If so, than the theory of 104th-106th floor cuts is obsolete for WTC2.
Well, I put that theory in the very back of the folder "possibilities". The high cuts might prevent a load distribution from the perimeter to the core while the remaining and still connected columns had to carry a lot more distributed loads.
In the moment it looks like the allegedly collapsed perimeter is not accountable for the collapse initiation. So I put the (first though of many but apparently impossible) straight down core collapse initiation from the very back of the "possibilities" folder into the very first row. There is no other way to describe the action of the WTC1 top prior and at initiation.
The question for the outriggers (I don't know the answer) is indeed much more important now. If we consider that the core went down at one level with the south face (or a tiny little bit ahead) then imo the outrigger is responsible for the final collapse of the bowed wall and probably for the bowing as well. On the other hand, the damaged north face stood straight up completely unaffected by the sinking down antenna/hat truss/core until the perimeter collapse...
Wait! That is still something we should check first. Started the descent of the north face when the perimeter collapse at 98 reached the corners or may be earlier?
I really don't believe (but I don't know for sure) that a sagging south face would have deformed the core and caused a small tilting of the antenna. But then I'm pretty sure that core action would tilt the hat truss and would affect the heated perimeter.
How could the core/hat truss/antenna went down without tilting while e.g. the west perimeter had to be deformed into a trapeze??? Imo there is only one possible answer. The downward force of the core was much much bigger than the outrigger could handle against the resistance of the previously unbowed perimeter columns. The resistance of the bowed south wasn't big enough. ...and a zipper like chain reaction progressed around the building.
The WTC2 picture tells not much in this context since it was taken after all north perimeter columns were broken. The force of the NE corner hitting lower structures obviously pushes the corner of the roof upwards. The MER floors appear much more rigid than the perimeter structure below. Nevertheless, the corner (without support of the hat truss) is deformed.
Indeed, in one of my videos I asked especially for that WTC2 kink mostly because that kink shows a larger tilt angle of the MER floors than of the floors below.
Assuming a trapeze deformation of the whole structure we still have to deceit between two cases of collapse.
In short, why cut some columns below the hat truss just to overload the perimeter if you can have a collapsing core? I have no idea how it works, what you have to paint on the columns or how many tons of some Hi-Tech-Powder you have to place somewhere but the visible and measurable movement of the WTC1 top says "it happened". That's the way I'm able to interpret it. May be someone has a brilliant idea how floor sagging should cause all of that. So far...
...I would expect at least some inches of convex roof deformation to believe in a "perimeter accelerating first" collapse. What should decelerate the perimeter? The 3m sagged floor slaps??? ...enough resistance to bow the WTC2 corner upwards? ...to kink all perimeter columns below the Hat truss??? ...just to allow the core to accelerate a little faster??? It makes no sense at all.