Ozzie,
We certainly are on the same page...
Maybe. I think we are in the same multi volume encyclopaedia but several of us are trying to discuss one chapter in one volume and you want to keep diverging to other volumes.
I've prepared a lengthy set of comments on your previous post. I may still post it but let's cut to the chase of this immediate issue.
Heat was the "Trigger" factor causing the failure of the first column in the cascade sequence.
heat was the driver post plane strike. << Temperature and load redistribution were the two main factors. Neither stood alone. We clearly agree that the aggregate capacity of the columns ... however many remained after the plane strike was driven below the service loads or... the loads above had no load paths to the columns below (part of my theory of lateral displacement). << I cannot parse nor understand that statement. What do "we clearly agree"??
I am clearly totally stupid about how fire works inside of a steel high rise. << I'll pass on that.
All this next lot should be agreed basics:
We know heat does at least 2 things to steel...
it causes the steel to expand
it causes the steel to lose strength
and enough of heat can cause plastic deformation.
"Compressive failure
"Usually, compressive stress applied to bars, columns, etc. leads to shortening.
Loading a structural element or specimen will increase the compressive stress until it reaches its compressive strength. According to the properties of the material, failure modes are yielding for materials with ductile behavior (most metals, some soils and plastics) or rupturing for brittle behavior (geomaterials, cast iron, glass, etc.).
In long, slender structural elements — such as columns or truss bars — an increase of compressive force F leads to structural failure due to buckling at lower stress than the compressive strength."
So if I understand the behavior of steel... under heat stress from the above quote... there would be shortening but failure occurs from an increase in compressive force...
Now you make life hard for yourself with this:
So this becomes a bit of a conundrum... the initial over heated column shortens but where does the increase load come from? THAT can only happen if columns are removed and loads redistributed.
Yes the 3D and dynamic mechanisms of load redistribution and heating effects is complicated. BUT we do not need to go there. That was why I avoided it in my "explanations for Jango" thread.
There is only one issue before us at present. My assertion that "heat triggered the failure of the first column in the cascade sequence." I have asserted, Badboy has asserted, jaydeehess has asserted that there was no other factor to cause the change from the stable post aircraft tower still standing status to the triggering of the "cascade failure of the 'initiation stage' for WTC1 and WTC2"
You disagree and have claimed that there are multiple other mechanisms. Only one you have described - beam thermal expansion causing misalignment. I have counter argued that IF there was a heat regime to expand the beam that same heat regime would trigger axial overload collapse - BEFORE the misalignment effects OR adding to those effects.
The rest of the speculations can be set aside UNTIL we resolve that single foundation issue. EITHER you prove me, BB, JDH wrong OR agree that we have the preferred hypothesis.
And you want to have a bet both ways with this:
And that DID happen post plane strike... but this was not enough to drive that first column failure... or was capacity driven lower and lower by heat?
Get off the bleeding fence. You'll get splinters in your arse end.
And you also distract by returning to your favourite bit of WTC7 speculation. I think it is irrelevant and distracting - it certainly is not addressing the WTC1/WTC2 subject of current discussion - which arose out of critiques of "Missing Jolt" - which is Twin Towers (WTC1) - NOT WTC7.
So far so good. 
