WTC Antenna Dropped First , Indicating a Core Failure.

[petgoat]

But not just that. Indicating a hat truss failure.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

Damn I wish they hadn't destroyed the steel!

[LARED]

1. I read it twice and it says

the hat truss transfered load to the core causing a failure.

The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 143/197)

[petgoat]

5. That's just my point. If the antenna dropped as the first visible

sign of collapse, that means the hat truss must have failed.

But the NIST report says the hat truss was the agent of destruction. In that case the
antenna should have moved together with the top of the building. But it didn't. It
moved all by itself. Which means the hat truss must have been coming apart under it.

[LARED]

9. So in this picture of the hat truss/core

Where does the core start and the hat truss end or visa versa.

[petgoat]

10. The truss stops where the diagonals stop.

At the 106th floor.

[LARED]

11. Thanks for the picture

It confirms my belief that the core and hat truss are essentially an integrated structure in the core area. Meaning if the hat truss failed allowing the antenna to drop for a few milliseconds prior to the exterior structure, you cannot view the hat truss as a discrete failed entity separate from the core.

[petgoat]

13. My point exactly. Please explain how fires ten stories under

caused the hat truss to fail. Even if core columns failed under the hat truss,
what could possibly cause the antenna to punch through the hat truss?

What possible mechanism for hat truss failure is there?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Punch through the hat truss? Where did you get that idea?

No one has ever claimed that the antenna "punched through" the hat truss. You're building a straw man.

[petgoat]

18. I'm claiming it. The hat truss was built to redistribute the asymmetrical

forces of hurricane winds or insults from penetrating 707s. If the
antenna fell into it like a soda straw dropped in a soda, the hat truss
was destructing under it.

There are only two ways the hat truss could be destructing. Either it was
taken apart with cutting charges, or the core was so completely compromised
in every single column that it couldn't take the weight, and the weight of
the unsupported upper part of the core columns pulled down the center of
the truss.

None of the official stories claims that the core was so compromised, because
it's completely unreasonable. NIST claims the perimeter columns buckled,
FEMA claims the floors pancaked, and one of the other theories says differential
heating warped the building so it came apart.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Your depiction of NIST explanation is not accurate.

Get out your handy dandy copy of Appendix 6 of the NIST study. If you need to download it from wtc.nist.gov , go do so now.

Turn to page 304 (pdf page 386).

The gravity loads could no longer be redistributed, nor could the remaining core and perimeter columns support the gravity loads from the floors above. The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.

That sounds a lot like your second choice, and not what you claim the NIST report to say.

You are going to love the NIST report when you finally read it.

[petgoat]

40. Your quote saying the core could not support the gravity loads

assumes that buckled perimeter columns are causing redistribution of the loads
to the core.

This is a plausible theory, but since the photos cited as proof of perimeter
column buckling and bowing are very likely simply photos of light refracted by
hot air (as light waves get all wavery on a desert road) it is highly
speculative. Consider also the fact that the core would have been overbuilt by
at least a factor of three.

It's too bad they didn't save the steel so they could show us the samples.
You'd think they'd at least take pictures before they loaded the stuff on
the boat to India. They don't have any samples showing the buckling.

Note also that the context of your quote says that the top began to tilt toward
the south, and collapse followed. The antenna's plunge took place before the
top tilted to the south. That's what I'm talking about. The hat truss failed
first. It failed because its structural integrity was compromised by some
unknown mechanism, or because a significant number of the core columns lost their
load carrying capacity simultaneously, leaving the core above them hanging from
the hat truss and pulling it apart.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Oh, brother.

Light refracted by hot air? Highly speculative? In your dreams.

The sheer volume of photographs and video evidence that NIST had belies any speculation on your part about light refraction. Most of those "photos" are really video grabs, aren't they? So you're saying that the building's reflected light was refracted in exactly the same way to produce the exact same image throughout the duration of the video? That is what you'd have to be saying if you want to keep up with this desperate device.

What is your evidence that the antenna "plunge" took place before the tilt began? Let's see some citation of that, some hardcore video evidence. Bring it.

[petgoat]

50. The tops of the windows were level with the ceilings, and

the hot air poured out of them in sheets. There is every reason to think it was a steady-state
flow of air, smoothly exiting the windows and rising along the sides of the building.

Has NIST explained how they corrected for the refractive effect of this hot air?

For evidence that the antenna dropped first, see FEMA, see Jones, and see my post #42.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Steady state flow of hot air...

...that perfectly refracted all light consistently during the entire time the building was being filmed.

Dude.

[petgoat]

57. "perfectly refracted "

Who says perfectly? Does NIST address the refraction issue at all, or
did they simply not consider it?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Dude.

I don't have a clue if NIST "considered the refraction issue" at all. Seeing as how you just pulled it out of your butt, I doubt it.

What evidence do I have that you just pulled it out of your butt? Let's stick to one single phrase you used.

"Smooth sheets of hot air". God in heaven.

These things called "windows"? They have things called "sides". "Sides" of "windows" would slice your "smooth sheets of hot air" to ribbons. Plus there are these things called "perimeter columns". They are something that gave the WTC its sassafrassin "trademark look".

And once these now-"ribbons" of hot air hit outside, they're going to be swept away by the motherBLEEPing winds that are clearly blowing the smoke away from the sides!!

This is why there's no point in talking to you. I cannot believe you want to be known as the "sheets of hot air" boy here at the September 11th forum. Were you thinking when you came up with that one?

[petgoat]

63. Sheets of hot air.

Notice how the smoke rises along the sides of the building.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. I'm not talking to you about this anymore. n/t

[petgoat]

67. Here's another picture of sheets of hot air.

[LARED]

41. Because the hat truss and the core

are not separable. If the core fails the hat truss fails. What makes you think the antenna punched through the hat truss?

[petgoat]

43. The antenna dropped before the perimeter walls did. nt

[LARED]

68. And you find this odd because ?????? (n/t)

[petgoat]

69. I find the failure of the hat truss odd because it should have

been capable of bridging over weaknesses in the core. That it failed in the middle
says that it failed for no reason known to NIST or FEMA, or that there was a sudden
core failure of so complete a nature that the upper part of the core became a dead
weight on the truss, pulling its center out.

[LARED]

70. And your qualifications to determine that

the failure of the hat truss odd because it should have been capable of bridging over weaknesses in the core.

and

That it failed in the middle says that it failed for no reason known to NIST or FEMA, or that there was a sudden core failure of so complete a nature that the upper part of the core became a dead
weight on the truss, pulling its center out.

are what?

You seems to have a complete lack of understand of how the hat truss / core functioned. Again the hat truss and the core are part of the same structure except for the connecting steel to the perimeter walls

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixq.pdf

Role of the Hat Truss System

The purpose of the hat truss was to support gravity and wind loads on the antenna. It was not designed to resist lateral forces on the towers, and, in an undamaged state, it did not have a significant role in carrying gravity loads. Lateral loads due to wind were distributed to the framed-tube system via diaphragm action of the floor system. The hat truss was connected to each perimeter face at only four points, all at the same level (at the 108th floor just below the concrete floor slab). The 47 core columns were connected to diagonal elements, heavier transfer beams, or smaller beam elements in the hat truss. Most of the core columns extended to the roof level, but four core columns, which were only minimally connected to the hat truss, terminated at floor 110. The hat truss provided minimal redistribution of loads (less than 10 percent) from perimeter columns to core columns. Most of the load redistributed due to aircraft impact damage occurred on the external face through vierendeel action

[petgoat]

72. The qualifications of an anonymous internet poster are not

verifiable and thus a non-issue. You have to settle for quality-of-argument
evaluations here.

I am tied up with the Chicago conference and will have to answer your points
later.

[LARED]

73. I look forward to your presentation of an argument.

Please figure out how the WTC hat truss and core functioned prior to presentation.

[petgoat]

74. Any truss functions as a bridge, and the assertion that core

failure inherently results in truss failure depends on the assertion
of massive core failure involving simultaneous failure of numerous
columns.

NIST gets around this problem by ignoring the fact that the antenna
fell first, and the associated implication that the truss failed.
NIST tells us, as Jim Hoffman points out, that the truss was the agent
of core failure by transferring south wall stresses to the core. But
it makes no effort to tell us how something that strong enough to
take the core down was weak enough to collapse in its center and drop the
antenna.

[LARED]

75. Some advice

Stop believing all the crap Jim Hoffman tells the world, because he is clueless about failure mechanisms in the WTC.

Second, please educate yourself about how the hat truss and core functioned. You really have no clue. I provided a nice link about it above which you failed to read, or do not understand.

[petgoat]

76. I am perfectly capable of understanding the purposes and

structural functioning of the hat truss.

I have not read your link yet. I am suspicious of the proposition that the sole function of
the hat truss was to hold up the antenna, because the south tower had no antenna, and my
recollection is that what I read said the hat truss was vital to hurricane structure.

If NIST does not acknowledge that the antenna fell before the perimeter walls fell, then
perhaps this issue should be resolved before a relatively esoteric discussion of the
functions of the hat truss.

IMHO, the hat truss should have bridged over any and all core column failures and supported
the antenna, and should have landed on the top of the WTC pile relatively intact. Got any
pictures of that?

If it did fail, it should have done so in an asymmetric manner that resulted in the antenna
toppling instead of plunging straight down.

If you have any quibbles with Jim Hoffman's understanding of structure, please share them.
His website is a great resource and he is a courageous man. It takes a certain kamikaze
mentality to do this kind of work.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. The south tower was designed to have an antenna.

Hence the hat truss. One was not installed. That's something that NIST points out.

I think the point I've been trying to make is that the "downward" motion you think you're seeing is a "southward" tilt caught from the extreme north side of the building. The side pictures at NIST (one of which I've produced) shows the antenna going down a tiny bit, but mostly tilting back.

This is how you develop a complete picture of the event. You put one set of pictures beside the other. Both are an angle on the truth. By seeing them in the light of the other, you gain the better perspective.

[petgoat]

83. the "downward" motion you think you're seeing is a "southward" tilt

I can see how a tilting tower could be perceived as dropping straight down,
if the axis of its tilt was perfectly perpendicular to the line of sight.

But in that case the top of the building should move too, and it doesn't.

These pictures were taken from below the tower. By my geometry, a tilting
tower should have shown a drop in the roof height. It doesn't. The roof
stays the same height even as the antenna drops.

If you want to show that "tilting tower" equals "no antenna drop" you have
to provide some video.

[dailykoff]

79. Right. Find one dopey paragraph

in a preposterous, self-contradictory report and all your questions are answered.

Thanks for sharing.

[petgoat]

86. Some advice

A statement like "he is clueless about failure mechanisms" is as meaningless as
"he is a doo-doo head" unless you provide specifics about his cluelessness.

Besides, Jim Hoffman is not the point. The point is section 6.14.2 of the NIST
draft, which says that the hat truss was so freaking strong that it caused the
shortening of overheated core columns. Note this does not mention the gravity
loads as a factor in this shortening.

"{T}he difference in the thermal expansion between the core and exterior walls,
which was resisted by the hat truss, caused the core column loads to increase.
As the fires continued to heat the core areas without insulation, the columns
were thermally weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the
exterior walls through the hat truss until the south wall started to bow inward.
At about 100 min, approximately 20 percent of the core loads were transferred by
the hat truss to the exterior walls due to thermal weakening of the core...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

Do you believe that a truss built to support the TV antenna would be so freaking strong?

My own perception of the functioning of the hat truss comes from a couple of years ago,
before NIST, back in the days of those flimsy truss "clips" which were of course
inconsistent with the Vierendeel truss structure that is claimed today. I can not locate
the article I read about the hurricane design of the towers, but my understanding from that
was that the hat truss served to limit wind-induced bending by linking the tensilely-stressed
windward side to compressive resistance on the lee side.

That the hat truss was apparently so strong suggests it did function as an essential part
of the hurricane design, and not merely as an antenna pad. Here's what FEMA has to say
about the function of the outrigger trusses:

"This outrigger truss system provided stiffening of the frame for wind resistance, mobilized
some of the dead weight supported by the core to provide stability against wind-induced
overturning, and also provided direct support for the transmission tower on WTC 1."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

ALSO provided support. Of course regardless of the function of the hat truss, its apparent
failure and the dropping of the antenna remain very mysterious--in my opinion inexplicable.

[dailykoff]

78. goat your patience is an inspiration.

The NIST can't even keep its story straight in the course of one report, and these guys are citing it as some kind of credible authority?

The mind boggles. :crazy:

[SidDithers]

2. You gotta stop hotlinking your images, petgoat...

I'd like to be able to see what you've posted. Open a photobucket account or something.

Sid

[DrDebug]

3. Indeed. And it's very easy

Just go to http://xs.to (I prefer that one because it's the easiest to type), http://imageshack.us or http://photobucket.com and just upload the image you've just saved. The bonus is that you can copies of pictures worth saving. Just create a temporary directory and occassional archive the stuff which is nice and throw away the pictures which are irrelevant.



Somehow I doubt your story because that antenna is very lightweight and steel is very strong especially compared to aluminium and I remember seeing that the antenna remained standing for the most part during the collapse, but that's a recall from memory.

Edit: Seplling

[DoYouEverWonder]

89. Wouldn't that be a copyright infringment

to take other people's images without permission and load them into your Photobucket account?

[file83]

94. People do it all the time. If the copyright owners have a problem with it

they can take it up with photobucket, and then photobucket will delete the photos, same as they do on YouTube for videos. Worst case scenario your account gets disabled, but you won't get sued, afterall, the copyright owners posted it on the internet themselves. If they don't want it copied they shouldn't put it on the net.

[SidDithers]

102. You could include a link to the original page...

to go along with your copy of the photo. That way you're giving credit to the original source and not stealing their bandwith by hotlinking the photo.

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Not quite

The upper part of the building started its southern tilt before the antenna dropped.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. What building is that diagram supposed to be of?

It certainly doesn't look like the trusses used in WTC 1 & 2.



From what I can see the trusses were not integeral to the center/core of the building. They just sort of hang off the building like a wrap around porch.

[petgoat]

8. The hat truss is on the top of the building.

It helped tie everything together.

In a strong wind the perimeter columns on the windward side would pull the truss down,
and those on the lee side would push it up.

The point is, if the antenna dropped, the truss must have been damaged, not just the core.
So how did that happen from fires many floors below?

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. That's what I'd like to know?

I didn't know about the hat trusses before. One thing is for sure, they didn't put all that steel up there for laughs. It seems the WTC was built like a steel shithouse.

It is obvious that the fires were not extensive enough to cause the total failure that we saw that day. Certainly not in under 2 hours, 2 buildings, exactly the same way?

The only thing in the world that can turn steel buildings into dust would be a weapon(s)inside the core of the building. Of course, NIST, FEMA and the debunkers will do everything they can to dance around that conclusion.

[mirandapriestly]

35. I agree, it's ridiculous that "everything" failed. It seems as though

part of this extremely strong structure would remain

[Americus]

80. WTC built with STEEL? Lots of people believe that, but it's not true.

If you watch video images of the WTC2 hit, what impresses the most is how the aircraft seemed to just melt into the building. Nothing tears off (e.g. wings), you don't see any falling debris, and the plane seems to slow down only a tiny bit as it enters/penetrates the building.

Conclusion: WTC was built with "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter".

[mirandapriestly]

81. LOL what will they think of next?

[RayUbinger]

7. Antenna survived, by the way

http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/antenna.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/antenna.swf

[file83]

12. OMG - there is no way in hell that a fire caused the hat truss to

fail from 20 to 30 stories down. There was no plane impact damage up their either. Just more evidence pointing towards controlled (unconventional) demolition.

Thanks for posting PG!

[mirandapriestly]

14. I right clicked on the image; clicked on properties

cut n paste the address and it sent me to the image. Now the image shows up in the post, too. wtf, but it works

[petgoat]

15. Click on the link, that will take you to the page where it's at.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

[petgoat]

17. Can You Hear Me Now?

This is the hat truss. Somehow WTC1's TV antenna just fell down through it. How?

[mirandapriestly]

19. well there is no sign of the hat truss

in any of the north tower collapses, so it was going down along with the antennae and the core and the perimeter columns. So since it is connected to the core then "something" must have happened to the core,too, since the 107th floor is above the fire. If the core didn't fail, then I think the hat truss would have been left up there, at least for awhile. Or am I looking at it the wrong way?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. The antenna did not go through the hat truss.

The hat truss fell, along with the rest of the upper core, under the antenna.

With the antenna.

See my post above.

[mirandapriestly]

34. I think it was a rhetorical queston.nt

[Bolo Boffin]

38. What was a rhetorical question?

petgoat asked How? I answered him.

How is "How?" a rhetorical question. Enlighten me.

[mirandapriestly]

71. I misunderstood, sorry, never mind.nt

[petgoat]

42. FEMA says the antenna fell first.

If so, it must have fallen through the hat truss that was supporting it.

See Kevin's post #20 below. The quote is linked in html here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

Jim Hoffman has pictures showing the antenna moving first, but he
also presents images showing energetic ejection of dust from a lower
floor before the antenna starts to drop.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/tower-explosions.htm

Let's all sign the Scholars' petition asking for the release of all NIST's
videotape, as well as a lot of other suppressed evidence.

http://www.st911.org/

[Grateful for Hope]

47. Signed

We need all the info we can get.

[KJF]

48. Thanks, I was looking for those 12 frames

They clearly show the antenna was in motion before the building's facade.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. You're jumping to your conclusion

Nothing fell through the hat truss. No one but you is saying that. No one's understanding of the building collapse depends on the antenna falling through the hat truss. Your straw man is very bright and shiny, but only to you.



From this picture, taken as collapse has begun, you can see that the antenna is tilted back. Way back, almost eight degrees back. This is being depicted on the twelve frames that petgoat has brought back for us all.

Is the antenna sinking? Or is it tilting back along with the rest of the building? The northern facade doesn't appear to be moving back to the degree that the antenna is, but it is clearly tilting back. This is happening in the twelve frames. These pictures are taken at the same time, at the onset of collapse.

Look at all angles, not the ones that reinforce what you want to believe about an event.

[petgoat]

58. FEMA said the antenna dropped first. The NYT says it,

the video frames here say it

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html

And you haven't shown anything that says the antenna didn't fall first.

The antenna can't drop unless it falls through the hat truss.

[KJF]

20. FEMA/ASCE says antenna fell before exterior wall

"Review of the videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building."
FEMA/ASCE WTC Building Performance Report, p. 2-27
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

22. This initial FEMA assessment doesn't take into account

the bowing of the southern wall that NIST was able to document. Also, the upper portion of the building swings to the south as much as 8 degrees before the antenna begins to collapse.

[dailykoff]

24. Lame.

The NIST report simply describes what happened, not why, and not particularly well. Ditto your comments in this thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. All hail the mighty pronouncer of the word Lame!

Hail to thee, O great Pronouncer!

[KJF]

27. Not according to Frank Greening it doesn't

"For WTC 1, in spite of the presence of a TV antenna on the roof as a convenient angle marker, clear views of the top of the building are frequently hampered by heavy smoke. Nonetheless, we can safely say that the tilt of WTC 1 at collapse initiation was less than 3 degrees. We acknowledge that photos of WTC 1 shown on page 166 of Chapter 6 of the NIST Final Report appear to show tilts of the TV antenna on the roof of WTC 1 as large as 8 degrees. However, there photos were taken at least 2 seconds after collapse initiation. Thus, while there is no question that both WTC 1 and WTC 2 tilted quite markedly as they fell, there is no indication of any tilting of the upper sections of either building that was greater than 3 degrees prior to collapse initiation. Tilts greater than this would have been very obvious in the photos of the Towers taken from appropriate locations - after all, the tilt of the famous Leaning Tower of Pisa is only about 5 degrees, and yet we easily recognise such a tilt to be quite substantial." (p. 13)
http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

32. NIST report 1-6, page 146

WTC 1 began to collapse. The first exterior movement was at Floor 98. Rotation of the building section above the impact and fire zone to at least 8 degrees occured before the building section began to fall vertically.

So all of Greening's calculations of downward velocity at collapse initiation are for naught. Vertical fall doesn't happen until the upper section tilts over at least 8 degrees. The NIST report stands. Greening should stick to chemistry.

[KJF]

39. Greening's eyesight is fine

So is that of the American Society of Civil Engineers and so is mine. Here's a picture of the North Tower collapsing:

The antenna is tilting appreciably, the upper section isn't. If you have a photo of the upper section of the North Tower tilting south by at least 8 degrees before the upper section starts to move vertically (two seconds after "fire came out windows on the north, east, west, and south faces between Floors 92 to 98 and Floor 104" according to NIST), then post it.

btw, The quote you posted was on page 156, not 146.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. What incredible eyesight!

I can't tell anything about the state of the upper section - it's completely obscured by smoke there. I suspect your mind's eye is more nimble than your actual eyes here.

Yes, the quote I posted was on page 156. My bad.



How's that?

[KJF]

56. That's maybe 2 degrees, NIST said at least 8

Where are the other 6?

[petgoat]

44. NIST didn't document squat. It's like the 9/11 report--they invented

the facts necessary to support the story they wanted to tell.

What evidence do they have that the building tilts before the tower
drops?

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Documented

[petgoat]

59. Sorry, I meant... what evidence that the tower tilts before the

antenna drops.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. See the above picture.

No dropy antenna, but plenty tilty tower.

[petgoat]

64. You seem to think the fact that the top of the building tilted

after the antenna dropped means that the antenna did not drop.

The antenna dropped first. FEMA said so, the NYT said so, the video frames say so.

[Jazz2006]

25. Must Have Been A Concrete Core. Where's Christophera When You Need Him?

:rofl:

Edit to capiatlize every word in the subject line.

[Grateful for Hope]

82. Jazz, I have a question

I was married to an attorney for quite a number of years until he passed. He always impressed upon me that attorneys do specialize, and he would never try to answer legal questions about issues that fell outside his area of expertise.

I am wondering, since you told us you are an attorney, what area have you specialized in?

Thanks!

[Jazz2006]

84. Hope ~ didn't see your question earlier. Civil and commercial litigation

is my forte, which, in my case, involves several sub-areas of expertise. Civil and commercial litigation covers a broad spectrum and I am fortunate that I am able to keep things interesting (to me) by working in and staying on top of several areas of law that are of interest to me that fall under the large umbrella of commercial & civil litigation.

My "specialties" are contract and tort law, with "sub-specialties" in media law and privacy law, the latter being just two of dozens and dozens of sub-categories of contract and tort law. I am fortunate that I work at a large national firm where all manner of interesting work in a wide variety of contract and tort sub-categories is not only possible but is my reality. I like having this kind of diverse practice as it keeps things interesting for me (and staves off boredom as I am, unfortunately, someone who is easily bored ~ can't help that, it's just the way I've always been). So, even though I have been developing sub specialties in media and privacy law, I am lucky enough to also work on cases in many other sub-categories of commercial and civil litigation.

You are quite right that some attorneys have no knowledge or expertise outside of a very narrow specialty - particularly corporate lawyers who tend to have only a limited specialty whether it's tax law or insolvency law or securities law or M/A law or (insert other corporate law areas here) ... and it is true that they tend to have no knowledge whatsoever about any area of law other than the very limited area in which they practice. In other words, don't hire a tax lawyer or a M/A lawyer or a securities lawyer or a corporate governance lawyer or a financial services lawyer to help you on an issue that is likely to affect you on a personal level (as opposed to on a business level). But if you're working on a merger and acquisition, by all means, the right course of action is to hire the best M/A lawyer you can afford and not a litigator (and if the M/A lawyer is really good at his or her job, he or she will have already obtained the input of a litigator along the way).

Litigators, generally speaking, have the ability to develop a broader range of expertise than corporate lawyers. Of course, it all depends on the firm you're at and the interests that you have, but there are virtually no limits to what areas of law a litigator can delve into if you're with a top tier firm. You can indulge and work in all manner of interesting areas of law and develop, if you choose to, a niche among all of those options, or you can indulge and engage in all manner of interesting areas of law without ever having to narrow your interests and expertise to a particular niche.

Not that there's anything wrong with corporate lawyers, of course. But they are, generally speaking, much more limited in their areas of expertise because of the nature of the business.

Lots of litigators do voluntarily restrict their practices to a particular sub-area that is of particular interest to them, of course. But many do not, not least of which is because a narrow focus in commercial and civil litigation can grow wearisome very quickly to those with broad interests.

That said, there are limitations in litigation realms as well, depending on a whole host of factors, not least of which is the firm one chooses to work at.

For instance, at my current firm, criminal law and family law are out of the question - the firm doesn't want to "get its hands dirty" with such things - but personally, I like crim because that's what got me interested in law before I went to law school. I worked in crim courts for years before I went to law school, and those years had a lot to do with why I went to law school in the first place. That said, I also worked in family court before I went to law school and I'd sooner slit my wrists than practice family law.

But those are two very good examples of specialties in litigation fields that really should be only practiced by those who choose to specialize in them - criminal law and family law, that is. (While arguably, family law is technically part of civil law, neither crim or family law are generally considered part of commercial and civil litigation. Rather, they are generally considered separate practice areas unto themselves, as they should be.)

If I needed a criminal lawyer, I would most definitely hire only a lawyer who limits his or her practice to criminal law and nothing else. If I needed a family lawyer, I would most definitely hire only a lawyer who limits his or her practice to family law and nothing else.

As is probably obvious by now, this post is not nearly as concise as I intended it to be, but before I end it, my condolences on the loss of your spouse, and I would agree with him that one ought not ever answer a legal question that is outside one's area of knowledge or expertise. I certainly don't offer answers to tax law questions or M/A questions or securities questions, etc., but instead tell the person asking the question that I am not a tax laywer, a M/A lawyer, a securities lawyer, (as the case may be) and, depending on who is asking the question, either leave it at that, refer them to someone else, suggest that they call someone else, or offer to talk to colleagues with the requisite knowledge.

(edit: typos)

[Grateful for Hope]

85. Thank you, Jazz n/t

[petgoat]

88. Of course what's *really* cool about becoming an instant

expert in so many fields is the fact that since your favorite
emoticons can be used to such powerful effect in all of them,
you needn't really learn all that much about the subject matter.

Also, since a generalist practice exposes you to a wide range of
new clients and new opposing counsel--and sometimes involves
travel to new venues--you have new chances to re-use your stack
of stale one-liners.

Jazz is a recognized innovator in the litigation field, having
introduced the use of the laugh track in courtroom discourse.
So she can further develop this bold ground-breaking technique,
her business associates have arranged to give her opportunities
to branch out into even wider fields, and given her lots of time
to post on internet message boards.

:shrug:

[Jazz2006]

92. Don't quit your day job....

You'll never make it as a comedian.

[petgoat]

96. never make it as a comedian?

Oh no? Check out this video from my latest appearance:

:silly: <==== me. The toupee is just a stage prop. I'm much better looking without it.





:loveya: :rofl: :rofl: :headbang: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :loveya: :rofl: :rofl: :headbang: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :yourock: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :loveya: :rofl: :rofl: :loveya: :rofl: :rofl: :headbang: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :yourock: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :loveya: :rofl: :rofl: :loveya: :rofl: :rofl: :headbang: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :yourock: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :loveya: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :yourock: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Jazz2006]

98. You're right. You might actually get some traction as a comedian....

when it comes to laughing up paranoid conspiracy theories.

They are, admittedly, pretty comical.

Even though they are not remotely funny.

[petgoat]

99. Thank you Jazz, I will indulge my belief that I'm better at

laughing up conspiracy theories than you are at laughing them down.

[Twist_U_Up]

100. lol

dats a good one :toast:

[Jazz2006]

101. I've nothing against your self indulgence...

You'll be wrong once again, but hey, everyone needs something to believe in, so carry on.

[Twist_U_Up]

93. Things must be slow in the litigation dept.

1500 posts in 2 months
Damn I wish I could find the time.
Perhaps when I retire

[Jazz2006]

97. I wish it was.

Slow in the litigation department, that is.

It seems it never slows down and it never stops.

And, although I realize you have no way of knowing this unless you've happened upon my posts in other forums, I was on vacation for a few weeks shortly after I signed up here. And I've been on the west coast for several weeks since then working on a convoluted matter, going home on weekends and for the intermittent weeks that weren't scheduled for the west, so I've had lots of time for posting as it gets kind of boring living in a hotel.

Plus I think fast, type fast, and talk a lot.

Plus, I was so thrilled to find this site that I probably posted more in the early days than I would normally have done.

:D

[dailykoff]

26. Yes, that and the fact that it stirred around before falling.

Incidentally the NIST excerpt on the 9-11research page is beyond lame. At best it's a bloviated description, but the clear intention is to obfuscate and deceive. A disgraceful excuse for science if ever there was one:

6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1

After the aircraft impact, gravity loads that were previously carried by severed columns were redistributed to other columns. The north wall lost about 7 percent of its loads after impact. Most of the load was transferred by the hat truss, and the rest was redistributed to the adjacent exterior walls by spandrels. Due to the impact damage and the tilting of the building to the north after impact, the south wall also lost gravity load, and about 7 percent was transferred by the hat truss. As a result, the east and west walls and the core gained the redistributed loads through the hat truss.

Structural steel expands when heated. In the early stages of the fire, structural temperatures in the core rose, and the resulting thermal expansion of the core was greater than the thermal expansion of the (cooler) exterior walls. About 20 min. after the aircraft impact, the difference in the thermal expansion between the core and exterior walls, which was resisted by the hat truss, caused the core column loads to increase. As the fires continued to heat the core areas without insulation, the columns were thermally weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the exterior walls through the hat truss until the south wall started to bow inward. At about 100 min, approximately 20 percent of the core loads were transferred by the hat truss to the exterior walls due to thermal weakening of the core; the north and south walls each gained about 10 percent more loads, and the east and west walls each gained about 25 percent higher loads. Since the hat truss outriggers to the east and west walls were stiffer than the outriggers to the north and south walls, they transferred more loads to the east and west exterior walls.

The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 143/197)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

[AZCat]

29. Perhaps you could point out what you think is "lame" about this...

rather than just posting it with a general comment.

[dailykoff]

31. Did you ever write an essay on a book you hadn't read?

Where you try to fudge the plot points you don't know and hope the teacher doesn't notice? That's what this reads like. It pretends to explain the collapse but it barely describes it. For example:

Due to the impact damage and the tilting of the building to the north after impact, the south wall also lost gravity load. . . .

But WHY was the building tilting? That's the salient point here, and the report simply glosses over it. Here's another whopper:

As the fires continued to heat the core areas without insulation, the columns were thermally weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the exterior walls through the hat truss until the south wall started to bow inward.

What evidence is there that any columns were heated to the point where they "shortened" significantly, much less transferred their loads because of it? This is complete nonsense.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. So you're slamming a summary for not providing enough detail?

Why was WTC 1 tilting to the north? Here's your hint, right there in the text - "after impact". Still don't get it? Allow me to put this in terms you might understand.

The big plane crashed into the building. The big plane tore loose parts of the building. It left a big empty hole right there! Right above the hole, there was still a lot of stuff, and it was heavy. Since there was nothing in the hole to hold all that stuff up, that stuff sagged down. It made the building lean over at the top!

Can you say "big empty hole in the side of the building"? I knew you could.

Do you need a similar explanation of how structural steel without fireproofing can shorten in an intensive fire, causing its load to be redistributed? That might be tricky at the necessary level of comprehension, but just let me know, and I'll do my best.

[dailykoff]

36. The correct term is "buckled," not "shortened,"

and there's a reason the NIST doesn't use it: because the core columns didn't buckle.

As to your first point, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, not an explanation, except maybe for Fox fans.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. So why did they use the term "shortened"?

You seem positive that they used the wrong term. However, I think they used the terms that they meant. If you still need that small word explanation, just ask.

Also, that's a ten yard penalty for improper use of a logical fallacy in a debate. Second down and 20.

[dailykoff]

46. See above. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

66. See above. n/t

[petgoat]

49. "structural steel without fireproofing "

So I guess the theory is that shredded aluminium sandblasted the steel to a
state of being "without fireproofing." And somehow sufficient fuel piled up
in the core to make a massive fire, and the steel was a special kind that
doesn't conduct heat.

NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.
But that's okay. They invent the data they need. The NIST report is a
faith-based report. "We don't have the data, but that can't stop us from
telling y9u what happened. We'll just invent the data that would prove our
case, if we had the data, and if we had a case. And we'll bury the fact
that we have neither under a big fat report that will impress people who
are easily impressed by glacial snowjobs."

I don't see how the localized failure of the hat truss under the antenna could
have happened from fires ten floors below.

Too bad they don't have the steel. It was destroyed over the protests of Fire
Engineering magazine and family members. FDNY personnel rioted at the site,
protesting that the hasty cleanup was desecrating the dead. Some of it was
sent to local yards for recycling.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Thanks for playing.

Your retreat to former talkiing points is duly noted.

[petgoat]

60. It was your point in post 33; how was addressing it a retreat? nt

[AZCat]

91. Thanks for clarifying.

No, I have never written an essay on a book I haven't read. I also haven't ever tried to fudge something and hoped the teacher didn't notice - if I don't know something there's no benefit to faking it (IMO). Perhaps I have had to write too many technical summaries myself to get excited about one that doesn't explain everything - sometimes it just is easier to cover something in the body of a report.

[DoYouEverWonder]

103. If the load was going to transfer anywhere

it would have been within the core itself. The trusses and outer wall just sort of hung off the building. I believe even if the outer trusses failed, the core of the building would have remained. Steel structures don't pancake. Not without some massive source of energy., ie a weapon not a flimsy (in comparison) passenger jet.

[DemInDistress]

87. not one reply mentions the "massive explosions" caught on tape

seconds before the antenna begins to collapse. Seems logical to believe the explosions and subsequent collapse if the antenna are related to the controlled demolition that occurred that tragic morning.
Listen for yourself: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603 its well worth the time. After viewing Eyewitness to 911 I switched from LIHOP to MIHOP. Very compelling video. Did the maker of that video audio shop those massive explosions? I don't think so.
Get back to me with your opinion.

thanks..

[petgoat]

90. Hi DiD. I saw Eyewitness to 911 several months ago.

It was impressive and interesting. At the time I wondered why he held
such "explosive" stuff back all these years. I'll suppose the reason was
that only when his information was corroborated by the FDNY oral histories
did he dare release it. I don't recall that he ever made any statement to
that effect.

I see the movie is almost two hours now and has some material on WTC7 at
the end. I'll have to watch it again.

[mirandapriestly]

95. His video was taken down when he put it up after 9-11

he put it up right away and he wrote on his web site when he first put it up again that his web site was taken down, but he wasn't holding on to it by choice.

[DemInDistress]

104. petgoat.. I listened to massive explosion (s) 15-20 seconds before

the antenna begins to collapse. MASSIVE BLASTS !! Very loud and extremely disturbing explosions yet MSM refused to air that audio. Yes firemen as well as other EMS personnel and citizens describe hearing explosions.
Funny how that "ludicrous Official 911 Report" also fails to mention the explosions.
One day hopefully someone will collect all pertinent facts,photo's and videos sting them together in a very coherent way and make a movie all based on a true story.

Thanks petgoat I like your style.