Originally Posted by Oystein
I think he's pointing fingers to an even bigger
Hulsey's study is only addressing the initiation event described by NIST, and completely ignoring every other possible scenario (for example, the fires at floor 10 causing a failure as described by the Weidlinger report).
And it bears repeating, that NIST's scenario is not the only possible one. I intentionally modelled my little story in a way that it in fact wasn't (although in the end it still was an accidental, gravity-driven knife cut as NIST described). I believe that NIST proved conclusively that fire could
bring down the building, but that they didn't get their initiation event right with the means they had 11-14 years ago. In the Weidlinger report, the first fatal failure happens actually around column 81, not 79, yet the sequence of events after that led to the same result as NIST later described, with 79 being the column that buckled first. And I'm sure that a different analyst could find yet another way in which the building would have collapsed due to fire with the same result.
As you note, there are too many unknowns for anyone to be able to make a simulation of what actually happened. One simply can't try every possible distribution of fires and loads and damage until one of them reproduces the effects that we saw. You're very right when you say that even if one was found, it wouldn't mean that the parameters were correct. And the fact that Hulsey is claiming that he has proven that fire couldn't bring down the building, demonstrates that either he is lying, or he is not understanding the problem.