Originally Posted by
gerrycan
I also look forward to seeing the results. That the NIST hypothesis is wrong is proven already, in the context of the specifics of the beam expansion that they claimed.
You really need to stop saying this. Where is this "proven"?
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
Personally, I would like to see a set of conditions imposed that would replicate what NIST supposed re the girder walk off, though it is hard to imagine what those conditions could be given that the column retains enough lateral support to prevent the seat moving East.
Usmani managed to dance around the issue in Glasgow a few months back. The prospect of defending NISTs explanation against a model whos inputs are known is not something so easily danced around.
Why do you only focus on this one area where the NIST clearly does not?
Was the rest of the floor area structure pristine?
Obviously column 79 failed. Why do you think it did? This is how you form a hypothesis. When are you guys going to do it? I'll read it if you ever do. Stop trying to prove you're right by showing some point of the NIST wrong. It's childish when you have no coherent hypothesis of your own. .