View Single Post
Old 24th November 2015, 04:42 PM   #91
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
There is no "one". This is where you go wrong.
When I said which one, I meant which silly question.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
stop looking at a complex problem in the eyes of only one aspect.
I agree that this is a load of complex problems and that the connection at c79 is one of many.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They modeled it the way they saw fit and published their reasoning.
They made an absolute mess of it and did not publish their input data. What little they did release in terms of element dimensions etc was just plain wrong hence the erratum statements.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I've not seen anyone present a better hypothesis.
The absence of an alternative hypothesis does not validate NISTs hypothesis in any way shape or form.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Do you guys plan to some day or are you happy trying to show some aspect of the NIST wrong?
That depends who you mean by "you guys". I don't speak for ae911 if that's who you are referring to, but good on them for doing what your govt didn't.
The group that I helped form was put together to research the structural drawings of the building. We studied the drawings and published what we found. We approached NIST initially with regard to some serious errors that we found, also, AE911 and others showed an interest and appear to be driving the issue forward. That would have been far outwith the means and scope of the research group that I was in.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top