Be clear here please Bentham. You wrote.. "making false claims about the how NIST modeled the exterior, connections in the LS-DYNA model"Is the error in NIST's global model or did they correct it as well?
It's hard to think highly of Hulsey's "diligence" after discovering he plagiarized portions of his initial presentation from anonymous conspiracy theory blogs, including portions dealing with key subjects about which he is purportedly an expert--steel in fires (if not according to his resume and experience, then at least according to AE911Truth's puffery)? His "diligence" also didn't stop him from apparently testing the wrong measure of displacement for column 79, nor did it stop him from making from making false claims about the how NIST modeled the exterior, connections in the LS-DYNA model, and side plates. Maybe his assistants were more diligent in the weeds on the project, but Hulsey has not done his due diligence on NIST's model and it seems he has led the project down some questionable paths as a result.
Are you aware of any errors that existed in LSDYNA that were NOT carried over from ANSYS ?
I guess the stiffener plates were shown on one model. I think that was ANSYS, but then disappeared from the LSDYNA model (perhaps you can correct me if I have that the wrong way round).
I would guess the only excuse for NIST there could be that different people did different models, so didn't check. Continuity issue there though.