If the debate is over then why are you still having a debate?
You just discovered a serious error in your calculations. Doesn't that make you at least want to go back and check your other work? What other assumptions might you have made that might be incorrect?
Mick, the error made in taking the values from the CTE chart as instantaneous vs. mean was not serious in the sense of knocking down the overall argument against the NIST WTC 7 report and you have to know that. I have checked my other work and assumptions and I am sure you have also.
The debate is really over, as the problems the omission of the girder stiffeners and beam stubs to G3005 present to the report are quite robust and their discovery has delivered a death knell to its overall claims. It is interesting that there are no other errors you can find and that you have gone silent about the omissions in the report. How come?
It sounds like you think you can have the guy's speeding ticket for doing 150 mph in a 55 mph zone thrown out when he shows the cop's radar could be off by up to 10%. Your ploy is obvious. It won't work to find any little nit and then try to throw out the entire case against the NIST WTC 7 report. Why don't you ask that NIST also recheck their work based on the fact that they had to admit to a "typo", which did amount to a significant error concerning the width of the girder seat and made the 5.5" expansion you keep going on about irrelevant?