See, that's why I asked you earlier:
"How [could NIST revise their alleged blunder]?
What course of action to "revise" this alleged "blunder" would satisfy you, or would satisfy AE?
I am fairly sure that the NIST report, 12 years later and excellent hindsight, contains dozens more minor blunders. Perhaps they got the fuel load wrong on some part of some floor, and that would carry over to the heat maps, and that would carry over to the ANSYS result, and... I see two possible courses of action - one realistic, one unrealistic:
- Re-run all the models and see what happens
- Apply engineering judgement to "guess" how correcting the "blunder" might change the outcome.
Which is realistic, and which would satisfy a would-be critic?