However, yes, some factions of society still want a completely open data, computed model of the towers. . One such group touts a cadre of 2000 engineers and architects. Presumably this would supply enough experts to do what NIST did and generate the data inputs necessary to run a computer model of the towers. THAT is precisely what psikeyhacker is asking for.
Should it be encumbant upon non-experts and those who do in fact accept the NIST conclusion that progression to global collapse was inevitable, to come up eith data inputs that satisfy those who do not accept it?
. I question why it hasn't been done by those most involved in demanding it , and pointed out that those who already accept the so called ROOSD driven collapses have the least impetus to redo the modeling.
Who are "they" and where have they been demanding something like this? Please post a link or two to show us exactly who "they" are that you would question.
You are, at this late date, unaware that AE911T has repeatedly called for the input data for NIST's modeling, for "verification" purposes. For instance:
I assume that part of the verification process includes running the model with NIST's original data points and verifying that the result is the same as they published.
Another tact would be to "verify" the applicability of specific data points, such mass per floor. However if one , for instance, disputes the 750 tons per floor and instead calculates 700 tons, a 7% reduction , the only way to verify if this makes a difference in final outcome is to.... run the model through again.
However, I do note that AE911T itself has been utterly silent on what "verification" actually entails. In fact although I have asked members of AE911T, such as Chris Sarns and Tony Szamboti, to explain specifically what they would do with NIST's data, I have never received a response.