No, that is not all we need.
Hulsey focused on the A2001 girder collapse because NIST said that is what triggered the collapse.
You should perhaps keep in mind the three key objectives of the Hulsey report - page 1 of hos draft report:
External Quote:
The objective of this study, therefore, was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.
You will immediately notice that these key objectives do not contain the strings "NIST" nor "A2001", and thus Hulsey would have been misguided to focus
solely on NIST and A2001.
Objectives (1) and (3) are entirely unrelated to anything NIST may or could ever have done. His work on those two objectives should not be affected in any way, shape or form by whether NIST has done any work, forwarded any explanations, or what those may have been. Any and all work towards those objectives, if done right, could have been identical if NIST did not even exist.
The only place where NIST enters in is objective (2), where Hulsey intends to review previous studies and explanation, specifically those advanced by NIST, Arup and Weidlinger.
As has been pointed out above, Hulsey must necessarily fail to tackle the Arup hypothesis by his decision not to look at structural response to cooling cycles, and must necessarily fail to tackle the Weidlinger hypothesis by ignoring on purpose any and all structural responses to any and all fires at and near floors 9 and 10.
So he's left with the NIST report.
Now YOU, Chris, admitted that "
it is true that other failures occurred before A2001 on floor 13" - in the NIST simulations as well as in reality (I presume you were thinking of the former). Those
other failures are then the necessary context for assessing what happens when A2001, too, fails.
Hulsey chose to ignore that context.
By this choice, he failed his objective by default.
And these are all the reasons we need to recommend that the study and draft report be binned entirely, and be reset to zero - start anew.