Yes. BUT remember the underlying problem is limited thinking skill - specifically their inability at reasoning to process complex multi-factor situations.
When faced with an explanation such as NISTs regarding the expansion of the NE floor beams, the maximum extent to which temperature can cause the beams to thermally expand should, and has been used. In the case of the longest of the beams this maximum figure is 5.5". This is less than the expansion of 6.25" that NIST has publicly stated occurred. NISTs claim of 6.25" is therefor erroneous and should be addressed.
The question that should then be asked is "would 6.25in of movement of the girder to the West induce failure."
Analysis has shown that even beyond that figure, failure would not occur. This means that there is a big problem with this particular analysis of NISTs, and when one realises that the exclusion of elements that are present in the drawings would invalidate NISTs hypothesis if included it becomes incumbent on NIST to prove their point.
You may well try to minimize the importance of the stiffener plates but they are critical in a connection such as this. Whilst I accept that the CTBUH do not agree with the wider views held within the 911 truth movement, on this issue they do not side with NIST. To that end they asked about the presence of plates on this girder in 2008, specifically questioning whether their inclusion in the design would have prevented failure. NIST did not respond to this question, and did not release the drawings until some 3-4 years later that betrayed the fact that these plates were indeed present.
A court may well view this as guilty demeanor, and would accept that the CTBUH are recognised experts in this field and order NIST to perform a new analysis including the missing elements and being open about what input variables they used.
for the same problem of limited reasoning skills - they don't process analogies. Including ones about boxes of toothpicks
To accept NISTs story that the building collapsed due to thermally expanding beams in the NE of the structure without question is to believe in that which masquerades as science because of your faith in NIST. This is analogous to believing that the person sitting at the table pushed the cocktail sticks and caused them to fall, whilst observing that there is just no way for that person to have reached the box of sticks.
One who is willing to believe that the impossible happened somehow, despite having to abandon their belief in science in favour of their faith in an agency such as NIST, who have been demonstrated as flawed, has abandoned logical thought and the scientific method.
NISTs analysis is to you and your ilk that which should not be questioned. In others, even outside of the "truth movement" however, we find that those who are experts in the field of structural engineering had the logic of thought and the loyalty to science to ask the question that perhaps unwittingly hit the nail on the head.
You may lack the moral fiber, intelligence or maybe just the courage to face the possibility that may threaten your world view, but if you seek to make denials of science and logic to me, you will have to go and borrow a shred of intellectual rigor from somewhere and it is not something that i see evidence of availability of in you or your likes.
