Oh dear, we are back to the old familiar situation. You ignore my main points and nit-pick about minor things like this. The base case used the best estimate of a number of impact parameters, but these parameters all had ranges of possibility. Anywhere in that range would be "possible", all that would be "expected" is that the actual impact would be contained in that range. To claim that only the base case is "expected" is like claiming that every 10 coin tosses will give 5 heads and 5 tails.
As it stands, the last simulation prior to collapse is the base case and the next simulation after collapse is the severe case. NIST have stated the actual damage seen in visual evidence, certainly in the case of WTC1, is closer to the base case. If any conclusion is to be drawn from this, it is that the simulation tells us the building should not have initiated collapsed.
The very least that can be said is that NIST did not prove the impacts and fires would cause collapse initiation and when I have previously asked the question, “Did NIST simulate the reality of the situation on 9/11?” the answer even you gave was, “No”. Further than this involves speculation and I don’t see why anyone should find NIST’s indefinite investigation to be acceptable.
Say they did a few more cases to fill the gap between the base and severe cases. We would then have a better handle on what parameters would result in collapse initiation, but you still wouldn't know where the actual impact parameters were.
Given the small changes in the matches to the impact damage with the existing base and severe cases, there is no reason to think that the intermediate cases would give a noticably better match.
I have no idea what you mean by this. What point are you making about the failure strain numbers if you don't think it unreasonable for there to be a 20% uncertainty?