Originally posted by A Fortiori
I will gladly stand corrected and I mean that.
Good. Then you won't mind these brief corrections.
Purdue's department created a simulator.
I have said before that specificity is the very soul of credibility. Purdue University's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing did not create a
"simulator". They created a "simulation" of the impact of the AA11, or as they call it a "state-of-the-art animated visualization". A
"simulation" is a method of implementing a model over a specific period of time, and a model is a physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical
representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process. I would wager that Purdue's simulation is just a (sarcasm on) tad (sarcasm off) more
professional and science-based than anything that has come out of Turbofan and his merry gang of flyboys.
Having Troothers pull and use comments and observations out of context is one of their favorite pastimes. "It sounded like explosions" becomes
"Explosions took place". "It flew like a fighter jet" becomes "It was a fighter jet". Specificity, indeed, begets credibility.
The models and simulations in question here are very technical, very precise computer algorithms subject to robust, technical and analytical
verification and validation standards established by competent professionals in the field in question. These standards are to ensure that whatever
data comes out of the simulations is usable and an accurate representation of the real world.
Errors do occur in this process, primarily through corner/cost-cutting, poor management or simply ineptitude. The most egregious of these is probably
the European Space Agency's maiden launch of their Ariane 5 launch vehicle in June of 1996. The same inertial reference system (SRI, using the
French acronym) for the smaller Ariane 4 rocket was used on the new Ariane 5 design, however this data was not verified properly in the new vehicle
but was nonetheless accepted as valid. As a result, the Ariane 5 mission profile was not simulated correctly or properly. The Ariane 4 SRI data
caused the Ariane 5 boosters to go into full deflection 39 seconds into launch, and voila...instant €7 bil loss and honking big explosion.
Not to belabor the point, but another high-profile failure involved NASA's Mars Polar Orbiter. Verification and validation of the simulation data
between the enroute navigation team and the orbit-insertion navigation team was either improperly executed or not executed at all. Turns out the two
teams used different units of measurement for the mission. Data using metric units collided with data using English units of measurement, resulting
in the orbiter attempting to enter orbit far too deep into the Mars atmosphere to be successful. Improper verification and validation of and the
failure to detect errors within ground-based computer models of how small thruster firings on the spacecraft were predicted and then carried out was
the primary causal factor.
MIT as a University has no position, individual professors have taken stands on both sides.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Department of Mathematics highlighted and reprinted (online) a paper written by Northwestern
University's Zdenek P. Bazant and graduate assistant Yong Zhou discussing probably physical reasons for the collapse - specifically the prolonged
heating of the steel columns to very high temperature.
The aforementioned paper was also published online with the University of Illinois Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.
The point being I doubt MIT or Northwestern or U of Illinois would publish such a document, specifically a paper that argues for or sets forth a
specific rationale for the collapse, unless they felt it was academically sound and from an acknowledged scientific/academic source. Extrapolate from
that point as you will regarding "MIT, as a University, has no position".
The rest of your thread boils down to an altruistic, rose-colored and almost comical attempt at debating these issues. When you accept or tout
Turbofan and his ilk as qualified, competent representatives of the aeronautical/aviation world, your credibility assumes the same as his and his
leader, Balsamo, which is below absolute zero.
If this "experiment" were to have *any* validity or worth, you need to set some basic standards for participation, and grabbing amateur Internet
google warriors from an obscure discussion fora such as this only cries out for ridicule.
[edit on 18-10-2009 by trebor451]
