It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
Most here are probably aware of the Purdue University's simulation of a jet colliding with the World Trade Center, created back in 2007.
If not, here it is:
Now before everyone goes on about this being "old news" and "proves nothing", let me throw an idea out there.
Clearly, most 911 truthers wouldn't accept this simulation as proof, due to the fact that they could make it to show anything they wanted to, it is after all an animation.
Although I don't completely agree that that is a fair rebuttal, since there is a lot of documentation to back the simulation up with...I can see why it would be dismissed as well.
So, let's do a hypothetical.
The first step is to set up a controlled situation of a similar nature to the WTC plane impact, doesn't have to be as big but the more similarities the better.
So now we have a controlled situation and all factors needed for a simulation are known beforehand.
The next step is to run the simulation to get the results.
Now we have a control with which to compare a real world test to, using the same factors and figures as the simulation.
I'm hoping people can see where I am going with this...if the simulation can be verified to be accurate by carrying out the above controlled test, that would make the WTC simulation accurate, correct?
No one has any thoughts about verifying the simulation then?
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Chadwickus
There is a rule for things like this: The simpler the better. Computers are great at modelling the behavior of a well defined set of elements under well defined conditions with well-defined tolerances.
Psikey is 100% correct, if you are modelling something complex the effects of miscalculation multiplies exponentially. When you start leaving out key global details like mass distribution you are producing nothing but a cartoon. Angry birds physics.
Computers are great for lots of things, accurately modelling reality is not one of them.