Two misperceptions to correct:
I assume you accept NIST's analysis as correct...right? Yet they haven't "produced" anything.
This is utterly, abysmally incorrect. NIST produced a base of knowledge that has informed code generating bodies around the world and influenced tall structure design. If you doubt that, go look at Architects posts where he points out the fact that the Eurocodes have been modified in reaction to the studies. Or go read up on the ICC meetings where they deal with the inclusion of the NIST findings into current code.
... I mean assuming time and resources were not a problem. I mean if computer models were the be all and end all why do they flight test A/C, why do they test anything at all for that matter? I think...no I know what the real problem is. You don't like the question so you ridicule questioner. Though certainly no such test will ever take place, if one were to take place (this is hypothetical of course) you would be 100% terrified of the results. Because you know they will not be what we saw that day. Of course I know you will come here, and say you'd expect to see the exact same thing (or something very close to it) to happen. But if you were honest with yourself you know that's not true.
Second misperception: The computer models don't matter, don't inform well enough, or are insufficient to tell us what we need to know regarding the multiple towers collapses (not clear which of those you believe, but it's clear that you don't think of the sims as being sufficient). Any of those couldn't be further from the truth: The modelings were compelling enough to result in those code modifications around the world that I mentioned above. Not to mention influence the actual practices of both engineering and architecture (just ask Architect, who's a practicing RIBA certified architect in the UK, or Grizzly Bear, who's either currently a student of that field or just recently finished being one (he'll have to tell us where he's at; I don't remember...)). The reason those models are important and compelling is that they can reveal what's happening internally as it happens, and can also be adjusted to different initial conditions, as is indeed what NIST did for fuel distribution, amounts, and speed for the main towers report, and for varying degrees of damage as well as other initial conditions for the building 7 one. I'll leave it to Beachnut, Reheat, and others in aviation to explain why flight tests are conducted, but it's a mistake to think that one trumps another. They
both inform the engineers and do not trump each other, but it's a mistake to think that computer modeling in the absence of actual physical modeling is insufficient to inform people of what happened.
Also, 3rd misperception that I didn't notice when I started composing: That we "
say you'd expect to see the exact same thing (or something very close to it)". Leave it to a truther to be unspecific to the point that the charge is meaningless. Would we expect a collapse anyway, with the upper section raining debris on the lower floors, disconnecting them from the columns, and leaving the columns to peel away due to the disconnection of the floor trusses? You'd better believe it. But would we expect the exact same debris distribution on the ground, the exact same sequence of failures during the driving of the collapse to the ground, and so on? Of course not. If you'll look at previous threads on this topic, you'll see that people here have always maintained that the collapse becomes increasingly chaotic beyond collapse initiation, and that exact descriptions become impossible simply because of the complexity of the interactions and the sensitivity of the model to such factors. So yes, we'd see generalized floor truss disconnections from columns, and column buckling and failure as a result of the loss of lateral support. But no, we wouldn't see debris patterns or anything like that even be remotely close. We wouldn't
expect to see that replicated each time, no more than we'd expect a computer model to exactly replicate the position of individual coins or playing cards after a handful are tossed into the air. That doesn't stop computer modeling from telling us what we need to know about component failure modes and impact of those failures on a structure.
-----
It's funny, the projection you exhibit in your post. The person who's 100% terrified of results is
you, not us.
You are the one trying to minimize the findings from the investigations (yes, plural). If you want to truly criticize the report, you'd better start by understanding what it is, rather than what truthers try to portray it as. You've yet to accurately describe anything about the NIST findings or the computer modeling, choosing instead to carp about generalities without understanding fundamentals. That is why you fail. Understand the findings first. Unless you do that, your critiques will lack substance, and your posts will earn nothing but derision.
I mean why not if you are so sure the wing won't get through?...........
