How Now?

[wargasm]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-06-20-fireproofing-wtc-collapse_N.htm?csp=34

[Ruckus]

ROFL

computer models ?  Computer models cant even tell me if its gonna rain or not


ROFL


NEEXXXXXTTTTTTTTT

[m J o]

war, if anyone cared it would;d be broadcasted on cnn

[joel]

war, if anyone cared it would;d be broadcasted on cnn

It was on CNN as well as their website.

Those models paint a pretty accurate picture of what happened.

[wargasm]

computer models ?  Computer models cant even tell me if its gonna rain or not

I'm sorry, chickenwire and cinder blocks are sooooo much more credible.  Rosie says so.

wipe your chin before you call your next customer.


*ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip!*

[Zeradul]

You guys are still debating 9/11??

FFS.

Ruck, weather models have literally trillions of aspects about the environment to take into account.  Input values not only that are unknowable, but values that noone has even realized affects the weather.  The Earth is an extraordinarily complex set of ecosystems, and solar effects.

One building however, with hundreds of years of engineering data on how materials perform in every possible scenario, DOES lend itself to a computer model.  We have the exact blueprints, the architect is still alive, and this is the stuff of science.  It's not GUESSING like weathermen are forced to do, its cold hard math, on things we have a VERY good idea of the size and scope of the events.

Either way, I'm probably wasting my breath for anyone still seriously debating this.  I welcome debate on any topic, but at some point, when all the evidence supports one side, the other has to start to concede.

How about this Ruck, you give up the 9/11 conspiracy, and rue gives up God?  Fair trade?    You know I love ya DD, and I hope you aren't still holding our differences against me.  I've never meant any offense, and my comments are ones of personal philosophy and introspection more than anything.

[Ruckus]

computer models ?  Computer models cant even tell me if its gonna rain or not

I'm sorry, chickenwire and cinder blocks are sooooo much more credible.  Rosie says so.

I could care less about Rosie Odonnell


Would have been nice to run tests on the actual steel column debris recovered from ground zero, TONS and TONS of it. But that stuff was shipped away immediately. So now we are left to speculate with computer models ......

And Zera  WTF !!  GET OVER YOURSELF ALREADY !!!   

[joel]

There were tests done 

[wargasm]

I could care less about Rosie Odonnell

I couldn't.

[m J o]

[Merc248]

It's not GUESSING like weathermen are forced to do, its cold hard math, on things we have a VERY good idea of the size and scope of the events.

that's funny, i guess atmospheric science is not a science then

[Zeradul]

Of course it is a science, but at this point it is a far less exact science than statics, physics, and thermodynamics.

[Ruckus]

Of course it is a science, but at this point it is a far less exact science than statics, physics, and thermodynamics.

doesn't atmospheric science contain all these elements ?

[Zeradul]

Well, not statics, but the point is that analyzing a building is a very limited realm of study.  With the weather there are hundreds of thousands of influences, the great majority of which are unknowable, and untestable at this point.  I mean, the best we have is merely things like pressures and temperatures in various areas.

With building physics there are a few thousand aspect, nearly all of which are known exactly.  We have done tests on cement columns and beams, etc, and the tests have proven our formulas correct.  The tolerances for statics on a building are very small.  We KNOW what happens when various events occur to the building.

You guys don't seriously think we are good at weather prediction do you?  Compare that with engineering tests.  We can theoretically compute what a given bridge or building will hold.  When was the last time you heard of any of our millions of bridges collapsing a few days after construction due to "we thought it would hold that load!"  It doesn't happen.  Yet, weather predictions even a week in advance are often 50% or more wrong.

[stas]

Ruck wins.

End this topic.

[Merc248]

Well, not statics, but the point is that analyzing a building is a very limited realm of study.  With the weather there are hundreds of thousands of influences, the great majority of which are unknowable, and untestable at this point.  I mean, the best we have is merely things like pressures and temperatures in various areas.

With building physics there are a few thousand aspect, nearly all of which are known exactly.  We have done tests on cement columns and beams, etc, and the tests have proven our formulas correct.  The tolerances for statics on a building are very small.  We KNOW what happens when various events occur to the building.

You guys don't seriously think we are good at weather prediction do you?  Compare that with engineering tests.  We can theoretically compute what a given bridge or building will hold.  When was the last time you heard of any of our millions of bridges collapsing a few days after construction due to "we thought it would hold that load!"  It doesn't happen.  Yet, weather predictions even a week in advance are often 50% or more wrong.

i think it's fallacious to compare something that is inherently chaotic (but not any less of a science, since it is indeed a STUDY of something, namely weather patterns), and a discipline that is built on the principle of making sure that shit doesn't fail, which isn't even related to the objective of science, which is to simply understand and explain phenomena.

god dammit, man.  you make it almost too easy

[DragonMage]

Well, not statics, but the point is that analyzing a building is a very limited realm of study.  With the weather there are hundreds of thousands of influences, the great majority of which are unknowable, and untestable at this point.  I mean, the best we have is merely things like pressures and temperatures in various areas.

With building physics there are a few thousand aspect, nearly all of which are known exactly.  We have done tests on cement columns and beams, etc, and the tests have proven our formulas correct.  The tolerances for statics on a building are very small.  We KNOW what happens when various events occur to the building.

You guys don't seriously think we are good at weather prediction do you?  Compare that with engineering tests.  We can theoretically compute what a given bridge or building will hold.  When was the last time you heard of any of our millions of bridges collapsing a few days after construction due to "we thought it would hold that load!"  It doesn't happen.  Yet, weather predictions even a week in advance are often 50% or more wrong.

i think it's fallacious to compare something that is inherently chaotic (but not any less of a science, since it is indeed a STUDY of something, namely weather patterns), and a discipline that is built on the principle of making sure that shit doesn't fail, which isn't even related to the objective of science, which is to simply understand and explain phenomena.

god dammit, man.  you make it almost too easy

Don't worry merc. I'm sure Zera has a friend who has once seen an iron girder put into place.

[Zeradul]

Goodness merc.  I never said either study was LESS of a science, I said, studying the weather is a less EXACT science.  And it is!  It is less exact because there are thousands (millions?) of aspects that we can't accurately measure, interpret or predict, and thus, it is why our weather prediction isn't real great.  I'm not blaming anyone, it is merely out of the reach of human capacity right now.  I agree it is not a great analogy, but Ruck is the one who referenced in the second post in this thread:

ROFL

computer models ?  Computer models cant even tell me if its gonna rain or not

ROFL

NEEXXXXXTTTTTTTTT

Studying a building is something with a very limited number of aspects.  Things like strengths, forces, and weights, etc.  All of which are measurable in an absolute fashion!  You might not believe me, but an engineer can build a bridge, and then hand that data about the bridge over to any other trained engineers, and the other engineers would all come within a few percent of exactly what load would cause that bridge to fail!  Hundreds of years of testing have proven our grasp of this, and thus, our bridges stay up, often for hundreds of years at a time, as do our buildings.

When the hundreds of Universities like Purdue and MIT study things like 9-11, they are doing so from a raw scientific standpoint.  They have the exact specifications of the building, they know what was in the buildings, and no study yet has found that the 9=11 crashes couldn't have caused them to collapse.  All of the myths that the fuel doesn't burn hot enough or melt the girders, that is true, but you don't need to MELT metal to soften it enough to make it bend under a load.  Bending = walls fail = one floor collapses = momentum of that is too great for the next floor to hold, and you get the pancaking collapse we saw.  The other myths have similar rebuttals.  These myths only exist until a scientist exposes them to light, and they have very simple solutions/causes.

[Ruckus]

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/170.html

[wargasm]

way to post a link with no commentary or opinion.  I've always thoroughly enjoyed the magic of puppetry.