Scale modeling of cars and planes prove a designs aerodynamic viability.<quoted text>
You are under the impression that Scale Modeling and testing designs and theories on scale model is something which is Anathema to Scientists and Engineers.
In fact ALMOST EVERY new model and design of car, plane or any big machine is first tested on a Scale model.
No one would just make a Billion Dollar plane on "full scale" without first trying it on a "scale model".
I doubt any plane company would just make a billion dollar plane, based "only" on Supercomputer Design.
The "problem" with Supercomputer analysis is that people can "tweak" with some parameters and get the "desired results".
That was the technique used by NIST to "play" with some parameters till they get the "desired result".
You are not expert, neither is me. As a laymen, when we feel that some thing does not fit the seen facts, we should try every thing to get at the truth.
The investigation of 9/11 was conducted in the "Most non Professional manner" possible for such a "Big Crime".
Every one took the investigation as "boring and routine and mere formality" thinking that this is a "Open and Shut case".
Hysteria created by Media and White House and CNN and Fox brainwashed most people.
The media started calling any one having any "doubts" on official version as "soft on Terrorism" and "stopping fulfillment of American Dreams " and every abuse, so that most people dare not come forward to express their doubts.
And even after 12 years, people do not want to know the truth of 9/11?
Why because their guilty conscience will always be pricking them.
I do not know what your future generations would think about you people, creating all these hindrances in the path of fair and independent investigation.
If it succeeds this phase of testing, then it may warrant the production of a prototype.
What you are suggesting is criminal behavior in science, and not limited to computers
but could be done in scale modeling just as well. It has no place in science, but this is why all science must stand up to peer review. But then again this is exactly what you are doing here, you are rejecting the "hard science" facts established by peer review and embracing a insane conspiracy theorists POV about what you want something to be, and not accepting what the consensus of scientific minds have told you. Of course this will lump you into a group of non experts, but this is strictly you not me. I understood the science behind the collapses and respect the work of the experts and professionals who carefully and meticulously showed what happened by investigation and physics. This does not make me brainwashed, but it does make me considerably better educated of the sciences.