peer review.

[Revolutionary91]

I already told you.

Ross has a chance to crush the great Gravy. What more incentive could a truther possibly ask for?

A successful debate by Ross would make him front page news at prisonplanet for the next year at least. He'd be a hero in Truther Land! And all he has to do is debate a tour guide....

Great! Im glad to hear that Gravy has agreed to this disputation with Ross. I will let Ross know. Im sure he cant wait to get started.

 

[CHF]

There is nothing wrong with Mark Roberts writing a rebuttal to my paper at the Journal of 911 Studies.

Why give you the business when it can be posted here with the same value and effect?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal, if you think there's a difference between "publishing" at JONES and posting here, and if you think your paper was actually peer reviewed, then you'll be able to list the changes you had to make to get the paper passed by the reviewers.

Or was your paper accepted as is?

It wasn't accepted "as is" and there were some changes. I don't need to tell you what they were.

As someone who has reviewed thousands of engineering drawings and documents I know what a review entails and my paper was reviewed by several people who were qualified to do so.

Man, you are fishing aren't you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why give you the business when it can be posted here with the same value and effect?

Because I don't feel like putting up with interjected comments every time I need to answer a question.

The letters can be posted here after Mark gets his letter published and I respond. Why is that such a problem?

 

[Revolutionary91]

This is big news. Gravy has bottled out of a genuine debate. The JREF Denialist cult is collapsing, essentially in freefall.

 

[beachnut]

Because I don't feel like putting up with interjected comments every time I need to answer a question.

The letters can be posted here after Mark gets his letter published and I respond. Why is that such a problem?

In the past year there has been an exponential growth in the number of people​

who see 9/11 truth as a hoax, and just plain misinformation.

The real speed of the design impact was 180 mph, slow speed aircraft impact. Why are you using a 607 mph for impact design. There are many reasons why this was not really the design impact speed used on the WTC. 250KIAS below 10.000 feet. At 1300 feet the planes would be below 200 KIAS for landing. The maximum speed for a 707 is really 350 KCAS, and the typical speed would only be 300 KIAS, if the pilot was breaking the other rules. But over 355 KCAS would be deliberate, as on 9/11.

The real speed of the design impact was 180 mph, slow speed aircraft impact. Why are you using a 607 mph for impact design. There are many reasons why this was not really the design impact speed used on the WTC. 250KIAS below 10.000 feet. At 1300 feet the planes would be below 200 KIAS for landing. The maximum speed for a 707 is really 350 KCAS, and the typical speed would only be 300 KIAS, if the pilot was breaking the other rules. But over 355 KCAS would be deliberate, as on 9/11.

Debunking you would be easy to do. Any EE, or MSEE (any BSXE or MSXE, or even an ATP could do it; and Gravy could do it better. So what is your decision? I need to save your pathetic paper before you change the dumb stuff, like all of it. Your paper is not indicative of an engineer.

To date these papers have not been challenged in writing, or shown to be incorrect in any way.

Most engineers and scientist do not pick on the mentally impaired people at 9/11 truth and justice fools. (just the facts, but why would real engineers write papers to the journal of woo? http://journalof911studies.com/ is this the papers no one has challenged in writing? Wooooooooooowoo)

 

[CHF]

The letters can be posted here after Mark gets his letter published and I respond. Why is that such a problem?

Because

Your

Journal

Is

A

Joke

 

[Revolutionary91]

Great! Im glad to hear that Gravy has agreed to this disputation with Ross. I will let Ross know. Im sure he cant wait to get started.

Bump for CHF.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

who see 9/11 truth as a hoax, and just plain misinformation.

Not saying you are but just reminding you that none of us can deny that there has been an exponential growth in the number of people questioning the events of 911 in the past year.

In honest debate the wheat will be separated from the chaff. I think the problem is our government has not been totally forthcoming about 911 and a lot of people believe that to be true even if they don't think it was an inside job.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Because

Your

Journal

Is

A

Joke

And what is this place? A magicians forum with less science than the cavemen had.

 

[Hokulele]

And what is this place? A magicians forum with less science than the cavemen had.

If you do not find this thread interesting, there are many threads you have abandoned with questions you are avoiding. Care to provide some answers? No? Why not?

 

[CHF]

Rev, it would indeed be nice to see someone take on Gravy.

If Ross is game then pass on word to Gravy himself. I'm not his agent.

By the way, I can't tell you how revolting your avatar is. You have serious issues.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

who see 9/11 truth as a hoax, and just plain misinformation.

The real speed of the design impact was 180 mph, slow speed aircraft impact. Why are you using a 607 mph for impact design. There are many reasons why this was not really the design impact speed used on the WTC. 250KIAS below 10.000 feet. At 1300 feet the planes would be below 200 KIAS for landing. The maximum speed for a 707 is really 350 KCAS, and the typical speed would only be 300 KIAS, if the pilot was breaking the other rules. But over 355 KCAS would be deliberate, as on 9/11.

The real speed of the design impact was 180 mph, slow speed aircraft impact. Why are you using a 607 mph for impact design. There are many reasons why this was not really the design impact speed used on the WTC. 250KIAS below 10.000 feet. At 1300 feet the planes would be below 200 KIAS for landing. The maximum speed for a 707 is really 350 KCAS, and the typical speed would only be 300 KIAS, if the pilot was breaking the other rules. But over 355 KCAS would be deliberate, as on 9/11.

Debunking you would be easy to do. Any EE, or MSEE (any BSXE or MSXE, or even an ATP could do it; and Gravy could do it better. So what is your decision? I need to save your pathetic paper before you change the dumb stuff, like all of it. Your paper is not indicative of an engineer.

You have no idea what impact speed was used in the design do you?

How fast do you think commercial aircraft like the 707 are moving just twenty miles after takeoff?

Have altimeters ever been known to malfunction?

What reasons would a good engineer give for deciding not to use the maximum speed of the aircraft if it was feasible both structurally and cost wise to design the building to withstand the impact at that speed?

And where do you get the maximum speed of a 707 to be 350 KIAS? Go take a look at the Boeing site for the 707 and you will see it is over 600 mph. You can't even get the plane's speed right and you want to go out on a limb and say debunking me is easy. Well that limb just broke and you are on the ground with zero KIAS.

Well it is time to say goodnight. Have fun but don't forget to do a little research before going off half cocked.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Rev, it would indeed be nice to see someone take on Gravy.

If Ross is game then pass on word to Gravy himself. I'm not his agent.

By the way, I can't tell you how revolting your avatar is. You have serious issues.

You seem to have backtracked a bit since you said

Ross has a chance to crush the great Gravy.

Gravy knows about the disputation, pomeroo was asking for takers. Gravy has not accepted.

 

[CHF]

Gravy knows about the disputation, pomeroo was asking for takers. Gravy has not accepted.

Seeing how you already misrepresented R.Mackey on such an issue I'm gonna wait for Gravy's response to that.

 

[beachnut]

You have no idea what impact speed was used in the design do you?

And where do you get the maximum speed of a 707 to be 350 KIAS? Go take a look at the Boeing site for the 707 and you will see it is over 600 mph. I have a link to the Boeing site for the 707 at the end of my paper. You can't even get the plane's speed right and you want to go out on a limb and say debunking me is easy. Well that limb just broke and you are on the ground with zero KIAS.

This is when an ATP comes in handy. Top speed of a 707 is 355KCAS. I meant 355KCAS, not 350 KCAS, and not KIAS, you need help reading. Sad but true.

You do not understand physics. Sad but true. You have messed up the aircraft speed with hearsay news articles. I had to ask Leslie Robertson for the details of the design impact. But if you insist on 607 mph, you are so wrong if you can not explain why any idiot would use 607 mph at 1300 feet for a 707 lost in the fog, to land. You been debunked.

Wow, and you got more. Well, point by point.

You have no idea what impact speed was used in the design do you?

Slow flying, low on fuel, 180 mph. Next.

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

How fast do you think commercial aircraft like the 707 are moving just twenty miles after takeoff?

They are at 28,000 feet doing 300 KIAS. Next. WTC is at 1300 feet. Questions.

Have altimeters ever been known to malfunction?

Of all the things that have gone wrong in flight, I have never lost an altimeter. Darn they are good. But do I have a back up? Yes. Next. Try harder next time.

What reasons would a good engineer give for deciding not to use the maximum speed of the aircraft if it was feasible both structurally and cost wise to design the building to withstand the impact at that speed?

607 is not the maximum speed really, it could go faster for a while, but it would fall apart soon. Which part of slow speed landing in the fog do you have a problem with? 180 mph, or use 180 KIAS, but why do you want to use a speed not used? The max speed below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS. The max speed of the airframe, a 707, is 355 KCAS. And the typical cruise airspeed is 300 KIAS. You seem to be lost on flying stuff. Your dumb question is like asking why did they not plan on a nuke, or beam weapon. That is how dumb your question is. And you are an engineer? Sad. I can explain more, but you have no clue. So the design was 180 mph, lost in fog plane, going to land. Sorry but that was the design.

And where do you get the maximum speed of a 707 to be 350 KIAS? Go take a look at the Boeing site for the 707 and you will see it is over 600 mph. You can't even get the plane's speed right and you want to go out on a limb and say debunking me is easy. Well that limb just broke and you are on the ground with zero KIAS.

The max speed of a 707 is 355KCAS. You are debunked again, and you do not even know why. Good job expert researcher engineer.

Well it is time to say goodnight. Have fun but don't forget to do a little research before going off half cocked.

Oh, and you have done research, I don't think so.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Seeing how you already misrepresented R.Mackey on such an issue I'm gonna wait for Gravy's response to that.

Gravy has me on ignore. Ask him if he accepts the disputation against Ross. Ill bet you 50 bucks he says no.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is when an ATP comes in handy. Top speed of a 707 is 355KCAS. I meant 355KCAS, not 350 KCAS, and not KIAS, you need help reading. Sad but true.

Indicated or calibrated doesn't make much difference with what you are trying to say? You are totally wrong about the speed of a 707.

You do not understand physics. Sad but true. You have messed up the aircraft speed with hearsay news articles. I had to ask Leslie Robertson for the details of the design impact. But if you insist on 607 mph, you are so wrong if you can not explain why any idiot would use 607 mph at 1300 feet for a 707 lost in the fog, to land. You been debunked.

Did Leslie show you design specifications for the impact speed? I don't think so. Leslie even had the 767 which hit the towers shown as 767-300ER aircraft on his website next to a 707. These planes are significantly bigger than 767-200ERs. Who are you kidding?

 

[beachnut]

Did Leslie show you design specifications for the impact speed? I don't think so. leslie even had the 767 which hit the towers shown as 767-300ER aircraft on his website next to a 707. These planes are significantly bigger than 767-200ERs. Who are you kidding?

Yes the speed of design impact for aircraft was 180 mph, lost jet in the fog. You are debunked by L.Robertson. Darn, it feels good all those flying lessons you paid for paid off.

Please explain why you use 607 mph for impact of 707? Lots of Details please. but you will be wrong, do i get the 1,000,000 if so

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes the speed of design impact for aircraft was 180 mph, lost jet in the fog. You are debunked by L.Robertson. Darn, it feels good all those flying lessons you paid for paid off.

Please explain why you use 607 mph for impact of 707? Lots of Details please. but you will be wrong, do i get the 1,000,000 if so

John Skilling was quoted about it in 1993 after the first Trade Center Bombing. Here is the article.

www.cooperativeresearch.org/.../11_world=investigations

Here are the specifications for a Boeing 707-320B which was the largest plane at the time the towers were built and what they were designed to handle an impact from. By the way, 607 MPH was its cruise speed.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

You should ask Leslie Robertson how they would decide 180 MPH was a good number. Engineers don't make arbitrary decisions and a decision like that wouldn't be made without strong data. I have never heard any justification for using a low speed of impact.

Additionally, it seems Skilling was more accurate in that the buildings did survive the impact. He was also the chief engineer.

You have been shown to be wrong here with solid facts on something you were adamant about and thus have no business telling anybody they have been debunked.