William Seger - Epic Fail

[johndoeX]

As many of you may know, Seger has claimed that the airspeeds reported on 9/11 were possible based on the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 25, specifically sections 301, 303, and 305, stating a factor of safety of 1.5, or 150%.

After mind numbing discussions attempting to explain that the "Limit Loads" and "Ultimate Loads" described in FAR Part 25.301 were for... you guess it, Loads, and not speed, and the fact that Seger only first heard of Vd just a short month ago after viewing our film Skygate, Seger attempts to find outside help for his creative interpretations, based on his obvious bias.

First he tries the physics forum. He gets a reply from only one person who states he is an "engine guy and not an airframe guy and cannot comment on aircraft designs." - Seger Fail

Then he tries an Aeronautical Engineer Forum, no one replies. - Seger Fail

Seger then finally admits that Vd is not a load and is in fact a speed. But still thinks the definitions under FAR 25.301 still apply to speed. - Seger Fail

Seger then emails the FAA and claims "Game over" - Seger Fail

To understand the whole story, you need to look at a Vg Diagram — .... It's a graph that illustrates the stall lines, the limit loads, ultimate limit loads and Vne as the "envelope" of the aircraft — and most of us have never seen an actual one for our aircraft! Va falls at the point where the 'positive limit load' line intersects the 'stall' line on the positive 'g' portion (upper) of the diagram. And we are told that if we are flying at that speed, the airplane stalls before it exceeds the limit, and thus can sustain no damage.

(emphasis mine)

Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-technique/tip-week/ups-and-downs-turbulence#xd7wSFXtMk7ZIYeG.99

The dive speed (Vd) is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake. - Source,

Credentials -
Concerning me, I am a freelance aviation journalist / author for SP’s Airbuz, the only exclusive civil aviation magazine in India. I also am an aerospace designer, and a flight simulator instructor. I was formerly employed with Honeywell, but now completely on my own.

In 2011, I developed and installed 5 Boeing 767-type fixed base flight simulators, intended for systems training for its designers / developers working on aerospace products. I was also part of a program which attempts to bridge the gap between engineers and modern avionics and airliner systems.

My focus of more than a decade has seen me at airline dispatch, airport facilities (NDB, VOR, ILS, Radars, and ATC), aircraft maintenance, airline training (simulator centres using CAE and Thompson Level-C FFS), avionics system development, teaching (aircraft systems), and aircraft system design.

(emphasis mine)

Seger - Epic Fail

And this is why Seger still has not found one person within aviation (not even Beachy), to support his interpretations of FAR 25.301, 303, and 305.

Meanwhile, this list grows.

Keep digging Seger.

[Helen Borg]

1. Who is

William Seger?

[delphi72]

2. Leslie?

When can we expect to hear from Leslie Hazzard, the Boeing PR lady/phone answerer/PfT Designated Honorary Aerospace Engineer who you agree with, stating that a 767 maximum speed at 700' is 250 miles per hour?

BTW, where does that fall on your little home-made speed diagram? Will you answer this question now?

Has Boeing approved or sanctioned that little home-made speed diagram, btw?

Credibility. Thou art not PfT.

[superbeachnut]

3. Fringe pilot group fails to define Vd, uses googled journalist made up definition

The dive speed (Vd) is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. quote posted by johndoeX from a journalist, not an aero Engineer, a journalist.

The failed quote from a journalist is the best aero pilots for truth can produce by proxy quote mine.

Like the 11.2g failed math, they make it up as they go to support lies. The Vg diagram is a training diagram typical of a small plane, a prop plane, not a modern Jet Aircraft.

Meanwhile the list of pilots in pilots for truth who can't do math, or answer aero questions grows and is no where near 0.1 percent of all pilots - fringe pilots who have conspiracy theories and can't figure out 911.

If you need help quote mining to support lies about 911, pilots for truth are the ones to go to.

[William Seger]

4. With conspiracy hucksters and frauds ...

... it's sometimes hard to tell where the ignorance ends and the dishonesty begins. It doesn't matter, though, because as I've said, the only way you're going to get out of this one is to gnaw your own paw off. Running away from the smoldering crater of this "epic fail" and telling more lies won't do it. Why do you want to start a new thread to direct people away from this FAA confirmation that FAR 25 means just what it says, and what anyone even remotely familiar with engineering principles would already know:

FAR 25.301(a) says, "Strength requirements are specified in terms of
limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate
loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety). Unless
otherwise provided, prescribed loads are limit loads."

FAR 25.303 says, "Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5
must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered
external loads on the structure."

FAR 25.305(e) says, "The airplane must be designed to withstand any
vibration and buffeting that might occur in any likely operating
condition up to VD/MD, including stall and probable inadvertent
excursions beyond the boundaries of the buffet onset envelope."

I don't need a great deal of detail, but my question is: For stresses
caused by velocity, is there a margin of safety beyond Vd/Md (i.e. are
those considered to be limit loads or ultimate)?

Subject Re Design Loads
From [email protected]
To ws@#######.###
Date Today 13:58

Mr. Seger,

This correspondence is in response to your inquiry submitted to the Denver Flight Standards Office relevant to design loads. As you correctly identified in your review of 14CFR part 25, structural design loads are are identified in terms of Ultimate (Ult) and Limit loads.

Limit loads are the maximum load that it is anticipated the structure will see in service. By rule the aircraft structure must be capable of sustaining Limit loads without permanent detrimental deformation. For all loads up to Limit, deformation of the structure must not interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft. Thus consider the limit load as the operational limit.

Design loads are referred to a Ultimate loads which are bound by material properties F = P/A

Ultimate load = Limit load x a factor of safety (1.5) thus Ult. = Limit x 1.5

In design it must be assumed that while the airframe is not intended to experience loads in excess of Limit, a margin or reserve capacity is necessary to preclude structural failure thus the 1.5 factor as the boundary to define Ultimate. As the material capacity is a constant, the design (section area) is the variable to react to the applied loads and preclude structural failure. The loads then that are considered would include such loads flight maneuver, gust, torsion, delta P. From a basic loads stand point an interaction equation would be applied to address these loads. This 1.5 margin then defines the limit within which the aircraft may be assumed to safe operate within the parameters of these type of loading conditions.

An airframe is certified to a maximum velocity that is can sustain in flight and a maximum acceleration to which it can be subjected to and sustain safe flight, maneuver and landing. Each of these criteria are defined in 14CFR under Subpart C. The maximum velocity and acceleration as a design criteria are potentially the most significant considerations of a design for operation within the [font size="+2"]defined Limit load[/font].

I hope this addresses your question

Regards.
Gregory Johnson
Denver Aircraft Certification Office
ANM100D
Phn: [phone]
E-mail: [email protected]

Thank you, Mr. Johnson; yes, that addresses my question quite well, whether or not Rob Balsamo understands it. And now, we return to the Rob Balsamo Show, already in progress:

> He gets a reply from only one person who states he is an "engine guy and not an airframe guy and cannot comment on aircraft designs."

That's the second time you've deliberately misquoted AlephZero ("I can't comment on specific plane designs" i.e. the 9/11 planes I had mentioned). Since you were already called on it once, this second attempt at distortion is just a lie. But to address the point, an "engine guy" would be a mechanical engineer rather than a structural engineer, but mechanical engineers would need to be just as familiar with the concepts of "limit" and "ultimate" stresses and how to use them in the design process to meet FAA requirements.

> After mind numbing discussions attempting to explain that the "Limit Loads" and "Ultimate Loads" described in FAR Part 25.301 were for... you guess it, Loads, and not speed,...

You're a one-man clown car, Balsamo. To anyone with ordinary reading comprehension, what was "mind numbing" about that thread was your abject inability to grasp the meaning of standard engineering terms, much less the principles, and now you think you can get away with just repeating your own misunderstandings for the umpteenth time. Since you were called numerous times on your deliberate twisting of what I said, right from my first post, this is just a pathetic attempt to hide behind your own ignorance. Anyone with any common sense would recognize that if you add a margin of safety to the stresses -- a.k.a. loads -- approximated for a given speed, then you would have a margin of safety at that speed -- which is the exact purpose, of course. You demonstrate that not only do you not know anything common engineering practice, but you don't even possess that much common sense, and then claim that your own lack of comprehension wins the argument? Too funny even for a ROFL smiley.

> ... and the fact that Seger only first heard of Vd just a short month ago after viewing our film Skygate, ...

Hmm, you seem to have a peculiar notion about the nature of knowledge and understanding. How long ago did you first hear the term Vd, and yet you still don't understand it?

> Seger attempts to find outside help for his creative interpretations, based on his obvious bias.

Yeah, asking for "outside help" from an actual authority is not part of the game you want to play, is it. If you had asked for some "outside help" before making that nonsense video, it would have been considerably shorter. And now, the best you can do to support your "creative interpretation" of standard structural engineering principles is to keep linking to a list that contains more flight attendants than it does aeronautical engineers, and yet ignore that nobody on that list has actually supported it.

> Seger then finally admits that Vd is not a load and is in fact a speed.

It really is as if you think everyone is too stupid to read and understand that thread, so you can get away with another lie. (Or rather, you think the stupid ones will still buy your video?) I corrected your misunderstanding of what I said right from your first misstatement of it, and numerous times since then. So let's say it again: If you add a margin of safety to the loads approximated for a given speed, then you would have a margin of safety at that speed. There's no wiggle room in that for you, Balsamo.

And then you post another Vg diagram. Again, for the clueless, with respect to the issue at hand, that diagram doesn't tell us anything that the Vd number alone doesn't tell us, which Mr. Johnson explains in his response: The Vd conditions of FAR 25.305 are the limit load cases, so they require a factor of safety to get the ultimate loads to feed into the design. If you ignore the requirement to do that, then there is no reason to think that you can meet the requirement that planes must not fall apart at the FAR 25.305 conditions. What the diagram actually says is that the required maneuvering envelope extends to Vd, and the rest of the diagram is completely irrelevant.

But I guess you're right that the game isn't over yet if you just keep posting the same nonsense and lies over and over and over. That's fine with me; I'll just keep posting the same responses and enjoy it for the entertainment value.

[johndoeX]

5. The "Defined Limit Load"

The "Defined Limit Load" - FAR Part 25.337

&quot 2) Must vary linearly with speed from the value at VC to zero at VD."

What is 1.5 times zero, Seger? Surely even you can do that math?

Seger, when are you going to email your FAA source and ask him this simple question?

"is there a 1.5 margin of safety above Vd as described in FAR 25.303?"

Seger, don't you know that when you are in a deep hole, you stop digging?

Keep digging Seger.

[William Seger]

10. Fraud!

Here's the entire section that you quote-mined from:

§25.337 Limit maneuvering load factors.

(a) Except where limited by maximum (static) lift coefficients, the airplane is assumed to be subjected to symmetrical maneuvers resulting in the limit maneuvering load factors prescribed in this section. Pitching velocities appropriate to the corresponding pull-up and steady turn maneuvers must be taken into account.

(b) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n for any speed up to Vn may not be less than 2.1+24,000/ (W +10,000) except that n may not be less than 2.5 and need not be greater than 3.8—where W is the design maximum takeoff weight.

(c) The negative limit maneuvering load factor—

(1) May not be less than ?1.0 at speeds up to VC; and

(2) Must vary linearly with speed from the value at VC to zero at VD.

(d) Maneuvering load factors lower than those specified in this section may be used if the airplane has design features that make it impossible to exceed these values in flight.

In the first place, not only did you take that quote out of context, but you don't even understand what it actually says. The title of that section is "Limit maneuvering load factors." That would be the numbers on the vertical axis of your irrelevant Vg diagrams, so (c)(2) is only referring to the negative g, bottom edge, of the maneuvering envelope. So it does not apply to ALL loads, and what (c)(1) and (2) actually say is that up to Vc, the plane must be designed to withstand -1g (i.e. downward), but at Vd the design limit load factor can be 0g (i.e. the equivalent of free-fall vertically, since 1g would be level flight). It certainly does NOT say that the dynamic loads caused by simply moving through air are 0, which would be absurd, nor does it refer to the factor of safety. You are misinterpreting that FAR, and you still don't comprehend that "loads" in the relevant FARs means ALL stressing forces on the structure, not just g loads.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand this stuff well enough to even discuss it intelligently, and you say I'm digging myself into a hole? Please proceed.

[johndoeX]

12. Third time asked Seger,

When are you going to email your FAA source and ask him this simple question?

"is there a 1.5 margin of safety above Vd as described in FAR 25.303?"

[William Seger]

14. Another feeble attempt at deception

One of your favorite "debate" tactics is to just deny things that actually happened. The reason you want a "change of venue" to a telephone shouting match is because on the web, it's too easy to expose your deceptions:

> When are you going to email your FAA source and ask him this simple question?
> "is there a 1.5 margin of safety above Vd as described in FAR 25.303?"

My exact question to the FAA, quoted above, was: "For stresses caused by velocity, is there a margin of safety beyond Vd/Md (i.e. are those considered to be limit loads or ultimate)?"

FAA answer: "In design it must be assumed that while the airframe is not intended to experience loads in excess of Limit, a margin or reserve capacity is necessary to preclude structural failure thus the 1.5 factor as the boundary to define Ultimate."

Your inability to comprehend the answer is not a rebuttal.

What was that about "stop digging?" Which reminds me, an engineer on the eng-tips forum has replied now to my question, which was, "Does 25.305 specify limit cases, i.e. does it require that all structural loads calculated for those conditions must be multiplied by a factor of safety to provide a margin of safety beyond Vd? " Aerospace engineer rb1957 has replied, "I'd use limit loads for vibration."

I believe you said you would "update the score" as new replies were received. What's the "score" now, Rob? It appears to be "link to irrelevant list of people" to "real world."

Please proceed.

[johndoeX]

15. So, just to be clear...

You said -

"My exact question to the FAA, quoted above, was: "For stresses caused by velocity, is there a margin of safety beyond Vd/Md (i.e. are those considered to be limit loads or ultimate)?"

FAA answer: "In design it must be assumed that while the airframe is not intended to experience loads in excess of Limit, a margin or reserve capacity is necessary to preclude structural failure thus the 1.5 factor as the boundary to define Ultimate."

So, you feel Vd is a "limit load" and that "Ultimate Load" is 1.5 x Vd?

I just want to be clear on your position here....

[William Seger]

17. WTF?!?!

> I just want to be clear on your position here....

That appears to be completely impossible, because I can't make it any clearer than I have about a dozen times already: Flying at Vd puts loads on the airframe, which engineers can estimate. Those estimated loads are called "limit loads" in FAR 25.301, and 25.303 requires that such loads are multiplied by 1.5 to get the design ultimate load. If the airframe has a margin of safety for strength when flying at Vd, then there is a margin of safety beyond Vd.

So just to be clear on your "position" here: is your problem with understanding that? And while you're at it, why should anyone believe "impossible speed" claims from someone who doesn't understand it?

[johndoeX]

18. "Flying at Vd puts loads on the airframe"

So, for the last time, you feel that Vd is a "limit load" defined under FAR 25.301, and that there is an "Ultimate Load" defined as 1.5 x Vd based on FAR 25.303?

Yes or no?

[William Seger]

20. For probably not the last time...

is your problem?

[font size=+1]NO[/font], I do not "feel" that "Vd is a 'limit load' defined under FAR 25.301, and that there is an 'Ultimate Load' defined as 1.5 x Vd based on FAR 25.303."

I believe what [font size=+1]I[/font] have actually said about it: The conditions in 25.305 are cases that must be considered when estimating the limit loads on an airframe. The FAA seems to agree with that "feeling," as do engineers on two professional forums.

So far, your "rebuttal" is, "I'm certified by the FAA to teach this material and you're not," and "here's a list of people," and "let me show you this fucking irrelevant Vg again," and "here's another one I faked."

So for probably not the last time, why should anyone believe "impossible speed" claims from someone who doesn't even understand we're "debating" here?

[johndoeX]

21. Ok... now we are getting somewhere....

Seger says -

"NO, I do not "feel" that "Vd is a 'limit load' defined under FAR 25.301, and that there is an 'Ultimate Load' defined as 1.5 x Vd based on FAR 25.303."

So Seger, based on your conversation with the FAA via email, what is the "margin of safety" past Vd based on FAR 25.301, 303, and 305??


(for those who cheer-leaded for Seger.. .aren't you sad? lol)

[William Seger]

24. "Getting somewhere," huh

> So Seger, based on your conversation with the FAA via email, what is the "margin of safety" past Vd based on FAR 25.301, 303, and 305??

NOBODY KNOWS, Balsamo, and that's the whole point -- the whole reason your "impossible speed" claims are bullshit. Nobody knows because the only way to find out is the hard way. However, what we do know is, if the engineers accurately estimated the airframe stresses and then applied a 1.5 factor of safety to those stresses -- as they are required to do by the FAA -- then there certainly is a "realized margin of safety" if you should happen to find yourself flying faster than Vd. The reason for the factor of safety is that when you do the design, you can only estimate the real-world stresses and structural strengths, and if you're going to send millions of people up in the things, you damn well better be sure you compensate for any possible bad estimates.

Out here in the real world, we don't know the actual limits of 757s and 767s, but we do know they weren't reached on 9/11. You're trying to tell us that we were deceived, and my question to you is, why are you pretending to know what speeds are "impossible" when you don't have a clue how airplanes are designed?

[johndoeX]

25. Nobody knows?

So,

The "limit loads" and "ultimate loads" are clearly defined under FAR Part 25, and tested...

...but undefined for speeds?

Is that what you are trying to tell us?

[William Seger]

26. ROFLMAO. There's that bizarre Balsamo "debating" technique again

... where you prove yourself wrong and then act smug. That video is a real-world test of wing loading, performed because nobody knew what the actual failure point would be without actually testing it. And then, please not that they found that their design limit estimates must have been accurate, because they had an actual ultimate strength of a little more than the 1.5 factor of safety they added to the design limit load! You refute yourself and don't understand it well enough to realize it.

For speed certification, however, the FAA does NOT require speeding up in a dive until the airframe falls apart. If you believe such tests were performed anyway, please stop yammering about "certified by the FAA to teach this material" and show us the result. You have not and will not because you cannot. QED, your "impossible speed" claims are abject bullshit. For sale.

[johndoeX]

27. The test is based on FAR Part 25

Notice they say "120% of Design Limit Load"... and so on... to 154% when the wing breaks...

Now learn how they do flight testing based on airspeed....

Nobody knows? Huh Seger? They just all guess aircraft limitations?

Click here for more...

[William Seger]

28. Un-freakin-believable

Exactly the point! They didn't know the ultimate strength of the wing without actual testing it, and then they found that their design limit estimates must have been accurate, because they had an actual ultimate strength of a little more than the 1.5 factor of safety they added to the design limit load! What's truly bizarre is that you're acknowledging that the wing was 150% stronger than the limit requirement, but then you are implicitly claiming that the engineers fucked up the rest of the structural design so badly that there isn't any margin of safety beyond Vd?

You refute yourself and then don't understand it well enough to realize it. Tell us again about this "certified by the FAA to teach this material."

[johndoeX]

29. Loads

Seger,

I see you have yet to figure out the three types of loads defined in FAR 25.301.

Keep digging Seger.

(For anyone else who would like to know, feel free to contact us through our website....)

Rob Balsamo
pilotsfor911truth.org

[William Seger]

31. ALL types of loads are covered by the definitions in 25.301(a)

That's why it's the first item in the General section of the Structural requirements.

On the other hand, (b) says, "Unless otherwise provided, the specified air, ground, and water loads must be placed in equilibrium with inertia forces."

That does NOT say those are "the three types of loads defined in FAR 25.301&quot a). Rather, it sets a special requirement for those three particular types of loads -- they "must be placed in equilibrium with inertia forces" -- and I'll bet you couldn't explain that requirement to save your life. (Prove me wrong.)

You are claiming that 25.301(a) and 25.303 do not apply to the dynamic loads that want to crush the fuselage and rip the stabilizers off, etc. -- that there's no requirement to apply any factor of safety to any stresses except the g loads on your Vg diagram. That is bullshit.

[johndoeX]

32. Ding ding ding!

Very good Seger!

The three types of loads are air(flight), ground and water....

They are further defined, wait for it......



Yep...you guessed it... under Part 25. Very good Seger!

So, what does it say under Flight Loads?

§25.321 General.

(a) Flight load factors represent the ratio of the aerodynamic force component (acting normal to the assumed longitudinal axis of the airplane) to the weight of the airplane. A positive load factor is one in which the aerodynamic force acts upward with respect to the airplane.

Do you know what "upwards" means, Seger?

I'll give you a hint, it is NOT the force acting on the nose of the airplane from speed.


Seger, airspeed limitations set by the manufacturer are not just structural, they are also for control. Loss of control can (and has) lead to structural failure.

There is no margin of safety past Vd for an aircraft which is experiencing changes in static and dynamic pressure. Which is why you cannot quote one. The margin of safety is between Vmo and Vd based on wind tunnel and flight testing.

&feature=kp

"Nobody knows!" - William Seger




You lose --again-- Seger...

[William Seger]

33. "You lose!" shouted Cap'n Bob from the bottom of his smoldering crater

So, your only excuses for pretending to know the maximum speed of a 767 are your incredibly poor reading comprehension, your inability to use logic, and your willful ignorance of standard engineering practice? Ding, ding, ding!

> The three types of loads are air(flight), ground and water....

Bullshit! The five types of loads that can act on a structure are tension, compression, shear, bending and torsion, and structural engineers must deal with ALL sources of those loads. We're back to "debating" your inability to understand the meaning of the technical term "load."

What 25.301(b) actually says about "air, ground, and water loads" is that they must be put in equilibrium with the inertial forces, which is a condition that only applies when accelerating or decelerating, because those are the only conditions where there are any inertial forces. As predicted, you haven't the first foggy notion what that requirement means. The assertion that those are the only loads that engineers are required to analyze when designing an airplane is beyond idiotic, your reading comprehension difficulties and technical ignorance notwithstanding.

And as we've already discussed numerous times, 25.321 is in the Flight Loads section because it only applies to flight loads. There's no mystery about why you are trying to obfuscate the General section. What you're claiming, in effect, is that the FAA doesn't care about other stresses on the airframe as long as the wings don't break off from g-loading. This is... wait for it... abject bullshit.

But one false claim at a time: Where are these tests results that show a 767 falling apart at 425 KEAS, please?

[johndoeX]

34. The FAA

Your link is all well and good Seger, but as you are perhaps understanding by this point (well maybe not you), is that the FAA clearly defines the loads with respect to aircraft.

Anyone who has a mouse and scroll wheel can figure it out just by scrolling down through this link. I'll post and bold/underline the terms with which you obviously need help.

Subpart C—Structure
Contents

General
§25.301 Loads.
§25.303 Factor of safety.
§25.305 Strength and deformation.
§25.307 Proof of structure.

Flight Loads
§25.321 General.

Flight Maneuver and Gust Conditions
§25.331 Symmetric maneuvering conditions.
§25.333 Flight maneuvering envelope.
§25.335 Design airspeeds.
§25.337 Limit maneuvering load factors.
§25.341 Gust and turbulence loads.
§25.343 Design fuel and oil loads.
§25.345 High lift devices.
§25.349 Rolling conditions.
§25.351 Yaw maneuver conditions.

Supplementary Conditions
§25.361 Engine torque.
§25.363 Side load on engine and auxiliary power unit mounts.
§25.365 Pressurized compartment loads.
§25.367 Unsymmetrical loads due to engine failure.
§25.371 Gyroscopic loads.
§25.373 Speed control devices.

Control Surface and System Loads (part of flight loads)
§25.391 Control surface loads: General.
§25.393 Loads parallel to hinge line.
§25.395 Control system.
§25.397 Control system loads.
§25.399 Dual control system.
§25.405 Secondary control system.
§25.407 Trim tab effects.
§25.409 Tabs.
§25.415 Ground gust conditions.
§25.427 Unsymmetrical loads.
§25.445 Auxiliary aerodynamic surfaces.
§25.457 Wing flaps.
§25.459 Special devices.

Ground Loads
§25.471 General.
§25.473 Landing load conditions and assumptions.
§25.477 Landing gear arrangement.
§25.479 Level landing conditions.
§25.481 Tail-down landing conditions.
§25.483 One-gear landing conditions.
§25.485 Side load conditions.
§25.487 Rebound landing condition.
§25.489 Ground handling conditions.
§25.491 Taxi, takeoff and landing roll.
§25.493 Braked roll conditions.
§25.495 Turning.
§25.497 Tail-wheel yawing.
§25.499 Nose-wheel yaw and steering.
§25.503 Pivoting.
§25.507 Reversed braking.
§25.509 Towing loads.
§25.511 Ground load: unsymmetrical loads on multiple-wheel units.
§25.519 Jacking and tie-down provisions.

Water Loads
§25.521 General.
§25.523 Design weights and center of gravity positions.
§25.525 Application of loads.
§25.527 Hull and main float load factors.
§25.529 Hull and main float landing conditions.
§25.531 Hull and main float takeoff condition.
§25.533 Hull and main float bottom pressures.
§25.535 Auxiliary float loads.
§25.537 Seawing loads.

Again Seger, the "Limit case" for speed is Vmo. Not Vd. The margin of safety for speed is between Vmo and Vd.

§25.1505 Maximum operating limit speed.

The maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO airspeed or Mach Number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) is a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training operations. VMO/MMO must be established so that it is not greater than the design cruising speed VC and so that it is sufficiently below VD/MD or VDF/MDF, to make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be inadvertently exceeded in operations. The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD or VDFM/DF may not be less than that determined under §25.335(b) or found necessary during the flight tests conducted under §25.253.

(emphasis mine)

[superbeachnut]

6. Impossible lie exposed, pilots for truth next Gish Gallop

Hard to believe pilots google up a Vd definition they quote mine to support the lie Flight 175 can't do what we all saw Flight 175 do.

The impossible speed is supported with failed Vd definitions from a journalist who made up his definition off the top of his head like johndoeX's 11.2g failed physics.

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html

johndoeX picks not to debate this, why? Debate time, why 11.2g, then 34g, only to be off by over 30g on a 2.4g solution; why so far off?

[johndoeX]

7. Just a "journalist"?

Beachy, I specifically bolded and emphasized the OP for you.

For some reason, you repeatedly only read the first sentence, but fail to read the rest.

Specifically....

I also am an aerospace designer, and a flight simulator instructor. I was formerly employed with Honeywell....

In 2011, I developed and installed 5 Boeing 767-type fixed base flight simulators...

Beachy, how many Boeing 767 simulators have you developed and installed?

(For the readers, his answer will be zero, or he will just evade the question)

In fact, you mostly flew a desk.

"I only had 7 combat support missions, I had to fly a desk the rest of the time." - superbeachnut

As for your constant links to Will Clinger (diluting his SEO rankings since you no doubt are considered spam at this point by Google...lol), the following has also been posted for your before. You may want to actually read it this time.

William D. Clinger - Physics Of Conspiracy - Debunked

[superbeachnut]

8. The Vd definition is made up - why fake a definition to support a lie

You use made up definitions to support your lie of impossible speed.

That is not the definition of Vd, your journalist made it up. It is what you quote mined. There is nothing you can do to make a fake Vd definition become the real thing, you failed. Like your fake Vg diagram, and 11.2g, a long list of failure done to spread the lies of impossible speed.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html (no expertise in physics at pilots for truth)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863 (fake Vg diagram shows no expertise in aero at pilots for truth)
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/easyjet-737-incident-debunks-pilot-for-9-11-truth-v-g-diagram-video.3160/page-7

It is funny, at pilots for truth forum, they prohibit linking to web sites, so the lies pilots for truth present are not exposed.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18336
You failed to debunk, and expose you have no idea what physics is. You do nothing to refute the fact your claims are lies; pilots for truth come up with 34g for 2.4g problem, and they can't get it right after years.

[johndoeX]

9. Why Beachy why?

"Cesura" - not an aviation professional... and Debunked.
Randi forum - really?
Metabunk - Mick West? Really?

Why do you listen to people in the 'internets' who have no experience in aviation?

[superbeachnut]

11. Grade school kids more experience than needed to debunk pilots for truth

"Cesura" - not an aviation professional... and Debunked.
Randi forum - really?
Metabunk - Mick West? Really?

Why do you listen to people in the 'internets' who have no experience in aviation?

A mathematician shows your 11.2g is fake, and you failed to debunk him, he explained why you failed at simple physics. Go ahead, debunk math, and physics - you can't.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
A grade school kid can debunk your 11.2g nonsense. You never debunked him.

Randi forum has banned how many of your socks because you can't debate the fake claims. What was your point? Do you read what you think you are posting.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt

Metabunk - oops you are banned. You can't debate anything.

[johndoeX]

13. "A mathematician"?

Are you aware that such a person used Flight Director Pitch as the primary premise for his 'paper'? ....Which was mostly nothing more than an ad hom attack?

Of course you don't know this.. because you never read the debunk of William D Clinger.

Beachy, when will you find someone with experience in aviation to support your claims?

So far, you have nothing but a chemist, and a "mathematician" who never stepped foot on a flight deck.


These are your sources? Really?

Then again, you mostly flew a desk... and cannot visually identify the difference between an A320 and a 757. While spending your time on the 'golf course' arguing here?

[superbeachnut]

16. Flew a desk quote mining lie, mirrors the fake Vd definition quote mining failure

What was wrong with this? OMG, chemist gets 77 g force right, and you got it wrong. What happen to pilots for truth experts? They have no one who can do math, to come up with the right numbers.

Nothing; you attack people who debunk your lies of 34g, and all they did was post the data.
You lie about 911, no source, you make it up - it saves you time.
You can't debunk the graph of Flight 77's last g force - it is a fact, and it matches what a rational person can predict. The pilots for truth came up with 11.2g, based on total nonsense, then trying to act like they knew what they were doing, they produced a hilarous 34g based on faulty assumptions they made up to support some nonsense they can't explain.


You were debunked, and then you lie about debunking your debunking - You can't do math, the 11.2g proved it.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html
You were debunked, and you failed to debunk anything. Having a fantasy you debunked him is cute, and reflects your 11.2g logic.

Your claims are self debunking, the impossible speed is lie, a fake Vg diagram, and a false definition of Vd. What is next failed claims for pilots for truth.

The old I flew a desk quote mining, indicative of your quote mined fake Vd defintion, is your evidence for your fake Vg diagram, or a weak personal attack on me? You make up weak lies about me, another quote mining lie. Why did the USAF turn you down? Where is your ATP, you lied about that.

i have thousands of hours in jets... taught probably over 100 students.. .and im CFI II MEI ATP - johndoeX

You have no ATP, why did you lie about this?

- what is your next weak personal attack ... It is funny how you try to tease me with flying a desk when I was on active flying status, it show how you love to quote mine and ignore reality. I wonder how flying desk and being a USAF Command Pilot fit; good job exposing your ignorance of the USAF, and most flying issues.

[johndoeX]

19. Beachy - where did you get the diagram in your above post?

Here is a hint for the readers. He got it from Frank Legge.

Frank Legge is a chemist.

Beachy, do you also agree with Frank Legge here?

Or do you just cherry pick when it suits your bias...?

[superbeachnut]

22. attacking a person, does not make the data wrong - no matter what other topics the person got wrong

johndoeX can't refute the graph, so he attacks the person who did the graph - a tactic people use when they are desparte and have no evidence, no support.
Here we have the same data, from the source, not from Frank; g force on the left, with the last 30 to 40 samples from Flight 77... oops, they match - you have the data too, so I find it odd you attack Frank - are you upset he can plot stuff?

OMG, it is 77 data, twice, from one source, but two different people did a graph - gee whiz, the chemist did a graph too - are you upset he can do math, and a graph, and it is used to show your 34g/11.2g is a false, failed work based on nonsense.


Both graphs source material is what Flight 77 did in the last seconds before impact.

Using original data is not cherry picking, it is called reality. With pilot for truth 11.2g first failure, then 34g, off by over 30g, pilots for truth might not realize what reality is.

Using real data is cherry picking according to pilots for truth, where fantasy rules, in the form of fake Vg diagrams, failed g force math, and the lie of impossible speed.


I checked the data before I used a graph, whereas pilots for truth quote mine a fake Vd definition made up by an Internet journalist because it supported their lie. I think you don't understand what cherry picked means.

Frank believes in thermite, a fantasy? How does his fantasy thermite work make him unable to do a simple graph of data? It looks like Frank thinks your work is nonsense. Does this mean you don't support thermite? Gee, it is part of 911 truth platform, are you not supporting your fellow 911 truth fantasy believers?

Gee, you should have checked the data before you failed to realize Frank did the graph right, and your 34g solution is wrong.

[johndoeX]

23. So, you agree with Frank?

Beachy, where did you get the data to create that graph?

You got it from Warren Stutt. A person who admits he has no expertise in aviation

Not even the NTSB has validated the data you have graphed. Why do you trust someone from the internet over the NTSB?.

Do you agree with 'the chemist' who co-authored this paper?

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Or, do you only agree with him when it suits your bias...?

[superbeachnut]

30. pilots for truth expose they lack the expertise to decode the FDR

When does a programmer need fligh experience to decode a FDR? Your FDR expert failed to decode the last 4 or 5 seconds, why did your expert fail? Wait, i know why, at least according to your logic, your experts has less expertise in aviation than Warren- or what.

Programmers decoding a FDR is not an issue you can win by attacking someone who can do what you can't because you are upset you failed to understand 911.

Your experts at pilots for truth failed to decode what Warren Strutt did. Are you attacking Warren to discredit the decode which is correct. Too bad pilots for truth lack the expertise to refute his decode. A good programmer can decode the FDR, he did it; proof he is right? Because his decode matches the NTSB decode exactly, and continues to the damaged frames perfectly; and it matches the g-force rational people can calculate for 77 to hit the Pentagon. oops, physics and math ruin your attack on Warren. ... proof, you can't refute his decode.

And you attack "the chemist" who plotted the numbers. You have to attack both because they refute your failed 11.2g nonsense.

Why can't your experts decode the FDR?

What logic are you using?
Plotting data on a graph is not an agreement when my bias suits me, it is reality, you take numbers and plot them - in this case the numbers are the real g force from 77 decoded by an expert at programming - something all your failed experts at pilots for truth failed to do.

Your attack, shows is failed logic. Your expert decoded one more second than the NTSB (wonder if your guy had the frame wrong... maybe not), and Warren decoded all the data, was it four or five more seconds than your experts. The key here is the overlap second, it matches;;; oops

Warren work is not refuted, it is like math, the decode is as set of equations, and you can't refute his work. Your weak attack failed. You ask the most illogical questions; and those illogical questions seem to be indicative of the skill it took to come up with 11.2g
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html
The same pattern of nonsense seems to be used in your "do you agree with .. this paper" junk and the 11.2g illogical g force which appears from nothing. You are missing some sort of logic skill, a comprehension issue maybe.

Why can't pilots for truth do a decode Warren did? Less expertise in aviation than Warren? Locally it follow, you say Warren has no expertise in aviation, yet you claim to have source with expertise in aviation who can't decode what Warren did, and you can't refute his decode except with real weak attacks on Warren. This is the best pilots for truth can do, weakly attack others who expose their false claims. Or you go all McVeigh like...