Wait, you will not debate, you are leaving. You always do this and then leave. Everyone now knows you faked the Vg diagram, can't explain what you post. Can't explain how you got 34gs from an 11.2g made up from nothing, and missed the real g value by over 30gs.

Why can't you debate here?

Why did you make up the fake structural failure speed of 425 KEAS?

Debate that. Where is the source for your structural failure speed? Debate now. here, good place to do it.

All pilot for truth junk is self-debunking. 11.2g, anyone can see that.

I will certainly never contact you for such a "debate" given the intellectually dishonest tactics you use in a venue where your claims and arguments can be thoroughly scrutinized. After getting your rhetorical butt kicked up and down such venues, of course you'd like a change to a venue where that isn't possible, but I'm having plenty of fun right here.

I haven't done any "formal" debating since high school, but even though that was a long time ago, I distinctly recall that in a formal debate, you are required to define your terms and cite your references. So, in the first place, why should anyone waste time in a "formal debate" with someone who thinks he can win arguments by just inventing his own definitions for technical terms, proclaiming himself to be an authority "certified by the FAA to teach this material," but then proceeds to demonstrate that he doesn't even understand his own arguments, much less anyone elses?

Anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention, and sorry, Rob, but I am not among that unfortunate crowd.

Seger says - "I will certainly never contact you for such a "debate"


... as predicted...

But on the bright side, I won my money back!

Thank you Seger!

This is the same tactic you used on other forums, you want to debate, but fail to debate. How do you debate a fake Vg diagram? You can't explain this, "by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude", how can you debate aerodynamics when you use journalists as your source for false aerodynamic definitions.

You lost the debate, your fake Vg diagram is exposed, video and RADAR prove Flight 175 can fly at 590mph, means your impossible speed is busted. The 11.2g failed physics was exposed, and replaced with 34g, over 30gs off. What can you debate, all your claims are nonsense.

you can't debate here, you are running away, evidence free - why did you lie about your ATP

As predicted, johndoeX wants to debate, and runs away, 13 years after 911, pilots for truth spreading lies about flying, and they brag they can't hit targets in the safety of a simulator which the terrorists hit the first time in a heavy jet - guess the simulator practice the terrorists had in commercial jets helped, but the poor pilots for truth can't fly as good as the terrorists, and they brag about it.

... is, if the Hot Air Core couldn't hit the Pentagon, how the hell did they ever manage to hit a runway? Scary.

Missing a 900 plus foot wide 77 foot high Pentagon, does make a 200 or 150 foot wide zero foot high runway an impossible task for pilots for truth

pilots for truth failed to hit 911 targets in simulators, so they claim, said it was impossible, for them it is

Beachy says - "You can't explain this, "by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude", how can you debate aerodynamics when you use journalists as your source for false aerodynamic definitions."

Psst... Beachy.... that didn't come from a "journalist". It came from the Federal Aviation Regulations.

I'd add that to the Beachy Archives... but really.. does anyone take Beachy seriously anymore?

Beachy, do you agree with Seger that Vd is a "limit load" defined under FAR Part 25?

You have failed to answer this question every time I have asked you. Why is that?

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 01:49 AM - Edit history (1)

> Beachy, do you agree with Seger that Vd is a "limit load" defined under FAR Part 25?

Everything I've actually said is still right here where everyone can read it, and yet it seems to be impossible for you to engage in intellectually honest debate. Why is that?

(Edit to add another case in point):

> Psst... Beachy.... that didn't come from a "journalist". It came from the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Of course, the reference was to the journalist saying Vd when he was talking about Vfd, but you knew that. Funny how you can't bring yourself to admit that superbeachnut was right about the 20%, too. It takes serious chutzpah to wave that around while claiming to have won the "debate," while ignoring what it means to your claims. But I guess you know your target market pretty well, huh.

We have a pilot who claims he is an instructor, and he can't find the 767 was built to 1.2Vd, and then he asks another instructor pilot, me, the question he can't answer. Now that is funny. Also, he twist what Seger said, and makes up a fake point. Why can't he explain his own questions? An instructor can't explain flying.

... if I did a YouTube video?

probably not but you could try. But I think the nonsense you try to assert as knowledge would still stand out to everyone. Please send me a link to it when/if(and I ain't counting on it) you dare do it.

Now, here.

Where is johndoeX.
He will not debate, his claim are all nonsense. How do you debate fantasy and delusions.

Anytime you are ready.... let us know. We can set up a mutual venue agreed upon by you and me.

Thank you Seger! You just won me 50 bucks!

The bet was whether you would resort to discussion from the better part of a decade ago. I said you would, my colleagues said you aren't that stupid.

Not only have you won me an extra 50... but you have proven my point from the OP that you have been obsessed with our work for years, while also claiming we are so insignificant to 'debate'.



I also notice you have still failed to find a verified Aero Engineer to support your interpretation of FAR Part 25 with regard to loads.

You really should work on that, instead of proving the fact you are obsessed with us.

Who paid you 50 bucks? IS that another lie. Why do you make up fake stuff.

Why is your support form pilots limited to less than 0.1 percent of all pilots? Do most pilots know you are spreading false information.

Oops, you can't support your fake Vg diagram with facts? Why not

Where is the source for the impossible speed you claim?


How did you make such a big mistake, when you faked the 11.2g?
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html

Is Vd defined as a "limit load" under FAR Part 25?

Yes or no?

The calculated stresses under the conditions of 25.305 are to be taken as limit loads.

I've posted the question on another engineering forum. You wanna put your imaginary $50 on the line?

Notice once again Seger has no one to support his claims. Not even Beachy... who is usually there to respond to my posts within minutes.

That should give you a bit of a hint, Seger.

Again, if you are willing to pay for instruction, I will teach you. After all, I have been tested by the FAA on this information (as I'm sure Beachy has as well, which is why he is so silent when asked)....

If you do not wish to have me teach you... you can find many other Certified Instructors out there who will teach you the same information.

But hey... keep digging. Maybe one day... you will actually learn how to interpret the FAR's. Just do us all a favor... never get in an airplane without first consulting an 'internet forum' and 'engine guy' for a lesson in aerodynamics....lol

I'll take short odds.

It is a "no"... in the manner you cannot find any verified Aero Engineer to support your interpretations under FAR Part 25.

But keep trying.

Here is my list...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

With your awesome "debating" skillz, you must have sold hundreds of videos just to DUers.

I have sold "hundreds of videos just to DUer's" because of who we are and can be verified.

I just drop by from time to time to bat around people like you when I am bored. It doesn't sell DVD's.



I also earn cash instructing people under FAA regulations... and... you guessed it.. .flying airplanes.

No ATP, kind of not an expert on flying.

Why did you say you had an ATP?

Seger,

You have already debunked yourself in this post.

You are starting to get it. But you are still blinded by your bias, looking for anyone to support your claims, even if it is some anonymous "engine guy" who admits he cannot comment on aircraft designs.

As you are starting to understand, Vd is not defined as a 'limit load' under 25,301, 303, and 305. Nor it is defined anywhere under Part 25 as a limit "case". Vd is a design speed. As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you over the past month, the margins of safety for speed are between Vmo (derived from Vc) and Vd. So, to put it in terms you might understand, there aren't three limit cases - Vmo, Vc, and Vd... - and then an Ultimate "case" thereafter. Vmo is the "limit case" and Vd is the "Ultimate case". and every VG Diagram on this planet reflects that, while VG diagrams also reflect the limit load and ultimate load as defined under FAR Part 25.301, 303, and 305.

There are three types of loads defined in 301, and regulated by 303, and 305.

Can you guess what they are?

I gave you a strong hint here.

Two are irrelevant to our discussion.

Once you actually read what I have recommended in my hint above, perhaps you will understand why you are wrong, and why I was approved by the FAA and get paid to teach this type information, and why this list is growing -- while you STILL cannot find not one verified Aero Engineer to support anything you have claimed with regard to Part 25 over the past month. Not even Beachy will throw you a bone on this matter.... because if he does, he knows it will be going in his archives... and that gets a helluva lot more views than any thread in this forum section.

For pilots for truth they find a journalist who makes up the definition. They quote mine a fake definition and try to play it to sell their lie of impossible speed on 911; and they failed. 13th year of fail for 911 truth, and pilots for truth can't debate - Wait, their evidence, pilot for truth evidence is weak attacks on others - great evidence, fake definitions, failed claims.

First topic for debate, http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html, the 11.2g failure in math. How did it happen, and why is it still posted? Then how did failure of 11.2g for a real value of less than 2.5g go to 34g? Debate on.

Wait, pilots for truth don't debate, they present weak attacks on others. How did you come up with 11.2g?

According to you....

The Airbus falls apart at Vd....



Apparently you understand Vd is an "Ultimate Case" (in Seger's terms) for the Airbus, but not for Boeing?

Can you show us where the definition for Vd under FAR Part 25 is different for Boeing?

You don't have an ATP, the PhD of flying, and you lied and said you had an ATP... why. Is that like your fake Vg diagram and the lie structural failure is at 425 KEAS, but fail to source it?

Why did you mess up the g force so bad?
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html


You can't explain ""by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"", you posted it and can't explain why it makes a difference. There goes all any expertise in aerodynamics.
Why can't pilots for truth explain the stuff they post?

Is Vd defined as a "limit load" under FAR Part 25?

Yes or no?

6th time asked.

Again, pilots for truth can't explain, they act like they have something, declare they want to debate, and do this, contant questions based on failed comprehension on their part.

Was the 11.2g too much fail?: http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
That is classic failure to do math and physics, let us debate that?

How do you mess up stuff like your question? Is it like your 11.2g failure to do math? Why can't you make a valid point? 13 years after 911, pilots for truth have no idea Boeing jets can go 590 mph and hit the WTC. Big fail. 13 years. Watergate took what, a year to break wide open.

Debate time, and you bring nonsense. What is wrong, no evidence? Fake Vg diagram, lie about impossible speed, and the 11.2g failed physics (http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html wow, that is the red flag of woo), that is the smoking gun there are zero experts at pilots for truth who have less than 0.1 percent of all pilots.


Let us start the debate on 11.2g of pilot for truth expert math/physics. http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html

what his next book was about. He said it contained "bombshell evidence".

He also said he could hit the pentagon in a simulator using the same approach path as flight 77 but it took 3 or 4 tries.

He was found dead near his kids one day. The new book has disappeared.

suicide and murder, the best 911 truth nuts can do. Kind of sad. He lived in a fantasy world, and killed himself.

He can't fly as good as terrorists - that would be depressing.

He killed himself, no evidence for 911 truth.

Is this what you want to debate? How 911 truth followers take a suicide and turn it into nonsense? His wife was taking the kids? divorce?? upside down on his mortgage, why did he kill himself.

Unlike...say...Leslie Hazzard, who has a BA in journalism and a minor in political science but is an expert (whom you agree with and whom you refer to as an "expert" by virtue of your conferring "aeronautical engineer" status on her) on the low-altitude max-speed characteristics of a 767 (max speed being 250 miles per hour at 700 feet).

Seriously.

including this one.

Obviously, your invitation is desperate bullshit.

doesn't mean they're wrong though. But you knew that!
Also, you & your crew have been losing the public debate here for near a decade but you still try to "catapult the propaganda!"

Those same people have been telling us that we 'have been losing debates for years', that we are frauds, liars,, fakes.... the list goes on... for the better part of a decade.... yet they all (Beachy, specifically), spend their days and nights, (for the better part of a decade) repeat the same nonsense, while expecting different results.

Perhaps this is why?

How Covert Agents Infiltrate The Internet To Manipulate, Deceive, And Destroy Reputations, Glenn Greenwald - firstlook.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?&showtopic=22622

Revealed: Air Force Ordered Software To Manage Army Of Fake Virtual People
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21115

Military Report: Secretly 'recruit Or Hire Bloggers'
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11687

and much more listed here....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=19

Funny how this seems to be the only subject they spend year after year trying to suppress. And yet more and more people doubt the official conspiracy theory every day.
And that one you mentioned I put on ignore last week! Always repeating the same old nonsense over and over and over and over. Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, over and over. Very tiresome. At least the others try to support their claims sometimes. JREF though has failed them miserably IMHOOC.
Thank you also for not giving up.

No wonder you can't debate the failed 11.2g math, overwhelmed by the paranoia and fantasy about bloggers.

LOL, you are paranoid. You want to debate why you lied about having an ATP?


Don't you think a good place to start the debate is pilots for truth 11.2g physics?
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
We could start with the 11.2g, and move to the 34g and then show why it was really close to 2.5g. Now that would be a debate; then see if that problem with reality is reflected in the fake Vg diagram, or the use of fake definitions to support the lie of impossible speeds.

William D. Clinger - Physics Of Conspiracy - Debunked, Flight Path, Virgina DOT
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18336


Beachy, are you aware that every time you link to "cesura" in your posts, it loses Google SEO rank?

In short, you look like spam to Google.

Keep up the good work!



Why do you disagree with Seger's claims?

Is it because you only flew a desk?

I don't think we have heard it enough...

Can you please post the link to "cesura" again?

Does Clinger know that you are diluting his SEO rankings?

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

Last time he was asked to debate --- https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt

Now he says he wants to debate, but he can't debate a fake Vg diagram or definitions he quote mines from journalist.

Apparently you believe a NYC Tour Guide?

Really?



Now show us where I actually said those words....


Beachy.. .do you also believe that I am an "ex-commercial pilot" as stated in your source?

Do you feel that the Commercial Pilot certificate expires?