William Seger - Epically Fails - Again

[johndoeX]

In Seger's newest blunder - he claims that Vne for small aircraft is essentially the same as Vd for large aircraft, so he can hold onto some sort of "Margin" above Vd, since his latest VG diagram shows an "Overspeed Margin" between Vne and the end of the flight envelope.

Now for reality...

NASA VGH (velocity,load factor and altitude) recorders were installed on 12 types of turboprop and turbojet aircraft during the period 1960-61. Analysis of these data showed that the operation speeds Vno were being exceeded significantly more frequently than had been experienced in operations of piston-engined transports.

Because of the structural implications of these studies, the regulatory agencies and industry dropped the use of Vne for commercial transports certified under FAR 25. In 1964 the maximum operating limit speed Vmo was introduced in FAR 25.1505; i.e., “Vmo Speeds; The maximum operating limit speed (Vmo/Mmo airpseed or Mach number, whichever is critical at that 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.” - Structural Loads Analysis for Commercial Transport Aircraft: Theory and Practice - Ted L. Lomax - Google Books

(emphasis mine)

Vne in use on smaller aircraft is essentially 90% of Vd as mandated by the FAA.

As I have been trying to explain to Seger, ad nauseum, the margin for airspeed is between Vmo and Vd on Transport Category Aircraft.

Vd is the end of the flight envelope on all aircraft (small and large), regulated by the FAA. Period.

"Small aircraft" Flight Envelope.

Transport Category Flight Envelope

Now... it is game over, Seger.

[nationalize the fed]

1. Maybe Billy is SIGDEV

A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:



MORE:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

[William Seger]

4. Cult-leader wannabes are usually paranoid delusional egoists (n/t)

[superbeachnut]

2. Pilots for truth can't source structural failure speed of a 767 - failure again

767 designed to be flutter free up to 1.2 times maximum design dive speed (Vd)
Flight tested on 911 by terrorists who can hit large targets (unlike pilots for truth who say they can't do it) at speeds past Vd.

RADAR and Video prove a 767 does not fall apart at high speed. Pilots for truth lie about impossible speed.

pilots for truth say...

"Vd is the end of the flight envelope on all aircraft (small and large), regulated by the FAA. Period."

That is not what...
Wait, another photoshopped Vn/Vg diagram...
From the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics. and photoshopped

Why did you photoshop the diagram.
From the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics. As is.

What does your source say about Vd, aka the book answer -
From the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics. Talking about Fig. 5-27

It says structural failure could occur, not will. There goes the impossible speed.
Your impossible speed lie dies again.
Do you read your sources before spreading lies? Why did you lie about the ATP?

Oops Flight 175 impacted the WTC at 1.2Vd. Looks like pilots for truth make up fake limits to support their failed fantasy of impossible speed. Flight 77 was over Vmo for 20 seconds, never got to 1.2Vd, but was over Vd, and kept flying. Pilots for truth proved wrong twice on 911.

Fake Vg diagrams, and failed 11.2g math.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/easyjet-737-incident-debunks-pilot-for-9-11-truth-v-g-diagram-video.3160/page-7
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html


Why did you photoshop the diagram?

[johndoeX]

9. Beachy - do you agree with this person?

Is Rod Machado wrong when he states -

"Many years ago, before oscilloscopes and sensitive vibration measuring devices were commonly used, aerodynamicists had a very basic means of identifying an airline's flutter speed. They'd find a skilled test pilot, show him a wheelbarrow full of money, then send him aloft to dive the airplane at dazzling airspeeds. The test pilot's job was to determine the speed at which the airplane experiences flutter.



When he returned-and when his breathing slowed and he regained his ability to speak-he'd tell his tale. He'd inform the engineers about the speed beyond which the airplane experienced flutter. This speed is known as Vd or design dive speed.

.....

That's why, in the spirit of safety, the FAR's require marking the airspeed indicator's red line (Vne - velocity to never exceed) at a point representing 90% of Vd. " - Source

After all, he is ATP rated and not listed at P4T.

So you should agree with him, right?

Or do you agree with Seger, a person who didn't even know what Vd was a little over a month ago....

Perhaps you think Rod is just a "journalist" as well?

[William Seger]

3. Sorry, Cap't Bob, but I have an unimpeachable source.

Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)

He's a world famous expert on all aspects of aviation. His name is Rob Balsamo who posted on the Pilots for 9/11 "Truth" forum:

Yes, it is the same in all aircraft (not 160, but the meaning of Vne), which is what I been trying to tell you. Vne is the same thing as Vd.
<snip>
Again, Vne is the same thing as Vd. It is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for every aircraft on this planet, and as you agree, it is determined by flutter.

And on the Above Top Secret forum (posting as NewAgeMan), world famous expert Rob Balsamo posted:

Basically, Vno was replaced with Vmo, and Vne was replaced with Vd on Jets.

Small/slower aircraft still use Vno/Vne because you wont exceed those limits as fast as you would in a Jet.

again, there is no difference between Vne and Vd. They are the same.

Vne/Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for every airplane on this planet.

Of course, there is some small chance that even a world famous expert like Rob Balsamo might not know what he's talking about, so it's best to check another source:

The velocity corresponding to the right-hand side of the V-n is called the VNE or the velocity never to exceed.

So, sorry, Cap'n Bob, I know you're desperate to be right about something here, but it looks like Rob Balsamo was right: For planes with a defined Vne, it is the the end of the flight envelope, whereas the modern equivalent is Vd/Md.



So, according to Rob Balsamo, I was correct to suggest that in this diagram, the point labeled Vne is the end of the flight envelope, which would be equivalent to Vd/Md today, and the green zone between Vno and Vne would be equivalent to to the range between Vmo and Vd for modern planes:



And anyway, if you had actually read the text that was taken from (and had a clue what it means), it would be obvious that the yellow zone is the margin of safety provided by multiplying ALL loads by a factor of safety.

So again, what is your basis for claiming FAR 25 doesn't mean what it says? Where are the test results that told you the maximum speed for a 767 is 425 KEAS? Why should anyone believe "impossible speed" from someone who doesn't seem to understand how planes are designed?







:

[johndoeX]

5. Spin, obfuscate, deflect.

Are you good at anything else Seger?

If you notice, I was talking to a glider pilot on our forum. Yes, I did say that to keep it simple since a 10% margin between Vne and Vd on his glider is roughly 16 knots, and is why I posted the Vne VG diagram in the other thread demonstrating your epic failures, with further explanation in this post.

Now read this post....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=22131&view=findpost&p=10810572

Furthermore, NewAgeMan is not me. But he did come to me for help. He is "EagleEye" at our forum. - Seger Fail

With that said, we both know the facts, and the fact is Vne is essentially 90% of Vd and Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for ALL aircraft. As Beachy was so nice to help out here....


(note the airspeeds, I removed them for my diagram, while using the definitions.. such as Vd being the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone)

And another source -

"Many years ago, before oscilloscopes and sensitive vibration measuring devices were commonly used, aerodynamicists had a very basic means of identifying an airline's flutter speed. They'd find a skilled test pilot, show him a wheelbarrow full of money, then send him aloft to dive the airplane at dazzling airspeeds. The test pilot's job was to determine the speed at which the airplane experiences flutter.


When he returned-and when his breathing slowed and he regained his ability to speak-he'd tell his tale. He'd inform the engineers about the speed beyond which the airplane experienced flutter. This speed is known as Vd or design dive speed.

.......

That's why, in the spirit of safety, the FAR's require marking the airspeed indicator's red line (Vne - velocity to never exceed) at a point representing 90% of Vd."

But apparently you think Rod Machado is wrong, when I posted the above quote for you the last time you thought you knew about Vd.



Unfortunately for you, while posting the original VG from the Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics, Beachy also throws you under the bus. See the words "Structural Failure" in the upper right? I suppose you think that is for aircraft only operating in that area of the graph? lol....

Vmo is the "limit case" in terms of speed on Transport aircraft, not Vd.

Now if you really wish to get even more technical. We know that a Boeing suffers structural failure at 154% based on static load testing. This is 4% above "Ultimate Case" (using your terms). If we apply the same factor to speed based on the Boeing 767 A1NM TCDS....



....we are looking at roughly 436 knots. 420(Vd)+4%

And precedent is in line with such a comparison.



Seger, when are you going to send your VG Diagram to the FAA telling them that the 'yellow' represents a "Factor of 1.5 for ALL the loads, not just g loads"?

Then again, would you have anything else to do after learning you were wrong from the FAA?

Keep spinning Seger... keep digging.

[William Seger]

6. ROFLMAO

Priceless. Especially the title. Sorry, Cap't Bob, but you shot yourself down. Again.

The question you've been asked too many times to count is, when are you going to support your nonsensical claims with something besides your own apparently non-existent expertise? Why do you keep pretending to know the maximum speed of a 767 when you don't understand how airplanes are designed? Why can't you read either the FAR or the response from the FAA, or the engineers on two professional forums, or the text that I took that graphic from and understand what they are saying?

Why is it that the best you can do is keep posting the same nonsense over and over and over, and try to impress your miniscule fan club with personal attacks and pointless diversions from the actual issues here? Why do you keep trying to win points in a juvenile "gotcha" game instead of addressing ANY of these questions?

If you think the FAA would support your claims, then "man up" and go ask them. I already did that, and your prediction of what would happen was indeed an "epic fail," since it proves your lack of understanding about those claims. Either you just don't understand the answers I got or you simply refuse to understand them, but either way, you have demonstrated that you are manifestly unqualified to make the "impossible speed" claims, and manifestly unable to support them with anything but bravado.

[johndoeX]

7. When are you going to email the FAA with your claims Seger?

Email them your VG diagram, and tell them the same thing you told us, that the Yellow area represents a 1.5 factor for ALL loads, not just G loads.

When he tells you that you are wrong, you can pull yourself away from the computer.

Or, perhaps you don't want to know?

[William Seger]

8. I've noticed that most "truthers" are hypocrits

Your lack of understanding of basic engineering principles is not my problem. I already asked the FAA if the conditions in FAR 25.305 were limit or ultimate and the answer was limit. Same thing from two professional forums. Limit loads are multiplied by a factor of safety, per FAR 25.303. Period. What's the "score" now? I've proved my claims, while you've haven't done squat to even attempt to do the same. How about you pay me that imaginary 50 bucks to try one more time to convince you?

When are you going to stop playing games and at least try to support your claims?

[johndoeX]

10. The only thing you have proven....

....is that you don't understand what the FAA has told you....

Do you agree with this person, yes or no?

"Many years ago, before oscilloscopes and sensitive vibration measuring devices were commonly used, aerodynamicists had a very basic means of identifying an airline's flutter speed. They'd find a skilled test pilot, show him a wheelbarrow full of money, then send him aloft to dive the airplane at dazzling airspeeds. The test pilot's job was to determine the speed at which the airplane experiences flutter.



When he returned-and when his breathing slowed and he regained his ability to speak-he'd tell his tale. He'd inform the engineers about the speed beyond which the airplane experienced flutter. This speed is known as Vd or design dive speed.

.....

That's why, in the spirit of safety, the FAR's require marking the airspeed indicator's red line (Vne - velocity to never exceed) at a point representing 90% of Vd. " - Source

After all, he is ATP rated and not listed at P4T.

So you should agree with him, right?

[William Seger]

12. No, I don't, and having to repeat myself so many times is really annoying

We already discussed that. Twice, at least. What he is talking about there is not Vd; it's what the rest of the world calls Vdf, Demonstrated Flight Diving Speed.

> After all, he is ATP rated and not listed at P4T.

> So you should agree with him, right?

Uh, no I shouldn't if he's wrong. And he is.

And you have done nothing but slop your own misunderstandings on top of what the FAA said. You don't understand it well enough to realize that, and you keep insisting that your own ignorance is all the proof you need. When are you going to at least try to support your claims with something less laughable?

[johndoeX]

13. "Uh, no I shouldn't if he's wrong. And he is."....

.... says the guy who never saw the term Vd before last month.... and thinks Vd is a "limit case", when Vmo is clearly defined as a "limit case".


So basically.. all pilots are wrong, but you are right.. right?

[William Seger]

15. Is that a "never?" (n/t)

[superbeachnut]

16. quote mine, who cares what the real defintion is, pilots for truth can find a quote to say otherwise

You can't help but quote mine to support what? Your impossible speed proved wrong by terrorists on 911. You lost the impossible speed. Why not stick with the flights still flying after they crashed, your ACARS lies.

"After all, he is ATP rated and not listed at P4T." - johndoeX

Machado currently flies a Cessna 150.

[William Seger]

11. BTW, is "EagleEye" one of your socks on your own forum?

He writes exactly like you. I ask because, if there's anything you're more famous for than fake diagrams, it's socks.

[johndoeX]

14. No he isn't me.

Pretty much everyone who understands the topic "writes like me" and is me.. according to people like you.

I'm not even half of the 'socks' you people have accused me of being. Which in turn actually works in our favor to those who are not me.

Again, he came to me for help. He doesn't write anything like me... Read his posts.

But, it's good to know you study nearly every word i say.. apparently for years. Why? If we are so insignificant according to people like you, why would you actually waste so much time on me?

Obsess much?

[William Seger]

17. LOL, I don't recall even thinking about you since your last disaster here

... with the misaligned Pentagon graphic and the rotated compass, which was at least 6 or 7 years ago. Those two Vne posts showed up when I searched for "Vd Vne flight envelope," and it was too funny to resist.

As I said before, if you take your bullshit elsewhere, there isn't much chance I'll even see it, much less "obsess" over it.

[johndoeX]

18. Hmmm...

Your actions speak otherwise.

In contrast, you will never find a thread made about you on P4T. Nor will you ever engage us at P4T. Because, as you know, most mods on most forums don't allow personal attacks of their members calling other members "frauds" and "hucksters". We follow some of the same type of rules, especially of those who can be verified with their face to their name... unlike you.

But hey, I thank you for the compliment... Re: 'spiffy packaging'.

I actually have no formal training in 'spiffy packaging'. But I can get you on the ground safely in Instrument Meteorological Conditions down to near 'Zero-Zero' in icing conditions... because, as you already know, I am a verified Pilot and actually understand the FAR's and what is said by the FAA.

Have a great weekend!

[William Seger]

19. U mad, Bro? (n/t)

[johndoeX]

21. Actually...

I'm quite content... especially given the fact I released our newest presentation today....

[William Seger]

22. A more recent face with a name

[johndoeX]

23. lol... nice

That just about sums up every 'debunk' you have ever attempted.

You should post it at JREF.

I've already taken the liberty to post it at P4T. Hope you don't mind....

[William Seger]

24. Thanks

... for the bump.

(RB on P4T) > So far, this is the best attempt at "debunkin" by the GL's.

LOL, it seems your personal "flight maneuvering envelope" is down to your own forum. I don't think anyone on JREF would be interested in that silly picture, but maybe some would be interested in the response I got from the FAA and that Combined Loads diagram, so thanks for the suggestion.

[johndoeX]

25. "Thanks for the bump"?

You do know that I am the OP of this thread, right?

[William Seger]

26. You do know that SOME people will read past the OP, right?

Of course you know that, which is why you only posted that silly picture and lied to your little club about it being the "best attempt at 'debunkin'." But here, you can't hide from the reply I got from the FAA, or the replies on two professional forums, or that Combined Loads diagram and the text it came from, or ordinary common sense, or the demonstrated ignorance behind your "impossible speed" claims.

A few more "epic fails" like this and we might need to change the name of this forum to Balsamo Crater National Monument.

K&R.

[johndoeX]

27. Of course -

But how many people do you think scroll through to read the comments vs. the OP?

Have you bothered to read the views of my threads vs yours?

Perhaps this is why no one listens to you...?

[William Seger]

28. Oh, by now, I know who your target market is

Anyone who still takes you seriously has definitely not been paying attention, but some of 'em might have $17.95 to piss away, huh. However, your persistent insinuations that everyone here is stupid is an insult to the board.

[superbeachnut]

20. pilots for truth make personal attacks on those murdered on 911 by speading lies

In contrast, you will never find a thread made about you on P4T. Nor will you ever engage us at P4T. Because, as you know, most mods on most forums don't allow personal attacks of their members calling other members "frauds" and "hucksters". We follow some of the same type of rules, especially of those who can be verified with their face to their name... unlike you. -johndoeX

Like your lie about the impossible speed, or the disrespect for those who were murdered on 911 by saying their planes were still airborne after they crashed.

In contrast, you will never find a thread made about you on P4T. - johndoeX

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20979 Who?
An obsession and a fake Vg diagram. Classic failure