Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Open Invitation to Publicly Debate "William Seger" regarding the work of P4T. [View all]johndoeX
(268 posts)12. Jackpot!
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Open Invitation to Publicly Debate "William Seger" regarding the work of P4T. [View all]
johndoeX
Jun 2014
OP
Anytime you are ready.... let us know. We can set up a mutual venue agreed upon by you and me.
superbeachnut
Jun 2014
#9
You can't explain "by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number"
superbeachnut
Jun 2014
#21
You and your crew have been losing public debates on dozens of websites for years,
greyl
Jun 2014
#36
Debate lost due to lack of physics at pilots for truth, and fake Vd definitions from journalist
superbeachnut
Jun 2014
#44