... when you can just keep asserting you were right. 
If the two Vg diagrams you posted prove anything, they prove that the point labeled Vne in this diagram (which is apparently for a small plane) should really be labeled Vd for 757s and 767s, because that's the end of the defined flight envelope for those planes! You can't refute that; you are simply ignoring what FAR 25 actually says, as well as the FAA representative and engineers on two professional forums, and instead substituting your own faulty definitions and misconceptions, presented in pesudo-technical babble.
Please note the title of the diagram: "Flight envelope containing multiple load cases." You could read the section it's in to understand what that means (well, perhaps you couldn't, but nonetheless): It's talking about the multiple forces on a plane. Specifically, it talks about how even the wings aren't just designed for vertical loads as you falsely claim, because they are also subject to drag and horizontal moments which must be taken into account by combining ALL the stresses. By FAR 25, each of those loads must be multiplied by a 1.5 factor of safety. Your only response is that you think the 1.5 FoS is for vertical g-loads only. That section (as well as common sense) proves you're wrong.
> Seger, have you yet figured out why it doesn't say "Factor of 1.5" between the arrows designating "Overspeed Margin", yet says, "Factor of 1.5" between the upper and lower arrows designating positive and negative G loads?
Ha! Since I've (unsuccessfully) attempted to explain it to you at least a dozen times now, yes, I've "figured it out." The vertical scale is g-loads, and since they are loads, they can and must be multiplied by 1.5. The horizontal scale, however, is speed, and you can't just multiply the speed by some factor: You have to calculate the stresses and multiple those by 1.5, as required by FAR 25, just as I've been saying all along. The reason that the red edge of this particular diagram is not labeled with Vd or anything else, nor any specific distance given from Vne, is because it's the ultimate strength failure point, and you don't know what that is without actually testing it. Did you find those test results yet? Your claim that Vd is the ultimate strength point has been thoroughly busted, to anyone who has been paying attention, yet here you are just reasserting it as if that should be good enough.
Again, that's the whole point: You make "impossible speed" claims that you can't substantiate because the actual maximum speed is unknown until some unfortunate souls find out the hard way. Instead of substantiation, you demonstrate that you are basing your claims on bone-headed misconceptions and faulty, made-up definitions, both of which are easily refuted.
And again, out here in the real world we know that the limits were NOT exceeded on 9/11. You're supposed to be proving that they were, so there must have been some kind of bizarre, unexplained deception, but all you've got to back it up is obvious misunderstandings and misconceptions, delivered with self-aggrandizing bloviation.
Please proceed.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read