NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[RedIbis]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627

An engineer with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37 years, Mr. Deets is a board member and the writing team leader for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).

If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

[Mooseman]

Could he still be wrong?

[CHF]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627



If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

I look forward to seeing his evidence, Red.

Specifically, I wonder whether he presents anything other than the same ol' crap Richard Gage has been selling for the past few years.

My guess is no.

[Mr.Herbert]

Could he still be wrong?

If he is a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it is certain.

[Oliver]

Who cares? - The Twoofmovement is dead anyway.

[twinstead]

Could he still be wrong?

If all it took is which side has more experts, Red wouldn't be a truther; that's why I'm confused about this line of debate from him.

[BigAl]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627



If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

What does he say? Let him stand up in front of a bunch of structural engineers and say something that stands up to professional scrutiny about why the towers collapsed. So far, none of the ae911 bunch have done this. Let him write a paper for a professional and/or peer-reviewed journal, certainly he knows what's involved in that process.

If, instead, he speaks about "inside job" and Cheney, etc, or says nonsensical things outside his area of expertise, and only where Gage controls the Q&A microphone, he's just another deluded loon as far as 9/11 goes no matter what good work he's done in other fields.

[RedIbis]

Could he still be wrong?

Of course. Just because someone is a NASA scientist does not mean his word should be taken as gospel.

[JihadJane]

:)

[ImANiceGuy]

Love it.....

[CHF]

Of course. Just because someone is a NASA scientist does not mean his word should be taken as gospel.

No one ever said their word should be taken as gospal.

However if the NASA scientist in question has a spotless track record of kicking the other side's arse in debate, then there just might be something to his claims. I'll bet you wish you had a guy like that in your corner, eh?

So I anxiously wait to see what evidence Dwain Deets brings to the table.

I dunno about you, Red, but I'll be stunned if it's anything more than "free-fall, squibs, nanothermite bombs, pyroclastic clouds, pull-it, OMG inside job!!!"

[911kongen]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627



If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

I guess he and MacKey is not best friends! :D

[WildCat]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627



If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.
Can you direct me to his peer-reviewed paper detailing his incredible conclusions? Or a paper of any sort?

[DavidJames]

Of course. Just because someone is a NASA scientist does not mean his word should be taken as gospel.Perhaps you could show us this guys research papers? You know, research, annotated, footnoted, engineering based, papers.

But you can't can you? All you can do is serve up your usual one line sarcastic, disingenuous, and childish comments.

I continue to feel very sorry for you and yours.

[Scott Sommers]

How come it took Truthers 8 years to find the guy? Did he just develop Alzheimer's? Seriously, where's he been for the last decade?

[WildCat]

I predict that RedIbis will not be able to produce a single paper written by Deets, and will fly away from this thread just like all the others.

[twinstead]

I'll bet you can find more PHDs who believe that Christ once visited the New World than believe 9-11 was an inside job.

[deep]

I predict that RedIbis will not be able to produce a single paper written by Deets, and will fly away from this thread just like all the others.(emphasis mine)

You mean a peer-reviewed paper, right? Isn't that the gold standard?

[16.5]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627



If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

Fallacy of false authority? probably not a "Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper" but maybe a little bit of a whore?

From what I can tell about Mr. Dwain Deets, it seems that he travels around giving an "abridged version" of Gage's repeatedly debunked lies, rather than his own independent work. Makes ya go, hmmm, don't it?.

Hey Red, Gage selling franchise opportunities now? snicker

[triforcharity]

Yes, either way, they haven't produced anything of any kind of significance.

Can you produce anything?? Deep??

[Scott Sommers]

Deats appears to be a legitimate NASA scientist
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html
Interestingly, he claims to be interested in 'skeptics'. He has written book reviews on Amazon for books about Mormonism and the oil crises. http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2RB173QIIOM0L/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pdp
Apparently he was editor-in-chief of Secular Nation magazine

Here's an interview with him, but I haven't been able to listen to the whole thing, yet.
http://sdmegacoalition.blogspot.com/2009/09/progress-in-san-diego-interview-with.html

But in answer to my question above, he does seem to drop out of sky into the Truther world.

Despite his high-powered credentials, he doesn't appear to be adding new info to the Truther argument. It's possible all he can do for them is add one more name to their patetically slim roster.

Red Ibis, what do you think this means if all he does is reproduce the arguments that have satisfied no one here and been unable to attract any members in significant number to the 911 Truth movment?

[johnny karate]

If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

I don't know if if any of the above are true about this guy, but considering this:
Dwain Deets, will speak on behalf of more than 900 architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11
he's clearly deranged.

Unless of course NASA has some kind of secret training program that explains how three skyscrapers can be brought down with explosives in front of thousands of people without anyone seeming to notice.

[CHF]

(emphasis mine)

You mean a peer-reviewed paper, right? Isn't that the gold standard?

Peer-review is a crucial step in accademic publication, yes (which is why truthers are so terrified of it).

But for now I just want to know what this NASA guy has to say, so feel free to show us any ol' paper he has written.

Heck, a slide show will do, or a few quotes.

Let's get an idea as to which tenets of truther gospal he subscribes to.

Pull it? Free fall? Silent nanothermite bombs? Pyroclastic clouds?

Do tell.

[Edx]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627



If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

I recall the old saying.... I dont care what you believe I only care WHY you believe it.

[T.A.M.]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627



If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

nice indirect argument from authority.

Anywho, given I can see this ending up being about Mackey at some point, let me just say, that while the fact that he is a NASA engineer means he has the training to understand many of the complexities involved in some areas of 9/11, it does not make him right, or even close, SIMPLY based on what he does for a living.

So what has this guy said, and more importantly, what science has he used, and displayed for people, to back it up?

By the way, I consider S. Jones a ****** scientist not because he believes Jesus visited the North America, but because the man took several attempts simply to put his work into a form that a highschool student would consider acceptable. This is inexcusable.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

(emphasis mine)

You mean a peer-reviewed paper, right? Isn't that the gold standard?
It's the gold standard, but for this guy I'd accept anything written by him. At this point we have no idea what his claims are, other than being a member of Gage's little wankfest.

[Edx]

Wow I'm just listening to his interview (http://sdmegacoalition.blogspot.com/2009/09/progress-in-san-diego-interview-with.html) and I'm amazed if he is a legitimate scientist.

He is just trotting out all the same bullcrap we have seen before, what promoted me to write this post is he even says that the 911 Commission didnt even write one sentence on WTC7. Obviously a David Ray Griffin claim*.

*(for the slim chance people dont know) It was false, ie. They did mention Building 7 but they didnt investigate it since it wasnt a terrorist target and FEMA had already addressed it 7 months earlier in their building performance study.


I'd love to see him come here and debate Mackey or something, heck even I could debate someone like him.

[TexasJack]

Gee, if your going to using appeal to authority and indirectly mind you , here you go, David Scott, chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, says: I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=697314&page=2

So I see your one NASA scientist and raise you 220,000.

[CHF]

Wow I'm just listening to his interview (http://sdmegacoalition.blogspot.com/2009/09/progress-in-san-diego-interview-with.html) and I'm amazed if he is a legitimate scientist.

He is just trotting out all the same bullcrap we have seen before, what promoted me to write this post is he even says that the 911 Commission didnt even write one sentence on WTC7.

Wow, so he's every bit the heavy hitter we all feared he was. :rolleyes:

This scientist brings nothing to the table except the same mindless crapola spouted by teenage boys at truther "street actions."

An amazing find as always, Red.

[Edx]

He even says that normal everyday thermite is an explosive or an incendiary. He is just talking about the usual kind here, not even nano thermite. Since when has thermite been an explosive?

Just what is this guy supposed to be qualified in?

[16.5]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627



If you have info that he is a Holocaust denier, wife beater, or lizard worhipper, please post it here so this guy can be debunked once and for all.

"Deets presented an abridged version of Richard Gage's "9/11 Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction." The video demonstrates side-by-side examples of controlled demolitions of skyscrapers versus actual video footage of the collapse of the World Trade Centers."

Well, again probably not a holocaust denier or wife beater, but he does seem to be deaf, huh, Red?

You know, how Gage's big failure (well one of them anyway) is how he relies upon Hush-A-Boom brand explosions? And how Gage's Blueprint for truth is such a huge *********** lie because it intentionally omits the AUDIO.

I'll let the other JREF'ers make the reasonable and sane responses, I just got to go with my gut: the guy is whore selling out his credentials to frauds.

BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!

[A W Smith]

So is thats it dirty bird? your "Nyah nyah nyah" for the day consists of an argument from false authority from a guy who brought forth no calculations, nor papers, but just mouths the same debunked gage talking points?

[CHF]

He even says that normal everyday thermite is an explosive or an incendiary. He is just talking about the usual kind here, not even nano thermite.

Amazing. He's an AE911 moron and several years behind the latest truther talking points to boot.

I haven't been this unimpressed by a "truth" revelation since Charlie Sheen scored those 20 minutes with Obama.

[DavidJames]

It will be interesting to read more about this guy's reasons for his beliefs. But so far it looks like he's just regurgitating the standard 9/11 CT nonsense.

One thing Red is either unwilling or incapable of understanding is a litter box of steaming **** is still a a litter box of steaming ****, regardless of how many people or what credentials they have, say it's a neat stack of gold coins.

[Comrade Raptor]

Astronaut.
Diaper.
Revenge Road Trip.


Not everybody working for NASA has a full deck of cards.

[Scott Sommers]

I've just listened to his interview here
http://sdmegacoalition.blogspot.com/2009/09/progress-in-san-diego-interview-with.html
He has nothing new to say. It's the same old Richard Gage stuff we've heard all the time. In fact, he's a thermite-guy. Around 18:33, he blathers on about nano-thermite and Jones' research.
"And that shows by science and an internationally peer-reviewed study team and publication that this very advanced nano-thermite...was present in very large quantities throughtout those two towers....it can be sprayed on...so there's some possibility it was sprayed on"

I have to ask you Truth fellows here, why would this be significant to you if his critique adds nothing to the argument that has failed miserably so far? He doesn't come across as very bright. I wonder if he's open for a debate. He may really believe he's saying something new.

[WildCat]

Astronaut.
Diaper.
Revenge Road Trip.


Not everybody working for NASA has a full deck of cards.
Former Apollo astronaut Jim Irwin made 6 trips to Turkey looking for Noah's Ark. I suppose that's enough proof for RedIbis that Noah's Ark is somewhere in Turkey.

[MikeW]

It's the same old Richard Gage stuff we've heard all the time. In fact, he's a thermite-guy.
I wonder if he knows that Kevin Ryan sees possible links between NASA's use of thermite and the WTC "demolitions"?

[Lupie]

Of course. Just because someone is a NASA scientist does not mean his word should be taken as gospel.

Who has ever said that because a person works for NASA, they automatically should have their word taken as gospel? Other than you, that is.

Oh, I get it, you don't like Ryan Mackey, and you are calling him a liar. So, that must mean that those of us who respect his technical knowledge are fools, right? Wow, you sure are the clever one. Ouch.

You see Red, unlike you, the majority of people here choose to judge people on their indvidual merits, sincerity, and honesty. We don't like to paint everyone with a wide, generalized brush. You do realize that pre-judging a person based on broad generalizations and no actual personal knowledge, is why they invented the word "prejudice", right? I'm just asking questions.

L.

[johnny karate]

On a related note, I see this guy has been giving lectures on college campuses. My question is: Why? Is the Truth Movement in danger of running out of angry 19 year-olds? It seems to me a legitimate scientist giving legitimate scientific lectures would do so within the legitimate scientific community.

So we can we expect to see this guy at an ASCE symposium?

[rwguinn]

nice indirect argument from authority.

Anywho, given I can see this ending up being about Mackey at some point, let me just say, that while the fact that he is a NASA engineer means he has the training to understand many of the complexities involved in some areas of 9/11, it does not make him right, or even close, SIMPLY based on what he does for a living.

So what has this guy said, and more importantly, what science has he used, and displayed for people, to back it up?

By the way, I consider S. Jones a ****** scientist not because he believes Jesus visited the North America, but because the man took several attempts simply to put his work into a form that a highschool student would consider acceptable. This is inexcusable.

TAM:)
What the jaq-asses don't seem to get is that is not WHO says it, but what and HOW he says it that counts.
Simply stating "I am a NASA scientist, and this is the way it is" is a world different from "The following calculations and scenarios are based on these assumptions..." and actually showing the math and science behind the statement.
The first is an argument from authority. The second IS the authority.

[CHF]

It seems to me a legitimate scientist giving legitimate scientific lectures would do so within the legitimate scientific community.

I'm sure its on the truthers' to-do list, right next to "get peer-reviewed in a credible journal."

[Pardalis]

He supports Richard Gage. There, debunked.

[W.D.Clinger]

Can you direct me to his peer-reviewed paper detailing his incredible conclusions? Or a paper of any sort?

A search at Google Scholar for "D Deets" shows he is for real. He published about eight technical reports between 1974 and 1986. None appear to have been peer-reviewed. Most have to do with aircraft control systems. At least two involve remotely piloted aircraft.

Will

[dudalb]

Engineers can go over the political edge and sacrifice their good sense to the Great God Ideology as much as anybody else.

[JAStewart]

And no response from RedIbis.

Next!

[RedIbis]

He is just trotting out all the same bullcrap we have seen before, what promoted me to write this post is he even says that the 911 Commission didnt even write one sentence on WTC7. Obviously a David Ray Griffin claim*.



Quote this sentence.

[16.5]

Quote this sentence.

Uh Chapter 9 references WTC7 at least a dozen times, is critical of the placement of the OEC there, and includes two diagrams specifically showing and indentifying the building.

Hey Red, this farking thread is really turning into a disaster for you, huh?

[Furcifer]

Is it just me or are these guys always retired?

[TruthersLie]

Wow red... It is absolutely amazing.

Here is why your retired nasa guy is full of crap... he doesn't provide any facts, figures or engineering. There are no load paths, no outlines or force diagrams. Zip.

Nice appeal to authority.

The difference between Ryan Mackey (and the other engineers who post here and demolish you twoofs) is that they DO provide the math.

ZsDn6es7mtk

Now what do you see in MOST of this? Oh there are claims, facts and figures. It is explained in simple terms that most folks can understand.

Are you saying Ryan is wrong on ANY of this? Is your retired twoof saying anything is wrong on this?

You see, if it wasn't the twoof movement, maybe this retired nasa engineer would get some slack... but since your movement LIES out of their ASSES constantly, makes up ****, and has shown that they have NO ethics you all don't get any slack.

I"m sorry but he doesn't get ANY credibility until he can PROVE IT. Since he is just repeating DEBUNKED crap from R. Gage it really isn't even worth the time to try to nail him for being anything...

[WildCat]

A search at Google Scholar for "D Deets" shows he is for real. He published about eight technical reports between 1974 and 1986. None appear to have been peer-reviewed. Most have to do with aircraft control systems. At least two involve remotely piloted aircraft.

Will
Do any of his papers detail the reasons for his conclusion of OMGWTFINSIDEJOB!1!!!!!1!!!1!!!

[RedIbis]

Wow I'm just listening to his interview (http://sdmegacoalition.blogspot.com/2009/09/progress-in-san-diego-interview-with.html) and I'm amazed if he is a legitimate scientist.

He is just trotting out all the same bullcrap we have seen before, what promoted me to write this post is he even says that the 911 Commission didnt even write one sentence on WTC7. Obviously a David Ray Griffin claim*.

*(for the slim chance people dont know) It was false, ie. They did mention Building 7 but they didnt investigate it since it wasnt a terrorist target and FEMA had already addressed it 7 months earlier in their building performance study.


I'd love to see him come here and debate Mackey or something, heck even I could debate someone like him.

DRG's claim is that the collapse of WTC 7 was not mentioned in the Commission Report. Deets was incorrect when he said that the bldg wasn't mentioned at all. I'd bet he simply meant that the collapse of the bldg was not covered in The Report.

[RedIbis]

Uh Chapter 9 references WTC7 at least a dozen times, is critical of the placement of the OEC there, and includes two diagrams specifically showing and indentifying the building.

Hey Red, this farking thread is really turning into a disaster for you, huh?

How so? The guy's an obvious loon and a Twoofie, right?

[CHF]

DRG's claim is that the collapse of WTC 7 was not mentioned in the Commission Report. Deets was incorrect when he said that the bldg wasn't mentioned at all. I'd bet he simply meant that the collapse of the bldg was not covered in The Report.

WTC7's collapse wasn't covered in the report because the report focussed on the buildings that were attacked. WTC7 was not directly attacked, thus was not covered.

Which, again, proves my point: Deets is simply parroting ancient TM talking points.

Lots of hype ("Ooooo....NASA!!!"), but no substance.

[johnny karate]

DRG's claim is that the collapse of WTC 7 was not mentioned in the Commission Report. Deets was incorrect when he said that the bldg wasn't mentioned at all. I'd bet he simply meant that the collapse of the bldg was not covered in The Report.

I'm probably about the millionth person to say this, but the 9/11 Commission was tasked with investigating the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (the formal title of their report being "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States") and therefore the collapse of a building not attacked by terrorists wouldn't be covered.

The fact that the guy you're championing in this thread is still trotting out this lame chestnut anyone with a reading comprehension above a third grade level can easily debunk only further demonstrates he is a delusional moron.

ETA: Looks like CHF makes me the millionth and first person to make this point.

[CHF]

How so? The guy's an obvious loon and a Twoofie, right?

Sure looks that way, Red.

What other bombshells does your NASA man have in store for us?

"Pull it?" "Faster than free fall?"

Or maybe he'll really stun the world with the "cruise missile with wings" quote-mine. Haven't seen that one in a while.

[16.5]

How so? The guy's an obvious loon and a Twoofie, right?

Well Red, you trot out this guy as some kind of a hero of the truth movement and in a few hours, we awere able to determine that he is simply parroting lies of idiots.

Further, you know as well as anyone that DRG's statement that while there is no explicit mention of the "collapse" of the WTC7 IN the report might be technically correct, it is grossly misleading because there was testimony in the record before the Commission that it the WTC 7 had collapsed.

In any event, your new hero lied to people who don't know better.

So FAIL.

[TruthersLie]

DRG's claim is that the collapse of WTC 7 was not mentioned in the Commission Report. Deets was incorrect when he said that the bldg wasn't mentioned at all. I'd bet he simply meant that the collapse of the bldg was not covered in The Report.

So a nasa engineer can't do 5 minutes of research to have his facts straight? Really?

Or he can't do 10 minutes of research to find out WHY it wasn't covered in depth in the report, and just spews others peoples lies?

and you want to believe him? Really red?

[johnny karate]

How so? The guy's an obvious loon and a Twoofie, right?

Yes, he is.

So if there's some kind of point you want to make, now would be the time to do it.

[T.A.M.]

How so? The guy's an obvious loon and a Twoofie, right?

If believes the nonsense that Griffin and Gage produce, I would have to say...yes, or if not a loon and a twoofie, then extremely gullible, or so blinded by hate for the USG or the Bush admin, that he has failed to let rationality and science lead him.

TAM:)

[W.D.Clinger]

Do any of his papers detail the reasons for his conclusion of OMGWTFINSIDEJOB!1!!!!!1!!!1!!!

I'll go out on a limb by guessing not, since he hasn't published anything since 1986.

Will

[Edx]

DRG's claim is that the collapse of WTC 7 was not mentioned in the Commission Report. Deets was incorrect when he said that the bldg wasn't mentioned at all.

I'd bet he simply meant that the collapse of the bldg was not covered in The Report.

I doubt it since everything he says is just well worn truther statements which is why he repeated the exact claim by David Ray Griffin which is that the 911 Commission Report didnt even mention Building 7.

[WildCat]

Ever wonder why all these truther experts never show up here, and leave people like atavisms and RedIbis who can't argue anything to convince all of us sheeple?

[Retrograde]

I used to work for NASA. Technically, I suppose I was an engineer, albeit a software one. There was even a bit of my code on the first space shuttle - that and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee these days (it's probably all been rewritten by now). The only thing I know about buildings and structures is that I once helped build a garage that is still standing. My NASA experience does not automatically qualify me to speak as an expert about architecture, avionics, properties of metals under stress, psychology of terrorists or anything else related to 9/11 except possibly the ability of federal agencies to get themselves mired in bureaucracy.

Tens of thousands of people have worked for NASA in all capacities, and :engineer" covers a wide range. If this person has something new to add, and can back up what he says, more power to him. Otherwise, it's like putting a fresh coat of varnish on the manure pile.

[Edx]

Ever wonder why all these truther experts never show up here, and leave people like atavisms and RedIbis who can't argue anything to convince all of us sheeple?

Now now, we have Heiwa.

:p

[Seymour Butz]

Is it just me or are these guys always retired?

Or anonymous.

Or making false statements in an area outside their area of expertise.

There's a reason for that.

[Wolrab]

I'll bet Mackie is cuter, and the halo effect means he's right. That and all the math stuff.

[Hokulele]

Sure looks that way, Red.

What other bombshells does your NASA man have in store for us?

"Pull it?" "Faster than free fall?"

Or maybe he'll really stun the world with the "cruise missile with wings" quote-mine. Haven't seen that one in a while.


I vote for "pyroclastic".

[AJM8125]

weapon pods.

[WildCat]

"Pinocchio's nose"

[RedIbis]

I doubt it since everything he says is just well worn truther statements which is why he repeated the exact claim by David Ray Griffin which is that the 911 Commission Report didnt even mention Building 7.

Wrong. On pg. 32 of his book, Omissions and Distortions Griffin clearly criticizes The Commission for "its failure to even mention the collapse of Building 7".

My italics.

[RedIbis]

If believes the nonsense that Griffin and Gage produce, I would have to say...yes, or if not a loon and a twoofie, then extremely gullible, or so blinded by hate for the USG or the Bush admin, that he has failed to let rationality and science lead him.

TAM:)

Right, because it couldn't possibly be skepticism.

[16.5]

Wrong. On pg. 32 of his book, Omissions and Distortions Griffin clearly criticizes The Commission for "its failure to even mention the collapse of Building 7".

My italics.

Kinda funny that DRG was honest enough to name his book omissions and distortions, when he must have known that the record before the Commission showed quite clearly that the building had collapsed.

Anyway, however, this thread is about how your newest bestest hero lied, not DRG.

[WildCat]

Wrong. On pg. 32 of his book, Omissions and Distortions Griffin clearly criticizes The Commission for "its failure to even mention the collapse of Building 7".

My italics.
On what page of what paper does your newest hero Deets support any of his claims for OMGINSIDEJOBBYJOB!!1!1?

[jhunter1163]

Being an engineer doesn't mean you can't go nuts. Look at Morgan Reynolds. He was a farking Cabinet member, and he went totally off the deep end. I suspect that this guy might fall into the same category. He's certainly not applying any critical thinking to what he's spouting.

[RedIbis]

Being an engineer doesn't mean you can't go nuts. Look at Morgan Reynolds. He was a farking Cabinet member, and he went totally off the deep end. I suspect that this guy might fall into the same category. He's certainly not applying any critical thinking to what he's spouting.

True. This guy Deets is a complete idiot with no relevant experience:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html

[johnny karate]

Right, because it couldn't possibly be skepticism.

Exactly correct. Because intelligent skepticism is based in rational thought, and not the rank stupidity of asking why a report about a terrorist attack failed to mention a building not attacked by terrorists, or promoting the notion that three skyscrapers were blown up in Lower Manhattan without anyone noticing.

[CHF]

Wrong. On pg. 32 of his book, Omissions and Distortions Griffin clearly criticizes The Commission for "its failure to even mention the collapse of Building 7".

And Griffin knows full well why it wasn't mentioned. As do you.

So why does your NASA hero make it sound as if it's somehow sinister?

[16.5]

True. This guy Deets is a complete idiot with no relevant experience:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html

and now Red shows us how his newest and bestest hero puts all that relevant experience to the test:

Oh wait, he is whoring out Gage's lies like a crack addled streetwalker.

Nice! Thanks for drawing our attention to him Red!

[WildCat]

True. This guy Deets is a complete idiot with no relevant experience:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html
Can you refer us to his paper detailing his findings about 9/11?

[johnny karate]

True. This guy Deets is a complete idiot with no relevant experience.

You seem to be conflating his idiocy with his professional experience. He could possibly have the requisite experience, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a moron.

[jhunter1163]

Red, you can't possibly be that thick, can you? Morgan Reynolds was a Cabinet member for Bush, and now he's a full-on Truther. Why isn't he your movement's shining light? As we both know, it's because he's bat**** crazy.

I'm not saying Deets is crazy, but he sure as hell isn't thinking critically and it wouldn't surprise me if he was an 80-year-old guy who's a half-bubble off plumb, but still has his NASA credentials.

ETA: Think Charles Pegelow.

[carlitos]

Deats appears to be a legitimate NASA s
Here's an interview with him, but I haven't been able to listen to the whole thing, yet.
http://sdmegacoalition.blogspot.com/2009/09/progress-in-san-diego-interview-with.html

@18:30, He says thermite is a "standard high explosives" (sic) OR an incendiary, "depending on how it's used."

Then into the typical nanothermite is an "explosive" that is very versatile, can be sprayed on, etc.

He didn't have any independent research at all, just parroted Gage / Jones et al.

[R.Mackey]

My name has been mentioned six times in this thread... why?

Dwain Deets has been mentioned here, well over a year ago (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3496044#post3496044). I haven't seen anything from him that's any different than the same Truther garbage we've debunked a hundred times. Nobody's brought anything new. So, why bother?

[ImANiceGuy]

You're so, you're so vain...

You probably think this thread is about you, don't you, don't you...

[Furcifer]

My name has been mentioned six times in this thread... why?


Bro, playing coy is not you strong suit. It's pretty obvious what Red's motivation was. He's trying to paint you with the same crazy brush as this guy and discredit your work.

It's kinda funny because anyone that knows anything about science knows being crazy has very little to do with credibility. You can be as crazy as you want as long as your work holds up under scientific scrutiny.

In the mean time, we're waiting for the Deats white paper.

[R.Mackey]

Bro, playing coy is not you strong suit. It's pretty obvious what Red's motivation was. He's trying to paint you with the same crazy brush as this guy and discredit your work.

Maybe, maybe not. If that's what he's doing, he can say so for himself.

In the meantime, this thread appears to be about nothing at all. I'll be going now.

[dropzone]

His work with NASA was with unmanned drones, yet he is talking about controlled demolitions. Is this an attempt at misdirection from what REALLY hit the towers? :rolleyes:

OTOH, the guy is 70 and it's not too early for age to start showing its effects. :(

[RedIbis]

Here's a Deets OP-ED earlier this year with some comments by Mark Roberts. This one's a doozy, and sure does bring back memories.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?a=84586&show=votes

[stateofgrace]

How so? The guy's an obvious loon and a Twoofie, right?

It would appear so. Your point?

Should I respect his opinion because of the position he held or the evidence he provides to support his opinion ?

[Furcifer]

Red was your purpose of starting this thread to tout the NASA Truth member who will be lambasting us with fresh new scientific analysis or was it merely an attempt to point they've got a whacko so maybe Ryan is one too?
I suspect the latter because you are aware he's been around for a bit but hasn't produced squat in regards to data. If this is your go to guy I'd consider moving him to the fourth line. He's simply not producing.

[johnny karate]

Here's a Deets OP-ED earlier this year with some comments by Mark Roberts. This one's a doozy, and sure does bring back memories.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?a=84586&show=votes

Yeah, he really set the world on fire with that one.

[Edx]

Wrong. On pg. 32 of his book, Omissions and Distortions Griffin clearly criticizes The Commission for "its failure to even mention the collapse of Building 7".

My italics.

He may have written that in his book but he clearly has said that the 911 Commission admitted it couldnt explain WTC7 by not even mentioning it. NOT EVEN MENTIONING IT.

The clip of him saying it is featured in Zeitgeist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvF_KOrRUyE

What can we take away from what he said? That they had such a hard time explaining the collapse that they DIDNT EVEN MENTION Building 7.

Others have also claimed that WTC7 wasnt mentioned by the 911 Commission report, why? Because David Ray Griffin lied about it. Thats why Deets says the same thing, because he hasnt read the report and is just repeating nonsence by Griffin. I bet he believes there are no hijackers on the flight manifests as well, or maybe he also believes the hijackers are still alive.

[T.A.M.]

Right, because it couldn't possibly be skepticism.

skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is denial.


TAM:)

[Edx]

Here's a Deets OP-ED earlier this year with some comments by Mark Roberts. This one's a doozy, and sure does bring back memories.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?a=84586&show=votes

Tony Szamboti still thinks WTC7 collapsed close to 7 seconds.

LOL

[T.A.M.]

Red was your purpose of starting this thread to tout the NASA Truth member who will be lambasting us with fresh new scientific analysis or was it merely an attempt to point they've got a whacko so maybe Ryan is one too?
I suspect the latter because you are aware he's been around for a bit but hasn't produced squat in regards to data. If this is your go to guy I'd consider moving him to the fourth line. He's simply not producing.

No I'll tell you what I think is going on.

Red knows that many of us respect Ryan, and his work/input on the 9/11 attacks and the CTs. He also knows that Ryan is a NASA engineer, and that it has been mentioned many times.

What I think Red is trying to do, which I find pretty crappy (and hope I am wrong about), is he is trying to say "Mackey is NASA engineer. Mackey say CTs wrong. Deets is NASA engineer, Deets say CTs right. Therefore we can cancel out Mackey. Game = 15-15"

However, unlike Deets, Mackey has provided his OWN thoughts, his own papers, his own science and calculations on the matter...Deets is nothing more, from what I have seen, an aged parrot for Gage and Griffin, with papers that say at some point the man used his noggin.

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

No I'll tell you what I think is going on.

Red knows that many of us respect Ryan, and his work/input on the 9/11 attacks and the CTs. He also knows that Ryan is a NASA engineer, and that it has been mentioned many times.

What I think Red is trying to do, which I find pretty crappy (and hope I am wrong about), is he is trying to say "Mackey is NASA engineer. Mackey say CTs wrong. Deets is NASA engineer, Deets say CTs right. Therefore we can cancel out Mackey. Game = 15-15"

However, unlike Deets, Mackey has provided his OWN thoughts, his own papers, his own science and calculations on the matter...Deets is nothing more, from what I have seen, an aged parrot for Gage and Griffin, with papers that say at some point the man used his noggin.

TAM:)

100% correct. All this thread is about is truthers, just like Red, putting forward a name and going " LALALALA look at us, we have a NASA scientist also".

Red, nobody gives a crap about your NASA scientist unless he can back up his opinions with facts and evidence. When you are ready present his ground breaking facts.

[beachnut]

Dwain Deets?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627

It appears working on the AFTI (I worked in AFWAL where many engineers also worked on AFTI and I have to say understanding the work we did at AFWAL would be a good start to avoid believing moronic delusions about 911) did not give poor Dwain Deets the mental capacity to avoid idiotic ideas on 911.

So Deets being associated with the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft did not save him from being a complete dolt on 911. What do you know? Another failed idiot on 911 issues whose past work did not save him from being an idiot on 911.

The 911 truth camp remains at the 0.001 percent level with engineers who are can't figure out 911. So far 911 truth has failed to break the nut case paranoid delusion stereotype by having actual evidence. Just some conspiracy theorists mentally challenged on 911.

If Deets ideas were based on reality he would be due a Pulitzer Prize if he could produce the paper to prove his delusion of explosives. When will Deets come to a realistic understanding of 911? Who knows. When will Deets earn a Pulitzer Prize for exposing explosives used to bring down WTC7? Never.

When will Red bring out the next dolt on 911 issues? soon...

[RedIbis]

It appears working on the AFTI (I worked in AFWAL where many engineers also worked on AFTI and I have to say understanding the work we did at AFWAL would be a good start to avoid believing moronic delusions about 911) did not give poor Dwain Deets the mental capacity to avoid idiotic ideas on 911.

So Deets being associated with the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft did not save him from being a complete dolt on 911. What do you know? Another failed idiot on 911 issues whose past work did not save him from being an idiot on 911.

The 911 truth camp remains at the 0.001 percent level with engineers who are can't figure out 911. So far 911 truth has failed to break the nut case paranoid delusion stereotype by having actual evidence. Just some conspiracy theorists mentally challenged on 911.

For someone who loves to hurl insults, I'd expect you to know the difference between an emergency phone number and a date.

[Furcifer]

No I'll tell you what I think is going on.

Red knows that many of us respect Ryan, and his work/input on the 9/11 attacks and the CTs. He also knows that Ryan is a NASA engineer, and that it has been mentioned many times.

What I think Red is trying to do, which I find pretty crappy (and hope I am wrong about), is he is trying to say "Mackey is NASA engineer. Mackey say CTs wrong. Deets is NASA engineer, Deets say CTs right. Therefore we can cancel out Mackey. Game = 15-15"

However, unlike Deets, Mackey has provided his OWN thoughts, his own papers, his own science and calculations on the matter...Deets is nothing more, from what I have seen, an aged parrot for Gage and Griffin, with papers that say at some point the man used his noggin.

TAM:)

Meh, yur giving him too much credit. I think Red is just as disappointed at this mans lack of representation, so it's now and only now he's dug him out of the closet. He's been sitting on this bomb for a while, now that he knows he's a dud he's trying to light that very short fuse and run off to hide behind a picnic table.

Anyways Red forgets no one really respects Ryan for his scientific prowess. What we respect him for is his ability to link almost anything said on this forum in the last 3 years. He's like rain man when it comes embedded links and recalling topics. :D

[beachnut]

Deets waves his hands and concludes explosives. No paper, no work showing why, he just says so. What an expert to spew lies and delusions with just his own word. What in Deets past work gives him the ability to expose explosives without showing his work? He never mentioned the penthouse falling into WTC7 many seconds before the rest of WTC7 facade collapsed. When he presents his paper and does the calculations, earns a PhD in structural engineering with emphases on high-rise buildings he will stop being an idiot on WTC7 collapse and join reality.

Red bring us another failure on WTC7 issues who can't be published in a real journal for two major reasons. His ideas are fruit-loops (tasty ideas for paranoid conspiracy theorist stuck with delusions), and he only has talk and failed opinions to back up his moronic statement. No work to publish yet. Sad.

[stateofgrace]

Red, you are still online and are apparently ignoring my posts but would you mind answering a very simple question?

Why is his opinion so important?

[rwguinn]

I am trying to remember the guy. If he worked DFBW and was at NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB back in the 70's I know him.
True, I was only a lowly co-op, but I'm sure I met him if he was there...

[Brainster]

I had forgotten that he's also an Obama "Birther" (http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=11136) (see the comments section).

[Hokulele]

Clearly this guy, Dwain Deets is just a glorified keyboard jockey who has no background and knowledge in relevant fields. Would it also be fair to say that he was among the founders of the unmanned flight program?


Please list the argument that he has made that you find most compelling.

[rwguinn]

I am trying to remember the guy. If he worked DFBW and was at NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB back in the 70's I know him.
True, I was only a lowly co-op, but I'm sure I met him if he was there...
Looked up some of the papers. Appears he was into the simulation end of things--developing software and electronics for digital control, which is why I can't seem to place him, although the name is familiar.
That's just a first impression.
Looking at the TN and TR's from that era, I recognize a pretty large number of names--but I was in Flight Test Operations (and for a brief while, the propulsion group) while I was there.

[W.D.Clinger]

Anyways Red forgets no one really respects Ryan for his scientific prowess. What we respect him for is his ability to link almost anything said on this forum in the last 3 years. He's like rain man when it comes embedded links and recalling topics. :D

The smiley may mean that was partly tongue-in-cheek.

Speaking as someone who hasn't been here very long, let me explain why I respect Ryan Mackey.

I respect people who talk sense and make valid arguments in matters I can check independently. I distrust people who don't talk sense or don't make valid arguments in matters I can check independently.

The first Truther I encountered was an acolyte of Rob Balsamo, and Rob himself was the second Truther I encountered. It didn't take Rob long to make several technical claims I knew to be complete rubbish. After countering Rob's "arguments", I discovered via Google that Ryan Mackey had taken Rob to task for those things long before I had.

And that's how I found out about JREF. In matters I am competent to judge, Mackey and quite a few others here have been making sense. It therefore seemed like a good place to learn about things I am not competent to judge on my own.

Will

[16.5]

Here's a Deets OP-ED earlier this year with some comments by Mark Roberts. This one's a doozy, and sure does bring back memories.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?a=84586&show=votes

BOOM!

I see your hero, in addition to carrying water as Gage's lackey, is also a proponent of Hush-A-Boom technology.

Hey Red, why don't you ask your hero to come here and enlighten us?

BOOM! Giggle.

[Furcifer]

The smiley may mean that was partly tongue-in-cheek.

Speaking as someone who hasn't been here very long, let me explain why I respect Ryan Mackey.

I respect people who talk sense and make valid arguments in matters I can check independently. I distrust people who don't talk sense or don't make valid arguments in matters I can check independently.

The first Truther I encountered was an acolyte of Rob Balsamo, and Rob himself was the second Truther I encountered. It didn't take Rob long to make several technical claims I knew to be complete rubbish. After countering Rob's "arguments", I discovered via Google that Ryan Mackey had taken Rob to task for those things long before I had.

And that's how I found out about JREF. In matters I am competent to judge, Mackey and quite a few others here have been making sense. It therefore seemed like a good place to learn about things I am not competent to judge on my own.

Will

Yep. This forum is a great sounding board. It hardly matters what credentials anyone is touting, so much as the content they present. But where you're a sad ass movement in your death throws...

[CHF]

Here's a Deets OP-ED earlier this year with some comments by Mark Roberts. This one's a doozy, and sure does bring back memories.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?a=84586&show=votes

Red, I'm still waiting for you to show us what Deets brings to the table.

He's a NASA scientist, right? So show us where he applies his knowledge to 9/11. Show us what's done.

I assume you were hoping Deets was your answer to Ryan Mackey...

But all I've seen from Deets so far is what any truther could do. Heck, I could parrot Richard Gage or DR Griffin if I wanted to; it takes no skill whatsoever.

So show me what makes Deets unique. Show me what he has produced.

[T.A.M.]

I had forgotten that he's also an Obama "Birther" (http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=11136) (see the comments section).

:jaw-dropp

TAM:)

[AJM8125]

You guys are being overly critical. The guy sounds like he's playing with a full deck to me:

"How do you absorb information when it is so contrary to what everyone else is saying is happening?" Deets asked the 35 to 40 attendees.

"My years in doing flight research, engineering, budget planning- all the kind things for NASA-I never, ever came across a problem, if you wanna call it a problem, like the World Trade Center destructions on 9/11/01," he said.


I never came across a problem like 9/11 throughout my career either! This cat may be on to something here!

Oh and this little gem at the end. Not Deets but priceless nonetheless:

Meeting times and places are "to be determined" by Fahrney. At the onset of club rush week, which ended Sept. 11, there were no confirmed members of the new club, aside from Fahrney. A roster of about 25 interested students rounded off the tally of potential club members.

Forgive me Hokulele, but this is what he was born to do:

:dl:


http://media.www.sdcitytimes.com/media/storage/paper1083/news/2009/09/22/News/Controversial.New.Club.On.Campus.Seeks.911.Truth-3775626.shtml

[Bobert]

Wow haven't been here in awhile and I see I haven't missed much.

[apathoid]

Appeal to authority fallacy for the win! Sheesh, Red. I would have thought you'd have known better. :nope:

[Orphia Nay]

How come it took Truthers 8 years to find the guy? Did he just develop Alzheimer's? Seriously, where's he been for the last decade?

Is it just me or are these guys always retired?

My thoughts exactly. "He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html

That would make him, what, in his 70s?

Appeal to authority fallacy for the win! Sheesh, Red. I would have thought you'd have known better. :nope:

This.

[Brainache]

Appeal to authority fallacy for the win! Sheesh, Red. I would have thought you'd have known better. :nope:

Why would anyone think Red would know better? All of his arguments demonstrate one fallacy or another.

Appeal to authority is just the tip of the Goldberg.

[funk de fino]

If this is anything like how Red plays poker, I would love to take him on.

He's just gone all in, with a 9 high, against an opponent with the nuts.

[Dave Rogers]

True. This guy Deets is a complete idiot with no relevant experience:

Interestingly enough, his relevant experience appears to be in aerodynamics, rather than structural engineering. And yet, his comments on 9/11 seem to be centred on structural engineering, rather than aerodynamics. So, although he has relevant experience, he's carefully avoided applying it.

The truth movement has made this one contribution to humanity: it's given us so many new and creative forms of the invalid appeal to authority that they're much easier to recognise now.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Can someone please explain what this Deets person has actually claimed? Because I see 3 pages of talking about his education and credentials, and zero pages on what he actually said. Can anyone outline the specifics of his claims?

And if he hasn't made any claims, why the :rule10 are we talking about him? I could care less who "signs a petition" or "joins a group". That means nothing.

[WildCat]

Appeal to authority fallacy for the win! Sheesh, Red. I would have thought you'd have known better. :nope:
Why? This is pretty much how RedIbis operates, I remember him starting similar threads before.

[T.A.M.]

Can someone please explain what this Deets person has actually claimed? Because I see 3 pages of talking about his education and credentials, and zero pages on what he actually said. Can anyone outline the specifics of his claims?

And if he hasn't made any claims, why the :rule10 are we talking about him? I could care less who "signs a petition" or "joins a group". That means nothing.

apparently he is giving talks where he simply parrots Gage and Griffin. He adds nothing of his own, nothing new.

TAM:)

[Wolrab]

I saw his picture. Mackey is definitely cuter. We win! That and Mackey does have all that stuff out there that hasn't been countered. Unless this guy is going to counter Mackey's white paper. If he is a minion of DRG, it should be right up his (dark and creepy) alley.

[bill smith]

Everything is in NASA from Debunkers to Truthers to Alien believers it seems..Have a look at this..

''24 july 2008

FORMER NASA astronaut and moon-walker Dr Edgar Mitchell - a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission - has stunningly claimed aliens exist.
And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions - but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades...''

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/alternate-theories/75721-apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens.html

[Regnad Kcin]

I vote for "pyroclastic".

weapon pods.

"Pinocchio's nose""Paranormal hat"

[WildCat]

"Paranormal hat"
Now that's old school JREF! Good times.

But do you have evidences?

[R.Mackey]

Ron Wieck called me today and suggested I should talk to, or perhaps debate, Mr. Deets. But I really do not see the point. Particularly given the total lack of work he's produced, and the fact that even the Truthers seem to be poking fun at him in this thread.

Let it die, already.

[LashL]

''24 july 2008

FORMER NASA astronaut and moon-walker Dr Edgar Mitchell - a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission - has stunningly claimed aliens exist.
And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions - but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades...''



Indeed, and he is one of the loons who NYCCAN'T named in their craptacular petition to sit on their laughable vision of a "commission".

[16.5]

Ron Wieck called me today and suggested I should talk to, or perhaps debate, Mr. Deets. But I really do not see the point. Particularly given the total lack of work he's produced, and the fact that even the Truthers seem to be poking fun at him in this thread.

Let it die, already.

Dude, I know what you are talking about. Every god damn time a millionaire body builder who made his original money from working as the highest paid gigolo in America comes out as truther, everybody is always like "Oh, get 16.5 to debate him."

Hey, I am not just a great looking rich guy with a great body and a long.... history, I am a human being.

Plus, my wife Jennifer Connelly gets all pissed off when I am gone for more than a couple of hours.

[JoeyDonuts]

Wait...you guys aren't seriously suggesting a "Skeptical Men" calendar are you?

Starring, in tasteful sepia-toned portraits, some of us mental beefcakes looking thoroughly unconvinced?

You'll have to talk to my agent.

[Hokulele]

!!

[Sam.I.Am]

!!

Only if you pose in one of those coconut bikini tops and a grass skirt first...





even then the answer will be no!

[Hokulele]

Only if you pose in one of those coconut bikini tops and a grass skirt first...


That's from Tahiti, not Hawai'i.


And the answer would still be no.

[JoeyDonuts]

!!

****** I've just gotten her attention.

My perception of reality is informed by videogames, therefore I now need to duck just out of her line of sight and hide inside a cardboard box.

This reaction is more sensible than the arguments put forth by Truthers...especially ones with NASA creds.

[Hokulele]

****** I've just gotten her attention.

My perception of reality is informed by videogames, therefore I now need to duck just out of her line of sight and hide inside a cardboard box.


It's such a shame you picked the wrong cardboard box.

Let me know when the itching starts.

[AJM8125]

Let me know when the itching starts.

If I had a nickel for every time .....

[Sam.I.Am]

I have seen many documentaries about Hawaii (the most recent ones were a series of short films titled "Jon and Kate plus 8" and "Dog the bounty hunter") and I am confident in saying that that particular fashion of dress is common at evening beach party's (colloquially known as a luau). I have also seen a 50+ year old Samoan woman perform the Hawaiian dance called the "Hula" live and in person and because of that I am certain that there is absolutely no way that I ever want to see that again... Some things cannot be unseen. :cartman:

[Hokulele]

*Shun*

[Sam.I.Am]

*Shun*
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/1972/nodarthvader2640823.jpg

[JoeyDonuts]

It's such a shame you picked the wrong cardboard box.

N'GAHHH! They're EVERYWHERE!

What the hell kind of company has a "Lice Receivable" department, anyway?!?

[pgimeno]

Wrong. On pg. 32 of his book, Omissions and Distortions Griffin clearly criticizes The Commission for "its failure to even mention the collapse of Building 7".

My italics.

DRG does indeed say that, but someone in the TM got it wrong and believed it failed to mention WTC7. Since then, lots of people get it the wrong way, which gives a wonderful chance to see how uninformed they are, just blindly believing what others say without checking for themselves or actually reading the report to know what they are criticizing. Even Gage got that wrong:

NIST has not yet released a final report on the proposed cause for the collapse of WTC 7, nor did the Commission mention that building in its Final Report.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/7
(ETA: btw, that's signed by 911research, STJ911 and AE911truth.)

(One just needs to search for 7 WTC in the report to see the mentions to it, because that's how it's mentioned. Online version here, for commodity: http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/US/9-11/911Report.htm.)

This guy is parroting Gage (not even Griffin), so this guy says the same crap everyone who hasn't checked the facts or read the report says.

[16.5]

DRG does indeed say that, but someone in the TM got it wrong and believed it failed to mention WTC7. Since then, lots of people get it the wrong way, which gives a wonderful chance to see how uninformed they are, just blindly believing what others say without checking for themselves or actually reading the report to know what they are criticizing. .

Including RedIbis in this very thread.

[Lenbrazil]

Indeed, and he is one of the loons who NYCCAN'T named in their craptacular petition to sit on their laughable vision of a "commission".

I e-mailed Dr. Mitchell about that and got the following reply:

Dear Len Colby

Dr. Mitchell does not support any group claiming that 9/11 was a US government effort.

Sincerely,

Cathy Beals
Executive Assistant to EDM

[1337m4n]

The guy's an obvious loon and a Twoofie, right?

Yes. Yes, he is.

[Obviousman]

The dead arise once more...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16139

Is it any wonder that morons and necromancers cling to it? Hmmmm

[CaptainHair]

Here's another one that slithered out...

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/faith_in_science/8213/

Anyone heard of this guy? Same old junk. Someone on Facebook brought this to my attention.

Mike

[Disbelief]

Here's a previous thread on him. Of course, he presents nothing new.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156465&highlight=dwain+deets

[DGM]

Been there....... done that.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156465

[Miragememories]

Been there....... done that.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156465
A director no less.

I wonder how the JREF resident rocket scientist feels about the betrayal?

MM

[ElMondoHummus]

Of course, he presents nothing new.

This is worth emphasizing: He simply spouts the same old things - "suspiciously" high temperatures, free fall, thermite, etc. - that have long been disproven. When you can refute someone with links to Debunking911 and 911Myths, you know the guy hasn't put any real effort into his babble.

[ElMondoHummus]

A director no less.

I wonder how the JREF resident rocket scientist feels about the betrayal?

MM

Ryan's already talked about him (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5338806). In addition to the emptiness of Deets' claims, truthers are guilty of inflating his position in NASA. Par for the course for the "truth" movement.

[Oystein]

A director no less.

I wonder how the JREF resident rocket scientist feels about the betrayal?

MM

Sad.
Not about the betrayal. More about the stupidity.

[Oystein]

Ryan's already talked about him (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5338806). In addition to the emptiness of Deets' claims, truthers are guilty of inflating his position in NASA. Par for the course for the "truth" movement.

Careful:
Ryan says
One more time, Dwain Deets is not a NASA Director, never was a NASA Director, and you are spectacularly dense, even for a Truther, if you can't understand this.
...

However:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html

Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai announced recently.

Before this appointment, Deets became Director, Research Engineering Division in March 1994 and served as acting division chief from 1990 to 1994. In that position, he directed the research and engineering aspects of the flight research programs at Dryden.

[Miragememories]

Ryan's already talked about him (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5338806). In addition to the emptiness of Deets' claims, truthers are guilty of inflating his position in NASA. Par for the course for the "truth" movement.
I suspect he did more than shovel popcorn.

Apparently Ryan didn't appreciate having to take over popcorn duties?

MM

[TexasJack]

Careful:
Ryan says


However:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html

He explains that in this post. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5331831#post5331831

[ElMondoHummus]

Careful:
Ryan says


However:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html

Sigh.
Dwain Deets is not a former "NASA Director." That title is reserved for Center Directors and the Chief Administrator. Mr. Deets never approached either. The press release is a lie.
Yes, a lie. Once again, the press release says "NASA Director" etc. Mr. Deets was not a NASA Director. He was not even close. The press release is a lie.

Incidentally, what you posted was not a "resume," it was a "bio" which is short for "biographical sketch." You may wish to file this away for future reference in case you are ever considered for employment.

Mr. Deets was a semi-technical middle manager. According to the bio, he was a Division Chief before being promoted to a position of program management. These are not particularly high positions in the NASA middle-management hierarchy; the only lower position than Division Chief is Branch Chief or the various deputies.

Now, you could say he "directed" a program, but this does not make him a NASA Director, any more than the fact that I am the Chairman of the Barolo Tasting Society in Pasadena, California makes me the Chariman of California. If you can't understand this, then you probably shouldn't be on the Internet without supervision.

Furthermore, as you ignored above, this is utterly beside the point. It doesn't matter what he was or who he was, all that matters is the accuracy and verifiability of what he says. He fails completely in both respects. Yes, he's giving some traveling presentations. Big deal! If he suddenly started claiming that leprechauns lived on the Moon, and gave some traveling presentations to that effect, it would not mean that leprechauns live on the Moon, nor would it mean that it's even remotely possible.

Finally, we've already seen his talk. I'm guessing you haven't. Here it is:

En6gL1W4avA

Mr. Deets is a nitwit. I say that with the full weight of evidence behind me.

He was correcting the truther's "press release" calling Deets a "NASA Director". More properly, he's been Directors for different programs, but not for the organization as a whole. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned credentials inflation on the part of truthers.

[ElMondoHummus]

I suspect he did more than shovel popcorn.

Apparently Ryan didn't appreciate having to take over popcorn duties?

MM

Save your postings for when you have something intelligible to say. Ryan spoke up about Deets, which was what you were wondering about. Question answered.

[Oystein]

Sigh.



He was correcting the truther's "press release" calling Deets a "NASA Director". More properly, he's been Directors for different programs, but not for the organization as a whole. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned credentials inflation on the part of truthers.

I think you guys are splitting hairs here.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html
Titel: "Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director"

The OP links to
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/faith_in_science/8213/
Which correctly writes:
"Deets, a physicist and engineer, was the former director of NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center’s Aerospace project"
Yes, they also use the shorthand "the retired NASA director".
But I think a journalist can be excused for not heeding NASA speak precisely. I would not read that article as claiming he was the NASA Director, but a director at NASA - a man in charge of something. Not the janitor.


The point we should be riding here is: Even if he was the Top Number One Man at NASA, the boss of it all, using his title to boost up credibility would be an argument from false authority. A rocket scientist is not a structural engineer, not a chemist, not a fire fighter, and not an expert on demolition. If what he sais is false, no title in the world will save him.

[beachnut]

A director no less.

I wonder how the JREF resident rocket scientist feels about the betrayal?

MM
He is a liar, not a director in 911 truth. 911 truth falls for lies; 9 years of failure and this nut comes out of the woodwork.

Why can't 911 truth get anything right?

[Thunder]

I'm just glad he isn't working for NASA anymore.

Its dangerous to have Truthers dealing with such sensitive equipment.

[RedIbis]

From El Mundo's Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Mackey
Dwain Deets is not a former "NASA Director." That title is reserved for Center Directors and the Chief Administrator. Mr. Deets never approached either. The press release is a lie.
If it's a lie, you'd have to take it up with NASA. It's straight from their website.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey
Yes, a lie. Once again, the press release says "NASA Director" etc. Mr. Deets was not a NASA Director. He was not even close. The press release is a lie.
It's kind of hard to argue when the first words of the NASA release is "Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director" Perhaps, you're the liar.


Mr. Deets is a nitwit. I say that with the full weight of evidence behind me.
I think you're saying that with the full weight of Malbec behind you.

[beachnut]

...

It's kind of hard to argue when the first words of the NASA release is "Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director" Perhaps, you're the liar.
... Wow, a director who went nuts; why do physics majors go nut on 911 issues? Must be about 0.001 percent of physics majors, the same for engineers, and pilots. Wow, you are trying to support an idiot on 911 issues. This is what you do, protect the challenged on 911 issues. No idea too stupid to support the dolt making the claim; your job?

Deets is a nut on 911. Go ahead prove one of Deets claims on 911. You can't.

Deets is a failure on 911 issues. Go ahead try to save him and explain what he got right about 911? Doubt his NASA work helped him to become an idiot on 911 issues, he must of done that on his own delusional mind.

What you got? Wait, you are still hung up on Gravy, doubt you can get some evidence to save Deets idiotic lies on 911. Good luck.

[BigAl]

From El Mundo's Quote:

If it's a lie, you'd have to take it up with NASA. It's straight from their website.

It's kind of hard to argue when the first words of the NASA release is "Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director" Perhaps, you're the liar.
.

Someone at AE911 inflated his job description. AE911truth has done that before.

According to this NASA announcement, he was a director of a department (aka project office), not Director of NASA or Dryden or Edwards. He served under Edwards Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai.


Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai announced recently.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html

[RedIbis]

Someone at AE911 inflated his job description. AE911truth has done that before.

According to this NASA announcement, he was a director of a department (aka project office), not Director of NASA or Dryden or Edwards. He served under Edwards Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai.

I don't think anyone claimed he was the Director of NASA, but a NASA Director. This point was already made by Oystein.

[R.Mackey]

For those of you struggling with the English language:

NASA Director != director of a program or project within NASA

Conspiracy Theory != any theory that involves collusion legally defined as a conspiracy

Truth Movement != people moving anywhere at all, let alone in the direction of the truth

This has been a public service announcement. The more you know, the more you grow. :)

[UNLoVedRebel]

I don't know what keyboard function this is ≠ but I saw someone post it, then copied it and saved it in my personal notepad.

[Dog Town]

It's so cute how Twoofers are so eager, to appeal to any "authority" they can find! No matter the level.

One question:
Does their "authority" have any evidence to support their fantasies?

Evidence based in reality would be nice. Sadly for them, it's always another FAIL!

[ozeco41]

Deets was active for some time on the Richard Dawkins Net Forum - from memory he made on and off appearances through 2008-2009. Username there dadeets. In his early posts he seemed genuine sceptic but became more obvious truther as time passed. The situation seemed to get too strong for him and he faded away. I then saw his name on AE911 where he is credited with doing the paperwork to get them the Tax exemption. US folk will know the section "501 or something c" IIRC???

[R.Mackey]

Typically a "501(c)3" organization, i.e. listed as a public charity or private foundation under IRS code, 26 US Constitution section 501(c). I'm assuming they consider themselves an "educational" or "scientific" organization, which is the third type on the list.

One of the stipulations is that they have to be nonpolitical in nature. I guess crazy is nonpolitical. :p

I'll be interested to see their financial reporting when it comes out.

[ozeco41]

Typically a "501(c)3" organization, i.e. listed as a public charity or private foundation under IRS code, 26 US Constitution section 501(c). I'm assuming they consider themselves an "educational" or "scientific" organization, which is the third type on the list.

One of the stipulations is that they have to be nonpolitical in nature. I guess crazy is nonpolitical. :p

I'll be interested to see their financial reporting when it comes out.

Thanks Ryan. I have a law degree - gained at age 60 plus and never practised - but studied Australian Constitutional law as you would expect for an Aussie. Lots of time on other forums has allowed/encouraged me to learn US Constitutional Law - mostly following the Gay Marriage developments in California on the Dawkins forum - then moving to rationalskepticism.

Surely the only legitimate goal of a truther organisation is political???? (Whether I believe them or not.)

[RedIbis]

For those of you struggling with the English language:

NASA Director != director of a program or project within NASA

Conspiracy Theory != any theory that involves collusion legally defined as a conspiracy

Truth Movement != people moving anywhere at all, let alone in the direction of the truth

This has been a public service announcement. The more you know, the more you grow. :)

You said the press release was a lie. The press release was posted by NASA. Are you saying NASA lied?

[LashL]

You said the press release was a lie. The press release was posted by NASA. Are you saying NASA lied?


The "press release" that R.Mackey was referring to was one that Fonebone posted, not a NASA press release. Nice try, though.

This one: PRESS RELEASE: November 19, 2009

Contact: Colorado911Visibility.org
Don Plummer, 970-234-4430

FORMER NASA DIRECTOR SAYS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS WERE FELLED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

[T.A.M.]

So do we have a consensus here...this guy, at some point in his NASA career, was a program director for the organization...correct.

As others have said, does he actually bring anything new to the table using his NASA skills?

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

The "press release" that R.Mackey was referring to was one that Fonebone posted, not a NASA press release. Nice try, though.

This one: PRESS RELEASE: November 19, 2009

Contact: Colorado911Visibility.org
Don Plummer, 970-234-4430

FORMER NASA DIRECTOR SAYS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS WERE FELLED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

This (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5331831&postcount=30)was posted after Fonebone posted the NASA link that calls Deets a Director.

So was Deets a NASA Director? Yes or no, please.

[RedIbis]

Mackey also disparages Deets by stating, "Mr. Deets was a semi-technical middle manager."

Does this appear to be the resume of a "semi-technical middle manager":

Before this appointment, Deets became Director, Research Engineering Division in March 1994 and served as acting division chief from 1990 to 1994. In that position, he directed the research and engineering aspects of the flight research programs at Dryden.



He led the preparation of the Dryden response to the NASA Federal Laboratory Review. He was Chairman of the NASA Non-Advocate Review of the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program in 1995, and will again serve in the capacity for the 1996 review

In 1986 Deets completed a special assignment at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., where he led an effort to define the needs for flight research and flight testing within NASA. He then headed development of a flight research strategy for what was then NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, now called the Office of Aeronautics. This effort led to a major increase in emphasis on flight research by NASA.

Bolded to make it easier on you to answer the simple question.

[Disbelief]

Mackey also disparages Deets by stating, "Mr. Deets was a semi-technical middle manager."

Does this appear to be the resume of a "semi-technical middle manager":



Bolded to make it easier on you to answer the simple question.

Possibly. Not knowing the organizational structure, he could very well have been a semi-technical middle manager.


So was Deets a NASA Director? Yes or no, please.

No, he was a Director at NASA. Living the corporate life, there is a distinction, at least IMO.

[RedIbis]

Possibly. Not knowing the organizational structure, he could very well have been a semi-technical middle manager.



No, he was a Director at NASA. Living the corporate life, there is a distinction, at least IMO.

You conradict yourself by saying that you don't know the organizational structure and then you say that he was living the corporate life.

Talk about making a distinction without a difference. What's the difference between a NASA Director and a Director at NASA?

What would you guys do without semantics?

[Disbelief]

You conradict yourself by saying that you don't know the organizational structure and then you say that he was living the corporate life.

I'm talking about me living the corporate life and that is what I based my opinion from.


Talk about making a distinction without a difference. What's the difference between a NASA Director and a Director at NASA?

A NASA director sounds like being THE person in charge of NASA, while a director at NASA sounds more like one of many. Once again, that is my personal opinion based upon my personal experience.


What would you guys do without semantics?

Spare me Red, as you are one of the biggest arguers of semantics on the board. I presented evidence to you in the other thread, which you requested, and you never acknowledged or attempted refutation.

[Reheat]

Mackey also disparages Deets by stating, "Mr. Deets was a semi-technical middle manager."

Does this appear to be the resume of a "semi-technical middle manager":

Hay Red, Are we supposed to believe that your intelligence and intuition after reading a press release exceeds that of Ryan Mackey?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[TexasJack]

Who cares if he is a director at NASA or the director of NASA? Where's the beef? Red, you can continue this appeal to authority all day, but what has he written or said about 9/11 that he can personally back up with a technical paper he has authored? Anything? I didn't think so.

[T.A.M.]

You conradict yourself by saying that you don't know the organizational structure and then you say that he was living the corporate life.

Talk about making a distinction without a difference. What's the difference between a NASA Director and a Director at NASA?

What would you guys do without semantics?

You are playing games here also Red. You know damn well the reason the distinction needs to be made is to counter the obvious appeal to authority being made by truthers, using the vagueness of the term to imply that this man was the director OF NASA.

Where I use to work, we had a gentleman who was known as the Medical Director. So does that mean he was director of all medicine? Does it mean he was director over all things medical locally? No, it meant he was the Beurocrat who was responsible to deal with the Physicians in matters related to the local health board...that it all.

TAM:)

[BigAl]

You conradict yourself by saying that you don't know the organizational structure and then you say that he was living the corporate life.

Talk about making a distinction without a difference. What's the difference between a NASA Director and a Director at NASA?

What would you guys do without semantics?

I worked for a very big bank. We had 3 grades of employees that had "VP" for a title. Above us were a couple levels of "Senior VP". Below them were "officers".

I'd expect no less of NASA's "directors"

Someone at AE911TRUTH inflated Deet's title.

[RedIbis]

You are playing games here also Red. You know damn well the reason the distinction needs to be made is to counter the obvious appeal to authority being made by truthers, using the vagueness of the term to imply that this man was the director OF NASA.


TAM:)

You're the one being misleading. No one said he was the Director of NASA.

Mackey lied when he said, "Mr. Deets was not a NASA Director. He was not even close."

My bold to illustrate Mackey's intentional deception.

[TexasJack]

You're the one being misleading. No one said he was the Director of NASA.

Mackey lied when he said, "Mr. Deets was not a NASA Director. He was not even close."

My bold to illustrate Mackey's intentional deception.

You can call Mackey a liar if you wish Red, that's your opinion. Here is the difference between Mackey and Deets: Mackey has a technical paper on 9/11, Deets doesn't. So on 9/11, Mackey's opinion holds more weight than Deet's, and that's what's really important.

[RedIbis]

You can call Mackey a liar if you wish Red, that's your opinion. Here is the difference between Mackey and Deets: Mackey has a technical paper on 9/11, Deets doesn't. So on 9/11, Mackey's opinion holds more weight than Deet's, and that's what's really important.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Mackey clearly said that Deets wasn't a Director of any kind or even close.

NASA's own press release proves that Deets was a Director and that Mackey is clearly, intentionally lying.

I know you guys don't like to attack your own, but if this were reversed, you'd be howling and this thread would be littered with laughing dogs.

[tsig]

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Mackey clearly said that Deets wasn't a Director of any kind or even close.

NASA's own press release proves that Deets was a Director and that Mackey is clearly, intentionally lying.

I know you guys don't like to attack your own, but if this were reversed, you'd be howling and this thread would be littered with laughing dogs.

:dl:

Happy now?

[timhau]

It's so cute how Twoofers are so eager, to appeal to any "authority" they can find! No matter the level.

Yeah, and somehow they feel vindicated if they find one Twoofer engineer amongst the masses of engineers who think they're retarded.

[TexasJack]

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Mackey clearly said that Deets wasn't a Director of any kind or even close.

NASA's own press release proves that Deets was a Director and that Mackey is clearly, intentionally lying.

I know you guys don't like to attack your own, but if this were reversed, you'd be howling and this thread would be littered with laughing dogs.

Are the only arguments you're going to make going to be logical fallacies? I love how you completely ignored the part about Deets not having any kind of technical paper on 9/11, and the fact that Mackey does.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What would you guys do without semantics?

You are the one who is insisting on inflating Deets's position at NASA beyond what it really was.

[timhau]

What would you guys do without semantics?

We'd babble meaninglessly, like the Twoof movement.

[T.A.M.]

You're the one being misleading. No one said he was the Director of NASA.

Mackey lied when he said, "Mr. Deets was not a NASA Director. He was not even close."

My bold to illustrate Mackey's intentional deception.

SO when they speak of FEMA director, you do not think "The director of FEMA". Well very good of you, but I am telling you most people, when they see the words "NASA director" they will think THE DIRECTOR OF NASA, and as a result, without clarification, it is misleading terminology.

If you think the posters of this tidbit didn't intentionally leave it unexplained, then you are more naive or blind then I thought.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

Are the only arguments you're going to make going to be logical fallacies? I love how you completely ignored the part about Deets not having any kind of technical paper on 9/11, and the fact that Mackey does.

It would only be a logical fallacy if I said Deets' conclusions are correct because of his position. I didn't say that.

[RedIbis]

SO when they speak of FEMA director, you do not think "The director of FEMA". Well very good of you, but I am telling you most people, when they see the words "NASA director" they will think THE DIRECTOR OF NASA, and as a result, without clarification, it is misleading terminology.

If you think the posters of this tidbit didn't intentionally leave it unexplained, then you are more naive or blind then I thought.

TAM:)

If someone said a FEMA director, I'd assume there were more than one. That's how English works.

Is Mackey lying when he says that Deets was not a NASA Director? A simple yes or no will do.

[DGM]

It would only be a logical fallacy if I said Deets' conclusions are correct because of his position. I didn't say that.
So what's your point? Is this just a "gotcha" thing?


Has Deets produced any original work that has shown that 9/11 was an "inside job".


This is really getting more and more pointless by the day.

[Thunder]

folks who believe that fire cannot melt steel, do not belong at NASA.

they also don't deserve to have a degree in Engineering.

[RedIbis]

So what's your point? Is this just a "gotcha" thing?


Has Deets produced any original work that has shown that 9/11 was an "inside job".


This is really getting more and more pointless by the day.

Is that what you told Mackey when he was whining about Deets' creds?

Of course not. You guys hate to admit when one of your own is flat out wrong, beyond wrong, simply lying, probably out of jealousy.

[DGM]

Is that what you told Mackey when he was whining about Deets' creds?

Of course not. You guys hate to admit when one of your own is flat out wrong, beyond wrong, simply lying, probably out of jealousy.
I wasn't involved in the conversation. So this is really just a "pissing" contest.

So how does Deets' association with NASA matter? Has he actually contributed anything original?

[beachnut]

Is that what you told Mackey when he was whining about Deets' creds?

Of course not. You guys hate to admit when one of your own is flat out wrong, beyond wrong, simply lying, probably out of jealousy.
LOL, this is about 911 idiotic conspiracy theories, and Deets has them!

You are off on a tangent, like your obsession with Gravy. I don't consider Deets a Director, but he was called a director of his section. Deets is like a captain of a dingy, not the Captain of Ship. But go ahead miss the point, you can't save Deets from having moronic delusions, and you never have presented evidence to help 911 truth be anything more than a failed off topic mass of stupid.

Was Deets a director of a center? Have you worked for NASA? DoD?

The sad part is 911 truth thinks he is an expert and he fails with his idiotic statement. Deets is wrong, and you are left quibbling about his title not capable of understanding technical or scientific issues to know he is nuts.

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way? Like CIT, Deets is wrong. Deets failed to do the research and opened his mouth and lies - he is retired, and he ram-dumped all his skills.

[T.A.M.]

If someone said a FEMA director, I'd assume there were more than one. That's how English works.

Is Mackey lying when he says that Deets was not a NASA Director? A simple yes or no will do.

Here is the quote I am referring to, from the linked article on page 4 of this thread.


Dwain Deets doesn’t think so, and the retired NASA director is determined to demonstrate that the official version of the events of 9/11 defies science.

Now that quote does not say a NASA director. It says "The retired NASA director".

However, for those who took the time, and can follow, it does explain later what he was director of.

TO be honest, I believe R.Mackey above a single news media report ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. If he says the report is a lie, then I believe him.

TAM:)

Edit: It would be interesting to see what Shane Cohn's source for Mr. Deets formerly held position is. I wonder if his source is not Deets himself. I wonder if Mr. Cohn verified that Deets held the position he states...I'm just asking questions.

[T.A.M.]

Asking this guy might help

Gray Creech
NASA Dryden public affairs

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

here is what PFT lists him as;


Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html

I wonder if Captain bob will convince him of his stuff...then Craig can convince him of North of Citgo.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Asking this guy might help

Gray Creech
NASA Dryden public affairs

TAM:)
911 truth protector, red ibis, needs to call NASA and see if they know why Deets makes up lies and spreads them. Did they retire him because he went nuts?

[T.A.M.]

911 truth protector, red ibis, needs to call NASA and see if they know why Deets makes up lies and spreads them. Did they retire him because he went nuts?

I dunno, but his answers to the interview linked on page 4 reads like a Gage/DRG talking point memo. Even if his credentials are legit and unexaggerated, I haven't seen his speak to a single point using his alleged engineering knowledge...unlike Mackey.

TAM:)

[Childlike Empress]

I wonder if Captain bob will convince him of his stuff...then Craig can convince him of North of Citgo.


Here's a message for you from Mr. Deets, from August (10min):

yYGkiYmVUmg

He first reads a statement endorsing CIT's research and then, at around 4:30, Ranke asks him some questions. He first describes what he did at NASA, corrects the director thingy (research director, aeronautical engineer, research into experimental aircrafts and new technologies - the internet says he was involved in developing plane remote control systems, 37 years at NASA), and goes on to elaborate on his views about the Pentagon incident.

According to him, the official flight path (and data) does not only contradict the eyewitness testimonies but is also aeronautically impossible. This is diametrically opposed to the opinions of our resident NASA expert, who insists that the eyewitness testimony is meaningless and sees no problem at all with the flight path and/or data.

LashL, call Ron, i want to see the Deets/Mackey Hardfire Pentagon rocket scientist showdown!

[Disbelief]

If someone said a FEMA director, I'd assume there were more than one. That's how English works.

The strange thing about English is that it is very flexible. You can say Bill Clinton was a US president and be correct. The TM saying that Deets was a Director, notice past tense, can give the impression that he held a position greater than that of middle management.


Is Mackey lying when he says that Deets was not a NASA Director? A simple yes or no will do.

Still no.

[DGM]

Here's a message for you from Mr. Deets, from August (10min):

yYGkiYmVUmg

He first reads a statement endorsing CIT's research and then, at around 4:30, Ranke asks him some questions. He first describes what he did at NASA, corrects the director thingy (research director, aeronautical engineer, research into experimental aircrafts and new technologies - the internet says he was involved in developing plane remote control systems, 37 years at NASA), and goes on to elaborate on his views about the Pentagon incident.

According to him, the official flight path (and data) does not only contradict the eyewitness testimonies but is also aeronautically impossible. This is diametrically opposed to the opinions of our resident NASA expert, who insists that the eyewitness testimony is meaningless and sees no problem at all with the flight path and/or data.

LashL, call Ron, i want to see the Deets/Mackey Hardfire Pentagon rocket scientist showdown!
And this contradicts the physical evidence?


Never mind, I lost my head and forgot, that was all fake and everyone that collected it was "in on it".


Sorry, carry on.


:rolleyes:

[TexasJack]

Well, there you go, right from the horse's mouth. He states he was an aeronautical engineer for 37 years. Did anyone hear him say director? Red, how about you, since you have gone to great lengths to discredit Mackey, is it possible Mackey was right after all?

[thecritta]

911 truth protector, red ibis, needs to call NASA and see if they know why Deets makes up lies and spreads them. Did they retire him because he went nuts?

And what exactly is it that he is lying about may i ask?

[RedIbis]

Here is the quote I am referring to, from the linked article on page 4 of this thread.



Now that quote does not say a NASA director. It says "The retired NASA director".

However, for those who took the time, and can follow, it does explain later what he was director of.

TO be honest, I believe R.Mackey above a single news media report ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. If he says the report is a lie, then I believe him.

TAM:)

Edit: It would be interesting to see what Shane Cohn's source for Mr. Deets formerly held position is. I wonder if his source is not Deets himself. I wonder if Mr. Cohn verified that Deets held the position he states...I'm just asking questions.

I don't care what you quote you're referring to, NASA's own press release has been linked here several times.

Jeebus Christmas, are you so partisan that you can't admit Mackey made a mistake? And that would be putting it politely.

[R.Mackey]

Wait, wait -- Mr. Deets, Savior of the Truth Movement, has cast his lot with Craig and Waldo??? :newlol

Seems to me he's doing a pretty darn good job of self destructing all by himself. He certainly doesn't need my help.

Incidentally, Craig's little video in the title card refers to him as a "NASA Flight Director," which he also was not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_director). A Flight Director is the individual with ultimate responsibility over a space mission, e.g. Apollo 11 or STS-125. Note that Mr. Deets did not refer to himself as such; this idiocy was an invention of some other Truther.

So we have an ex-NASA manager who believes in CIT fantasies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3966936#post3966936). So what? We already have a Truther ex-Physics professor who believes equally stupid things, including that the Haiti earthquake was man-made (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/steven-jones-speculating-the-haiti-earthquake-was-man-made/). This shouldn't be treated any differently.

People believe crazy things. Doesn't make them right, or even interesting.

[beachnut]

Here's a message for you from Mr. Deets, from August (10min):

yYGkiYmVUmg

He first reads a statement endorsing CIT's research and then, at around 4:30, Ranke asks him some questions. He first describes what he did at NASA, corrects the director thingy (research director, aeronautical engineer, research into experimental aircrafts and new technologies - the internet says he was involved in developing plane remote control systems, 37 years at NASA), and goes on to elaborate on his views about the Pentagon incident.

According to him, the official flight path (and data) does not only contradict the eyewitness testimonies but is also aeronautically impossible. This is diametrically opposed to the opinions of our resident NASA expert, who insists that the eyewitness testimony is meaningless and sees no problem at all with the flight path and/or data.

LashL, call Ron, i want to see the Deets/Mackey Hardfire Pentagon rocket scientist showdown!
On 911 issues, Deets is full blown nuts. CIT morons have Deets, another moron to spew their idiotic ideas. CIT and Deets, pushing the dumbest delusions in 911 truth.

[beachnut]

And what exactly is it that he is lying about may i ask?
What did he get right about 911? He says Flight 175 can't go 590 mph. He is wrong, so he is telling lies. A moron on this issue. Then we get a video by CIT and Deets proves he is mentally ill.

If you can think critically, you don't endorse the lies of CIT, the idiotic north flight path. Deets lost it.

[T.A.M.]

Wait, wait -- Mr. Deets, Savior of the Truth Movement, has cast his lot with Craig and Waldo??? :newlol

Seems to me he's doing a pretty darn good job of self destructing all by himself. He certainly doesn't need my help.

Incidentally, Craig's little video in the title card refers to him as a "NASA Flight Director," which he also was not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_director). A Flight Director is the individual with ultimate responsibility over a space mission, e.g. Apollo 11 or STS-125. Note that Mr. Deets did not refer to himself as such; this idiocy was an invention of some other Truther.

So we have an ex-NASA manager who believes in CIT fantasies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3966936#post3966936). So what? We already have a Truther ex-Physics professor who believes equally stupid things, including that the Haiti earthquake was man-made (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/steven-jones-speculating-the-haiti-earthquake-was-man-made/). This shouldn't be treated any differently.

People believe crazy things. Doesn't make them right, or even interesting.

Ryan,

Did the NASA press release get it wrong, completely, or is there room here where he could be a "director" of something in NASA, and yet not be what you consider to be a "director"?

I am just curious, because it does seem odd that an institution as well respected and I think meticulous as NASA, would get something so obviously wrong, wrong.

Thanks

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

Did the NASA press release get it wrong, completely, or is there room here where he could be a "director" of something in NASA, and yet not be what you consider to be a "director"?

I am just curious, because it does seem odd that an institution as well respected and I think meticulous as NASA, would get something so obviously wrong, wrong.

I've never heard anyone call NASA "meticulous" before... particularly our public relations office. :p

If you're referring to this (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html), it says "Director, Aerospace Projects Office." If you quote-mine that and exclude everything after the comma, you get into trouble. The correct term of art for that post is a Program Manager, probably a Manager III position. Nobody within NASA would refer to this individual as "Director," as that would not be his job title. Just a description of a particular duty.

As I indicated before, the only people referred to as "Directors" are the Center Directors. For them, "Director" is their offical job title.

[T.A.M.]

SO what you are saying, is that for those who work at NASA, this fellow would never be known as, or referred to as, a DIRECTOR, but technically the word could be used as a description of part of his job responsibilities.

So was the person(s) who produced the NASA press release embelishing, or misusing the term?

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

I have no idea how that press release came to be.

The point is that one's title and what one is doing at any particular instant are not the same thing. To use a related example, at JPL every space mission has a Chief Scientist, but those folks are not Chief Scientists. Typically those duties are fulfilled by someone with the job title of Principal Scientist. If they called themselves "Chief Scientists," they would be wrong, because JPL has a post called Chief Scientist and it isn't them. Just like NASA Dryden has a Director, and that post has never been filled by Mr. Deets.

I note, again, that Mr. Deets as far as I know has not referred to himself as a NASA Director. Only third parties have done so. There's a reason for this.

[Childlike Empress]

Well Mackey, to note it again, in the same post where you called the press release a lie, you also had this to say:

Mr. Deets was a semi-technical middle manager.


and this:

Mr. Deets is a nitwit. I say that with the full weight of evidence behind me.


The full weight of evidence included the press release you were commenting on, which contains beside other already quoted parts this:

In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

[ozeco41]

The "Captain" of a navy ship could well be a Commander or Lt Commander. It would be a fairly big ship where the person who was Captain of the ship held the rank of Captain.

(AFAIK that applies equally to USN as to RN and RAN/RNZN - except "big ship" means a lot more vessel in the USN ;) )

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Of course not. You guys hate to admit when one of your own is flat out wrong, beyond wrong, simply lying, probably out of jealousy.

Have you backed up your claims that the firefighters were in on it or that Larry Silverstein "made out like a bandit"?

Or do you just hate to admit when you are wrong, beyond wrong or simply lying out of jealousy (or even religious bigotry)?

[RedIbis]

Ryan,

Did the NASA press release get it wrong, completely, or is there room here where he could be a "director" of something in NASA, and yet not be what you consider to be a "director"?

I am just curious, because it does seem odd that an institution as well respected and I think meticulous as NASA, would get something so obviously wrong, wrong.

Thanks

TAM:)

Maybe they didn't get anything wrong. Ever think of that? Not only does this NASA press release introduce him as a newly appointed Director, he was previously a Director, Research Engineering Division.

So if Mackey is right, the NASA press release has to be wrong at least twice.

I know you're partisan, TAM, but this is getting ridiculous. Your hero simply cannot bring himself to admit he's wrong.

[TexasJack]

Maybe they didn't get anything wrong. Ever think of that? Not only does this NASA press release introduce him as a newly appointed Director, he was previously a Director, Research Engineering Division.

So if Mackey is right, the NASA press release has to be wrong at least twice.

I know you're partisan, TAM, but this is getting ridiculous. Your hero simply cannot bring himself to admit he's wrong.

Then why in the video, when asked about his resume at NASA, didn't he mention that he was a director? All is he said was he was an aeronautical engineer. Don't you think he would have mentioned it?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So if Mackey is right, the NASA press release has to be wrong at least twice.

Or... the word "director" has more than one meaning at NASA.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Your hero simply cannot bring himself to admit he's wrong.

You mean like you with the FDNY and Larry Silverstein?

[RedIbis]

Or... the word "director" has more than one meaning at NASA.

True, he could be director of traffic flow in the parking lot, but the NASA press release says that "Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center" and previously was "Director, Research Engineering Division."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

True, he could be director of traffic flow in the parking lot, but the NASA press release says that "Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center" and previously was "Director, Research Engineering Division."

And according to a NASA engineer who posts here, those positions are middle-management flunkies at best.

[R.Mackey]

There's nothing wrong with being a program manager. I do a bit of program management myself in my current duties. But if you referred to me as "NASA Manager," or "NASA Principal Investigator," or what have you, I'd correct you. "NASA Engineer" or "NASA Scientist" would be appropriate terms. So would they be for Mr. Deets.

This really isn't that difficult. Were I unfamiliar with the Truth Movement, I would be astonished at the stupidity it takes to fail to grasp these simple concepts... but I am familiar with them, so I'm not.

It's no wonder, really. Even though it has no practical significance whatsoever, the semantic argument grows quite attractive when you don't have a snowball's chance in thermite of winning the technical argument.

[TexasJack]

Deets is a CIT advocate. I don't care where you worked or what your title is, that qualifies you as a loon.

[little grey rabbit]

Do I detect a hint of betrayal here?

[tsig]

Do I detect a hint of betrayal here?

No, that's semantic stew you're smelling.

[thecritta]

What did he get right about 911? He says Flight 175 can't go 590 mph. He is wrong, so he is telling lies. A moron on this issue. Then we get a video by CIT and Deets proves he is mentally ill.

If you can think critically, you don't endorse the lies of CIT, the idiotic north flight path. Deets lost it.

Why dont you prove the flight 175 can go 590mph you cant prove he
is a liar until you debunk the 911 speed theory.

[T.A.M.]

Maybe they didn't get anything wrong. Ever think of that? Not only does this NASA press release introduce him as a newly appointed Director, he was previously a Director, Research Engineering Division.

So if Mackey is right, the NASA press release has to be wrong at least twice.

I know you're partisan, TAM, but this is getting ridiculous. Your hero simply cannot bring himself to admit he's wrong.

Mackey works for NASA, and I trust his explanation of how things really work in NASA, compared to a public relations press release.

I am partisan because Mackey I have never seen lie or bs. He has always called it like he sees it. I can't say that about truthers. I suspect in the end, it is a technicality, but Mackey has a point. Get Deets to comment on the description/title, and see if he calls it correct.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Deets is a CIT advocate. I don't care where you worked or what your title is, that qualifies you as a loon.

exactly. Look at Morgan Reynolds...worked in the Reagan Admin...political semi big wig...yet a Judy Wood loony toon. The truth movement has lots of examples of old guys and gals who have lost their marbles.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

There's nothing wrong with being a program manager. I do a bit of program management myself in my current duties. But if you referred to me as "NASA Manager," or "NASA Principal Investigator," or what have you, I'd correct you. "NASA Engineer" or "NASA Scientist" would be appropriate terms. So would they be for Mr. Deets.

This really isn't that difficult. Were I unfamiliar with the Truth Movement, I would be astonished at the stupidity it takes to fail to grasp these simple concepts... but I am familiar with them, so I'm not.

It's no wonder, really. Even though it has no practical significance whatsoever, the semantic argument grows quite attractive when you don't have a snowball's chance in thermite of winning the technical argument.

It's not a semantic argument. It's you vs. a NASA press release. Has NASA ever retracted their press release?

[16.5]

It's not a semantic argument. It's you vs. a NASA press release. Has NASA ever retracted their press release?

Great point, Red Ibis, they have NOT "retracted their press release."

That can mean but one thing: INSIDE JOBBY JOB!

/well "great point" in the sense of being a completely and utterly pointless post in a thread that is a screaming fallacy.

[beachnut]

Why dont you prove the flight 175 can go 590mph you cant prove he is a liar until you debunk the 911 speed theory. Already did! Took video, divided time in to distance got ~590 mph, Deets is going with 510 KIAS.
He is a liar saying Flight 175 can't go 510 KIAS, because Flight 175 is on video doing 510 KIAS. OOPS!

Why can't you do math or research?

To help poor Deets, you need to prove a plane can't go 580 mph in a dive with engines full blast! I know it is possible, I flew heavy jets, and they can go MACH 1 in a dive with engine at Full Throttle. Questions? I have flow over Vmo! I have flown at .9 MACH for hours, some of you have flown close to .9 MACH when your pilot is trying to make up time! The newer Jets have big fan engines, doubt you have been over .86 MACH with big fans, but I had tiny turbos and they were flight tested to .95 MACH, if you can read the owners manual closely (Dash-1). Sorry you newest expert has gone nuts and is an idiot on 911 issues.

The video taken on 911 shows Flight 175 impacting the WTC tower at about 590 mph. The RADAR data confirms this is Flight 175. Case closed, Deets is a liar who can't do rational research, he waves his hands and lies. You like lies from Deets? Why can't you take the video of Flight 175 and do like I did and get a rough speed estimate. We know the length of the airframe, and with the video you can take the time it hits, to the time the tail enters the WTC, and you have the speed estimate, proving Deets is wrong. I did it, and all it take is a grade school education; are you void of a grade school education? Length divided by time, GRADE SCHOOL. Here is a failed human, Deets, making up lies; Why?

Why can't you do math? Why don't you know you are being lied to?

Believe in Deets, he is wrong, you already have no idea what happen on 911 or any knowledge so your failure to figure out Deets is nuts is not a big surprise. Got math?

[dadeets]

I've been asked to explain my Director positions at NASA.

True, I was not a Center Director.

The line managers that directly report to the CD are called "Directors for." I was, prior to retirement, Director for Aerospace Projects.

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center is, and has been organized in a matrix management structure. The Aerospace Projects Office consists of the project managers of the various flight research projects. There were about twenty projects at any given time.

Prior to that position, I was the Director for Research Engineering. The Research Engineering Directorate represented a horizontal cut across the projects with all of the engineers assigned to the projects.

In earlier years, the directorates were called divisions, and the heads of the divisions were called chiefs. At that time, I was called the Chief of the Research Engineering Division.

The divisions were broken down into branches. Prior to becoming Research Engineering Division Chief, I was the Dynamics and Control Branch Chief. Dynamics and Control included Flight Controls, Structural Dynamics, and Flight Systems.

Dwain Deets

[R.Mackey]

:thumbsup:

Thanks for clearing that up. It seemed pretty clear to me that it was other people, not yourself, confusing your title (e.g. the CIT boys's film calling you a "Flight Director").

[beachnut]

I've been asked to explain my Director positions at NASA.

True, I was not a Center Director.

The line managers that directly report to the CD are called "Directors for." I was, prior to retirement, Director for Aerospace Projects.

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center is, and has been organized in a matrix management structure. The Aerospace Projects Office consists of the project managers of the various flight research projects. There were about twenty projects at any given time.

Prior to that position, I was the Director for Research Engineering. The Research Engineering Directorate represented a horizontal cut across the projects with all of the engineers assigned to the projects.

In earlier years, the directorates were called divisions, and the heads of the divisions were called chiefs. At that time, I was called the Chief of the Research Engineering Division.

The divisions were broken down into branches. Prior to becoming Research Engineering Division Chief, I was the Dynamics and Control Branch Chief. Dynamics and Control included Flight Controls, Structural Dynamics, and Flight Systems.

Dwain Deets

Thanks,


Why can't a Boeing 767/757 fly faster than Vmo for 20 seconds?

[dadeets]

Thanks,

What is your excuse for making up lies about 911? I saw a CIT video of you spewing nonsense.

Why can't a Boeing 767/757 fly faster than Vmo for 20 seconds and impact the Pentagon, crash? Same for flight 175, proved by RADAR to be Flight 175 with real people on it, which I calculated was about 590 mph from video. Simple math, and simple RADAR data makes your lie of Flight 175 can't to rest. Evidence speaks, your talk of woo is nonsense.

A hit an run. You never did the work to check the speed of impact. You never looked up the fact RADAR shows Flight 175 impacted the WTC, the exact same time some who post here saw Flight 175 impact the WTC. Gee, witnesses and RADAR, and Video, and dead people you make up lies about! Wow, what do you do after you retire from NASA? You did not go to Disneyland, or maybe you did, but your mind seems to be in delusion-land on 911 issues.

is this typical of the depth of discussion here on JREF? Can tell someone tell me which of these several questions is the most important for me to answer?

[R.Mackey]

I'll handle this.

You've made the claim that AA 175 could not have impacted WTC 2 as advertised because its computed speed of ~ 560 MPH was unattainable at that altitude. (I'm paraphrasing; feel free to correct the details.) On what basis do you do so? Boeing 767's have exceeded this speed by a considerable margin at even lower altitudes on their way to crashes.

[beachnut]

is this typical of the depth of discussion here on JREF? Can tell someone tell me which of these several questions is the most important for me to answer?
I will wait... lol, you worked with CIT and you are worried about depth of discussion? wow

[dadeets]

I presume you are including the conversion to equivalent airspeed in your statement. Please provide examples.

[BigAl]

I've been asked to explain my Director positions at NASA.


A warm welcome to Director Deets!

[Pardalis]

Mr. dadeets, it is said you speak on behalf of 900 architects and engineers.

What studies have you guys published in peer-reviewed journals so far, and what steps have you undertaken to actually start a "new independent investigation"?

900 architects and engineers, whistleblowers and informants, it would seem that you guys have everything you need to get one started. Why the delay?

[R.Mackey]

I presume you are including the conversion to equivalent airspeed in your statement. Please provide examples.

Shifting the burden of proof already. I asked how you justify your claim. Please do so, now, and I shall then be glad to provide you my examples.

[uk_dave]

It'll be even more funny if he turns out to be an Apollo hoaxer too.

[beachnut]

I presume you are including the conversion to equivalent airspeed in your statement. Please provide examples.
Present your lies, use KIAS, KTAS, KEAS, KCAS, MACH, mph, inches per second, whatever floats your boat of delusions on 911. I worked at AFWAL and I have seen your work in AI etc., I know you are spewing BS about 911 based on complete ignorance of 911 events, facts and reality based evidence; Please act super intellectually gifted as you already failed and it is forever on the Internet.

Be as smart as you want, the best you can do is apologize for spreading false information, the worse, try to defend your delusions already on the Internet.

[Pardalis]

Beachnut, your aggressive tone isn't going to encourage him to respond.

For once we have one of the elusive 900 engineers to talk to. It's like a unicorn, don't make any sudden moves or it will disappear again.

[tsig]

I presume you are including the conversion to equivalent airspeed in your statement. Please provide examples.


You presume then ask for examples of it?

[tsig]

Beachnut, your aggressive tone isn't going to encourage him to respond.

For once we have one of the elusive 900 engineers to talk to. It's like a unicorn, don't make any sudden moves or it will disappear again.

I don't think Beechnut is a virgin.

[dadeets]

I don't have time to respond to all these minithreads at the same time. Plus, the degree of scorn lacing the posts is up a notch or two from other "unfriendly" forums I've engaged with previously.

Signing off,

Dwain