NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[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.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.



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 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.

 

[The Big Dog]

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