NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[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 ◊◊◊◊◊◊* 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. 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?

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.