Retired NASA engineer Dwain Deets endorses "National Security Alert" VIDEO

Heres Dwain Deets explaining why he endorses the film :
vimeo.com...
And heres the National Security Alert film by the Citizen Investigation Team:
vimeo.com...
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Quote:

Aeronautical engineer Dwain Deets throws his support behind Citizen Investigation Team and their presentation National Security Alert. For more info visit CitizenInvestigationTeam.com. Endorsement text:

"Although my involvement in the 9/11 issue has focused primarily on the problems with the "collapse" hypothesis for World Trade Center Building 7, my background as a retired NASA aeronautical engineer has often brought questions my way regarding the airplanes, including, of course, the flight that allegedly struck the Pentagon.

Examination of the official flight profile raised serious technical questions in my mind -- questions which led me to the view that it is highly unlikely such a profile could have been flown as reported. In other words, it seemed to be physically and aeronautically impossible.

My skepticism proved to be well-founded when I watched National Security Alert, the most recent video from the Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT. More importantly, I now realize that the flight profile data released by the government was a spurious smokescreen, and that the answer to the question of what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 comes from applying logic, with very little involvement of aeronautical principals.

To be more precise, the answer comes from eyewitness accounts collected from individuals who had clear views of where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo gas station across the highway from the Pentagon. Several of these witnesses were recorded by the Center for Military History or by the Library of Congress shortly after 9/11/01. CIT followed up on this testimony, doing investigative video interviews at the various sites where each person made their observations, or, when this couldn't be done, by audio recording.

In a nutshell, these key eyewitnesses independently agree that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station as it headed toward the Pentagon. It is clear from viewing their interviews that it is simply not a reasonable consideration that all of the witnesses presented are incorrect about this simple detail. The plane was most definitely on the north side of the station.

The problem with this is that the official flight path requires the plane to have flown to the south of the station. The observed damage is wholly inconsistent with an approach from the north-side. This not only includes the damage inside the building leading to the round hole in the C-ring, but also five light poles which were supposedly hit by the airplane which were also in alignment with a south-side path. Given that the plane was on the north-side of the station, these light poles simply could not have been knocked over by it.

The only possible conclusion, if logic is your guide, is that the plane did not hit the Pentagon and did not cause the damage; that the south-path downed light poles were staged; and that the internal damage was done by other means, specifically internal explosives.

I am aware of efforts by a few to censor and marginalize the work of Citizen Investigation Team. Some have stated it's because they feel the notion of a flyover at the Pentagon would be bad for the truth movement even if true because it would be off-putting to the public at large. This is contradictory logic since the very notion that 9/11 was an inside job is off-putting to the public. I strongly feel it's important to follow evidence wherever it leads us and stand firmly against any effort to hide or control information that exposes the 9/11 deception.

I thank CIT for bringing this story together in a clear manner, and I endorse CIT as the best source of information on this matter. Furthermore, I agree with their conclusion -- the plane flew over the Pentagon."

-Dwain Deets
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Creator of 7problemswithbuilding7.info

Originally posted by SL55T0T0
Heres Dwain Deets explaining why he endorses the film :
vimeo.com...

Deets' lack of any critical analysis ability and absolute dearth of critical thinking skills with regards to the events of the day, aeronautical or otherwise, has been shown both here and on other discussion boards, rendering his "opinion" no better than the owner of the town car wash down the street.

The fact that he "endorses" CIT means nothing - aside from adding to the comic relief factor of the Truther/PfT/CIT world. In actuality, it reinforces and is yet another demonstration of his inability to look at the occurrences on 11 Sept 2001 with any kind of technical eye or with any sort of aeronautical acumen.

Edited to add: I know PfT and "Capt" Bob Balsamo in his latest sock puppet will return and quote chapter and verse of Deets' "credentials". There is a popular saying going around these days that applies directly to this - "credentials" does not equate to competency. Mr. Deets is the classic example of this.

Watch the film

Expect something along these lines to be finding its way to this thread pretty soon: Deets is a lying, incompetant, un-American bafoon who cheated on his taxes and slapped his girlfriend.

Then the thread will be derailed and the important aspects of his opinions and the facts that support them will be totally lost in the wash of "truther" bashing and complete ignorance.

Wait for it......

Best link I could find that wasn't affiliated with this statement.. well quickly looking..

NASA

in case people wanted to read anything else about him..

reply to post by trebor451

There is a popular saying going around these days that applies directly to this - "credentials" does not equate to competency. Mr. Deets is the classic example of this.

I wonder if you will use this concept when speaking of the OS or NIST reports.

Or is that concept only applicable to those that attack the OS??

Originally posted by Myendica
NASA

lol...you people don't read very well, do you?? You just proved my point.

Originally posted by Trebor451
"credentials" does not equate to competency.

"Deets' lack of any critical analysis ability and absolute dearth of critical thinking skills with regards to the events of the day, aeronautical or otherwise, has been shown both here and on other discussion boards, rendering his "opinion" no better than the owner of the town car wash down the street."

We have Debunker Exhibit A above: pretend that you're saying something without saying anything at all. Sorry, actually you did say something. And while you're on the topic, since you seem to know a thing or two about car washes, how much to clean and detail an interior of a two door sports car?

reply to post by trebor451


never said anything about creds.. re-read my post..

an outside view or perspective of something about him... I guess giving a peek at mindset or acheivments isn't good? what?

reply to post by trebor451


Why attack the person instead of the details?
Oh yeah, it's easier

reply to post by SL55T0T0


Great Thread

The CIT Report is the BEST EVIDENCE out there that the OS on the Pentagon is ridicoulus.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by SL55T0T0
Heres Dwain Deets explaining why he endorses the film :
vimeo.com...

Deets' lack of any critical analysis ability and absolute dearth of critical thinking skills with regards to the events of the day, aeronautical or otherwise, has been shown both here and on other discussion boards, rendering his "opinion" no better than the owner of the town car wash down the street.

The fact that he "endorses" CIT means nothing - aside from adding to the comic relief factor of the Truther/PfT/CIT world. In actuality, it reinforces and is yet another demonstration of his inability to look at the occurrences on 11 Sept 2001 with any kind of technical eye or with any sort of aeronautical acumen.

Edited to add: I know PfT and "Capt" Bob Balsamo in his latest sock puppet will return and quote chapter and verse of Deets' "credentials". There is a popular saying going around these days that applies directly to this - "credentials" does not equate to competency. Mr. Deets is the classic example of this.

edit on 24-11-2010 by trebor451 because: added a para.

At least YOU have the credentials to talk on a forum in the internet about it.

How about YOU give us your credentials, what your education is and what expertise you can provide on the topic. As things look right now, every story supporting a plane crash at the pentagon is ridicoulus. Every explanaiton would show how uneducated you really are. Not even some basics...

On the anniversary of the tragedy at the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11, Jesse Randolph along with his guest, former NASA Engineer Dwain Deets representing the Organization "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth," discus alarming facts and issues about the event and the ultimate destruction of the buildings at Ground Zero

Originally posted by Myendica
Best link I could find that wasn't affiliated with this statement.. well quickly looking..

NASA

in case people wanted to read anything else about him..

Impressive credentials.

Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10
Printer Friendly Version
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.

Deets has had several special assignments since September 1994 that took him away temporarily from the Research Engineering Division responsibilities. 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. Among the programs Deets has been associated with at Dryden during his NASA career are 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.

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.

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.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995.

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.

Impresive video by CIT !!!

must watch for everyone !

The problem with Mr. Deets analysis is that it is using a logical fallacy. Basically what he is saying is that since explosives were used in the building and some evidence was staged outside of the building this means the plane couldn't have hit the building. He is completely ignoring the possibility that a plane hit the building AND explosives were used. It's a little strange that he would ignore this possibility since that is his position in regards to the WTC.

(Does anyone know the name of this logical fallacy?)