NASA Disrcepancies you wwon't see on CNN - Yet

[Sonar5 3]

Hi Dan,I realize it is a lot to follow and I do appreciate you taking the time to both read it, and contribute discussion. :-)With the MAYBE, the context is that with a different weight, a different tank, th eoutcome may be different. Shelf life may also be a factor.The last time they flew a LWT was back in 2000. Nothing but SLWT until STS-107, and they flew SLWT's on non ISS missions as well.That was what I was striving for, I apologize for not being clearer.As for being constructively challenged. I enjoy any discussion on valid points. My facts still stand. I have made some errors, acknowledged them as I come across, and do realize this is not a 2 day excersize.As to you being sorry. Thanks and no problem. I just prefer to be asked about the context rather than just dismissed in my writings. I try to clarify when I can, and I ask others the same when I am not sure of the context.Half of the problems on boards are due to people assuming words out of context instead of asking for a clarification, IMHO.BTW- Did you see the last news conference, and my additional info on tile damage from piror missions. I would like to know what you think, and please take a moment to read the page from the NASA engineer regarding STS-86 and STS-87This Page:http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.html(It is the One Braun found in the other thread.)Regards,Joe

[Guest Edam]

>Care to contribute or are you here for another reason? I believe that I contributed when I acknowleged Dan's excellent rebuttals. Sorry if that somehow irritated you, or did not live up to what your definition of a contribution should be. Perhaps you should define your idea of a "contribution." >have a life, If by that, you are offering something similar to yours, I decline, but thanks anyway!

[Sonar5 3]

edam,Nope, I never said it irritated me. Don't assume, please.Nor did I say define my definition of contribution.I never said it did or did not live up to my definition.You seem to be taking my words out of context.So please keep to the topic as stated and if you want to have a different conversation, email me or use the forum system to contact me.Edit:I sent you a message through the forum system as well.End Edit:Have a day,Joe.Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002..Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

[Guest]

Of course, then you and Braun and the rest would be screaming cover-up and conspiracy.Clearly an argument that has lost all sense of direction, therefore you choose to resort to Ad-Hominen attacks. But instead of attacking only your debater, you choose to include meDan...can you provide me with one good reason why you mentioned my name in this context other than you could not think of anything germane or useful to your argument to retort to Sonar's postSaddened...btThe person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

[Guest CharlesH]

Hi:Perhaps this topic should close. There are just too may factors right now no one knows. We are speculated here with theories ect of what may have happened. Why not wait and see what happens. I know that between NASA internal and external and Congressional hearings ect the public will get the information and we will know what the causes may have been. Why not wait abit. Let people remember those brave people that lost their lives, and leave speculation out of the pictures for awhile. Charles

[Guest DNelson]

>>Dan...can you provide me with one good reason why you >mentioned my name in this context other than you could not >think of anything germane or useful to your argument to >retort to Sonar's post >No problem. Your "look at the difference" thread. I'll probably get accused (again) of quoting out of context, but I thought this sentence summed up that thread:NASA is telling everything, up front, right away, and keeping us all in the loop as evidence mounts...NTSB has yet to do anything similar with AA587, and arguably, TWA800.It's not much of a stretch to assume that if the reverse was true, i.e. NASA was remaining silent for a period of months, we would once again start to see conspiracy and cover-up theories.>Of course, then you and Braun and the rest would be >screaming cover-up and conspiracy. >Speaking of quoting out of context, you're learning well too. If you had bothered to quote the whole paragraph, instead of the last sentence only, a clarification probably wouldn't have been needed.Dan

[Guest]

This is a HUGE insult to a very capable, decent man. You've chosen to ignore Mr. Dittemore's statement that preceeds each briefing. He's chosen to share information as it becomes available, recognizing that this is a dynamic process and things can and do change as the investigation progresses. He's stated that very clearly multiple times. That's the nature of accident investigations. Until you become involved in one yourself, I'd suggest you not throw rocks at people that are working around the clock to get to the bottom of this. Would you prefer the alternative? NASA could choose to not say anything until all the data and evidence is collected, verified, and cast in stone. That point is still some months away. Of course, then you and Braun and the rest would be screaming cover-up and conspiracy.There Dan...I quote the whole paragraphI ask you again, two questions now:1. What does this paragraph above have to do with me other than your use of my name to make an Ad-Hominen Attack?2. What does my comparison of NTSB response to the public vs. NASA response to the public have to do with your use of my name to make an Ad-Hominen Attack?Lastly: It's not much of a stretch to assume that if the reverse was true, i.e. NASA was remaining silent for a period of months, we would once again start to see conspiracy and cover-up theories. is patently flawed as a valid argument, but another excellent example of what?...you guessed it. Ad-Hominen.Get off my back Dan...take your argument to Sonar, but don't bring it to me. And btw, I DO know how Accident Investigations work, having been involved in a total of 4, two NTSB, two USAF.All due respect,bt

[Sonar5 3]

Hi Charles,A reasoned reponse, but I disagree.NASA is speculating openly, and I am too.I paid for that Shuttle, and I have every right to question anything about its program so that others don't lose their lives.NASA is accountable to me as a taxpayer, and I am also concerned.Best example is todays press conference. Yesterday, people were complaining about me linking External Tanks, saying it does not happen too often.Then this afternoon, NASA says it only happened 3 times.I proved it has happened at least (7) Seven times as released by their own PUBLIC websites. Of course, just like the Shuttle Press Kits that were wrong about what kind of External Tank was used, I guess this could be just another minor mistake.I don't think so. The days of remaining silent on issues is dead. I am just confident enough to speak up and do something about it. And hopefully many others are too. The Next few days will tell. But so far, I have been pretty spot on, IMHO.This topic is fluid, and getting complex, yet coming to a conclusion very quickly.Regards,Joe

[Guest DNelson]

>And btw, I DO know how Accident Investigations work, having been involved in a total of 4, two NTSB, two USAF.I'm sure you do. Um, where have I ever said that you did not?I'd be more than happy to "get off your back." This thread has long outlived its value.

[Guest CharlesH]

Joe:I don't rush to judgement on this subject as I have no knowledge of all the complexities involved in space flight. Yes, the theory is turning towards the external tank playing a role in this. I will have to wait and see. There are just so many factors here that remain open. Time will tell what happened. Look at the last Space Shuttle disaster. I think it took nearly two years, I may be wrong with this. The conclusion is that the o rings were at fault. It seems to me there is a rush to judgement absent any real evidence to point too. There is a danger there. Why not wait and see? This thread should close now as it really does not serve any purpose other than everyone speculating.Charles

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"This thread has long outlived its value."I guess I have to agree with that statement. Now locked.