NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings
ae911truth | Dwain Deets | NASA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Event information: Aaron Brown; Program content: Dwain Deets
Phone: Brown: 909-576-2800 Deets: 760-445-3242
Email: TorerosForTruth@gmail.com
Event Date: Wednesday, October 21, 12:00 p.m.

NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings
Encinitas resident a leader among 900 architects and engineers

San Diego - On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, former NASA engineering executive 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 and are calling for a new, independent investigation into their destruction.

Mr. Deets’ multimedia presentation will begin at 12:00 p.m. at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, on the campus of University of San Diego, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110. The event will conclude at 3:00 p.m.]

[My note: Joan Kroc is the widow of the Kroc who started McDonalds. She is very progressive, but has been much reigned-in by McDonald Corp. She still manages here and there to sponsor progressive things with her fortune. She is not allowed to donate money directly to progressive causes, but does so as above - building forums for them to happen.]

Gee, how many structural engineers whose area of expertise is buildings work or worked for NASA? My best guess is zero. But even if there are a few Deets isn't one of them, he is or course an aerospace engineer which means he is not really qualified to question the overwhelmning concencus among QUALIFIED professionals that the WTC buildings collapsed due a combination of fire and impact damage and aspects of their engineering that were fairly unique.

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

If we are going to consider NASA engineers qualified Ryan McKay begs to differ

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey



Last time I looked they only had 500 or so architects or engineers. Sounds impressive till you realize there are a few million of them just in the US. They only get to 900+ counting people with A & E related jobs but aren't degreed or licensed. I tried checking




Peter,

As a moderator you are supposed to make sure others follow the rules not violate them yourself.

QUOTE

v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings.

But you seem to make stuff up. Monday was the 6th anniversary of Joan Kroc's death.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1494600

I'll be very interested to hear what he says on the aircraft. If it's the same person I have heard of, he was been the project manager on a number of fighter projects.

I'll be interested to hear what he says about building demolition - speaking as a layman on that subject that he is.

Interesting that he seems to avoid commenting on the one area were his expertise is relevant.he did a lot of work on remote controlled drones but as far as I can tell has never said the hijack planes could have been overided remotely and/or replaced by drones.

He does have one thing going for him unlike several prominent truthers he seems not to be a murderer, child abuser, child pornographer, Holocaust denier, pervert or conman

"Gee, how many structural engineers whose area of expertise is buildings work or worked for NASA?"
>
>
Gee - how about the ones that build or built (or consult on or consulted on) the enormously tall hangars in which multi-stage rockets are or were assembled?

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...t%3D72%26um%3D1

Presumably they were employees of a firm hired by NASA rather than of the agency itself, in any case Deets' professional training doesn't qualify him to challenge the consensus among qualified structural engineers. He is however qualified to comment upon the feasibility of 'truther' theories concerning remote controlled aircraft but strangely he failed to endorse them.

Last time I looked of the handful of STRUCTURAL engineers who backed AE911T only one had a background in tall buildings, he also was apparently the only one who read the NIST report. This fits with my observation made in another thread that there is an inverse relationship between qualifications in appropriate fields and adherence to the "inside job"/controlled demo theories. Along similar lines even polls sponsored by truthers show an inverse relationship between educational level and acceptance of their theories.

"Along similar lines even polls sponsored by truthers show an inverse relationship between educational level and acceptance of their theories."
>
>
Jefferson and Jackson might argue that this bodes well for the Republic.

Others, alive today, might cite it as the source for the need of much physical-material extremity in Homeland Security.

Shall we poll the EF membership for our resemblance to the statistical norm?

Peter, when a press release / transcript of the address is made public, would you place a link to it or - if not too long - cut & paste it?

Thank you.

Will do. Should be out a few days after the 21st. It is a public lecture.
Dwain A. Deets
Title: Retired Flight Research Engineer
Degree: M.S., Physics, SDSU; M.E., UCLA
City: Encinitas
State: CA
Country: USA
Category: Engineering Professionals (Degreed)

Bio:
Retired Aerospace Research Engineer. While at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, held positions of Chief, Research Engineering Division, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager.

Personal 9/11 Statement:
The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved.

For me, even more interesting and directly connected [for those who find a problem with his not being a building engineer] he was involved in the drone industry - some of which may have been used on 9-11 most probably at the Pentagon - but the other planes may have been controlled as are drones. But, whatever, an engineer is an engineer and knows the laws of physics and how they are applied in the real world.

An aside. Another main drone inventor is deeply involved [very quietly] on JFK assassination research.....

I agree and though he believes 9/11 was an inside job he has yet to say he agrees with you on the above, what does that tell you?



So by your logic if numerous cardiologists said someone died of a heart-attack you'd take seriously the views of podiatrist who said he died of blunt trauma to head because "a doctor is a doctor and knows the laws of biology and how they are applied in the human body"

A poll has already been taken here though there is no way to correlate results with educational level. I’ll bump it. Interestingly support for “the official story” closely matched the 2007 Zogby/Truth.org poll, one of the ones I referred to. In it 63.4 % of “likely voters” backed “the official story”, 26.4% backed LIHOP and only 4.6% backed MIHOP. You can see that support for the CT position drops with educational level. 62.5% of members here backed “the official story” though support of LIHOP and MIHOP varied between questions. However if we add in Nathaniel who couldn’t figure out how to vote and Jack didn’t vote because he did supposedly was unsatisfied with the options support for the “OCT” drops to 53%
http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf

According to the government there were 1,512,000 engineers, 132,000 architects and 28,000 landscape architects in the US in 2006, annual job growth was projected at about 1% for the former and 1.5 % for the latter two till 2016 this does NOT include retirees, teachers, architects / engineers working in other fields or naval architects. Of these 256,000 were civil engineers which would be about 264,000 today. The grand total for As & Es came out to 1,672,000 in 2006 and about 1,687,000 in 2009 based on projected growth. The total for all architecture and engineering professionals was estimated at 2,521,630 in 2008. And how many of these belong to AE911T? As I said in an earlier post they took down the separate pages for engineers, architects and non credentialed supporters etc but the page showing all supporters is still up.

I copied the list of licensed US architects (including landscape) to Word and substituted 'Lic:' with 'LIC:', the program told me it made 157 substitutions so they have that many licensed architects assuming they're all legit 18 of the licenses are expired so they’re down to 139.

I did the same with their US engineers 177 are licensed 17 of which are expired so they have under 300 licensed As & Es. I see they have a few people awaiting verification or are licensed in the US but work in countries Latvia so they can claim just over 300 people with valid US A or E licenses and extra 35 with expired ones. 1,687,000 divided by 300 comes out to 1/56,000 or 0.018% this in a country where in 2006 6% of adults* said they thought it “very likely” and an additional 10% though it “somewhat likely” the WTC was destroyed by controlled demo. Truthers claim it only takes a modicum of technical knowledge and common sense to realize the towers must have been brought down but architects and engineers seem far LESS likely to believe what they do. Granted not everyone who believes this will join but 6% of 1,687,000 is over101,000 but they have only 1/337 that number.

Of the licensed US engineers only 13 claim to be structural engineers one is Gage's octogenarian boss who got civil and structural licenses in the 1950s but worked all/most his career as an architect. The BLS didn’t how many SE there were but I guesstimate about 40,000. IIRC when AE911T had all the engineers bios on one page only one SE claimed to have experience with tall buildings, he was also one of only 3 or 4 who seemed to have read the NIST report.

* This isn’t inconsistent with the 2007 poll because “inside jobbers” presumably are less likely to vote then other adults, in any case the numbers are with in each poll’s MOE.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos039.htm
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Strange Bedfellows: AE911Truth, the Drone Industry, and Dwain Deets
Posted on September 11, 2009 by willyloman
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/11...nd-dwain-deets/
by Scott Creighton

Who is Dwain Deets? And why is one of the founders of the drone aircraft industry writing papers with Gregg Roberts of AE911Truth and working on their staff?

In State of Play an employee of a mercenary contracting firm (read as Blackwater) turns into a whistle-blower and gives the investigative reporter played by Russel Crowe an idea of what kind of stakes are involved… “You have no idea what you are dealing with. That contract of theirs is worth billions. That’s Wrath of God money.”

1. “Wrath of God Money”, indeed…



The Drone aircraft industry has taken off (no pun intended) since 9/11. Massive amounts of Pentagon cash has been injected into a relatively few select companies who are producing these weapons of mass destruction.

The White House’s defense-budget request for fiscal 2010 includes approximately $3.5 billion for unmanned aerial vehicles.

Companies such as General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., the maker of Predator drones, hope to hold their edge over established, deep-pocketed contractors in what has become one of the military’s most critical technologies.

Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s biggest contractor by sales, recently tapped General Atomics to supply the defense giant with Reaper aircraft for a Navy contract. Northrop Grumman Corp. won the bidding, however.

Northrop is an exception among major defense contractors developing UAVs, with its Global Hawk, a high-altitude aircraft with a wingspan as wide as that of a jetliner. WSJ


General Atomics Predator B

As the civilian death tolls rise in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan from the cowardly use of drones like the one pictured, the production lines crank out more and more of them as a river of cash is poured into R&D programs all across the world. Build a better monster and the Neoliberal American Empire Exceptionalists will beat down your door to get it.

The Air Force will train more pilots to fly unmanned aerial systems from ground operations centers this year than pilots to fly fighter or bomber aircraft… Common Dreams

The money being spent by the Pentagon on these WMDs is certainly intense, but it doesn’t really tell half of the story. The Pentagon is just one client. Unmanned aerial drones are finding their way into all kinds of applications in this country and others. Our allies in the “Global War on Terror” are buying them up like hotcakes. Homeland Security is using them to watch our border with Mexico. Israel will be running buying them up to terrorize the starving Palestinians in Gaza, just like Mexico and Columbia will use them to carry out the ever expanding War on Drugs south of our border.

Fact is, even though the Pentagon’s three and a half billion dollar contract already qualifies as “Wrath of God money”, it only scratches the surface. It’s chump change when compared to the potential growth of the industry.

The “Global War on Terror” or as the Obama administration rebranded it, the “Overseas Contingency Operation”, has been very, very good to the drone business. Very good indeed.


Global Hawk - "wingspan as wide as a jetliner"

And if we know that the Global War on Terror (”The Long War”, the “Endless War”, the “100 Year War”, the “Ridiculous Scam Fighting Against an Invisible Enemy Represented by a Proven CIA (read as banker thugs) Asset bin Laden) started with 9/11, then it isn’t that far of a stretch to make the claim that…

… 9/11 was very,very good for the drone industry. very Good

But where did the drone industry get it’s start? Where did these remote controlled monsters in the sky come from? Who created them? Who paid for their research and development?

2. The History of the Predator and one of it’s Proud Fathers, Dwain Deets


MQ-1 Predator

The Predator drone attack vehicle was not the first incarnation of this type of unmanned assault machine. In fact, it is just one of the best known. It is manufactured by a company called General Atomics in their Aeronautical Systems Inc. division. But General Atomics is certainly not limited to just making cowardly bombing devices, they have their hands in many different pies.

Gulf Oil owned General Atomics for a while, then Chevron came around and bought it. But in 1986, the Blue Brothers bought G.A. for about $50 million dollars.


Lindon Blue and some guy

The Blue Brothers are an interesting family. They both attended Yale I believe (Skull and Bones?) and they set up shop in Nicaragua where it appears they made bunches of money flying “bananas and chocolate” into the states (yeah, right). But they became pretty well connected as the picture shows.

“General Atomics was the single biggest corporate underwriter of Congressional trips between January 2000 and June 2005, according to a nine-month study of congressional travel disclosure forms. The company spent more than $660,000 on 86 trips taken by members of Congress, their aides and families. Most of that was spent on overseas travel related to the unmanned Predator spy plane made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.” Wiki

They started pimping their drones in 2000?

But the drone projects didn’t start in 2ooo. Let’s go back a little further. Does this look familiar?


Pre-Predator Altus in 1998

The Predator and the other variants of the drone vehicles came from this design created and tested Dryden Flight Research Center from about 1996 on. There are some earlier versions of it. Below is the Altus 1 from 1997…


Altus 1 1997

The Altus programs being run at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center ended up becoming the Predator and Global Hawk unmanned vehicle bonanza for the Blue Brothers and a few others. But even they weren’t the first incarnations of the unmanned flight programs.

From mid-1979 to January 1983, two remotely piloted, experimental Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) vehicles were used at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards, Calif., to develop high-performance fighter technologies that would be applied to later aircraft. Each aircraft was approximately half the size of an F-16 and had nearly twice the fighter’s turning capability. NASA

The HiMAT program was all about remote piloting of airplanes. Not just fighters or drones, as it were, but all kinds of airplanes. Do you all remember the images of the jumbo jet liner crash tests run by NASA? They crashed a jumbo jet to see how the fuel additive would burn. Well, they weren’t just testing jet fuel additives, they were actually testing the HiMAT flight control system as well. They ran 60+ full flights with the remote piloting system pictured below with the other shots.


Remote Piloted HiMAT Jumbo Jet

“During the flights the aircraft made approximately 69 approaches, to about 150 feet above the prepared crash site, under remote control. These flights were used to introduce AMK one step at a time into some of the fuel tanks and engines while monitoring the performance of the engines. During those same flights, NASA Dryden also developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the 720 to fly as a drone aircraft.


Remote Piloted HiMAT Jet Test Crash 1986

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility.” Wiki

Oddly, one name that keeps popping up in my NASA Dryden HiMAT Program research, is Dwain Deets.

In 1996 (same year as the start of the Altus project?) Dwain Deets was appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Deets had an extensive background with unmanned drone flight development dating back as far as 1974. He was involved with the HiMAT project according to the NASA webpage.

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. NASA

In 1986, the same year the politically well connected Blue Brothers bought GA, Deets worked on a special assignment in Washington where he helped ferment a new direction for flight research at NASA.

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. NASA

In a paper written about the HiMAT program by Dwain Deets and another for NASA, we find this image on page 19…


Dwain Deets Remote Piloting Paper from 1985

What we see here is some of the earliest work on the remote piloting systems for airplanes.

Detailed as you can see, is a jumbo jet.

This image is found in a paper written by Dwain Deets in 1985, just prior to the Controlled Crash Test of the remote piloted jumbo jet at Dryden Research facility.

I think it would be fair to say that Dwain Deets is probably considered an expert on the remotely piloted flight control systems as well as a pioneer in the drone aircraft technology. There are probably more connects that I just have not found… yet, but he has been intimately involved in the development of this technology since 1974.

So what is Dwain Deets doing these days?

Well, apparently he is working with Gregg Roberts at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Of course, he doesn’t mention his extensive background in remote piloting of jumbo jets and the development of drones like the Predator and the Global Hawk on Dwain Deets’ AE911Truth bio page.

Retired Aerospace Research Engineer. While at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, held positions of Chief, Research Engineering Division, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager.

Deets and Roberts recently wrote an article together critiquing the National Geographic hit piece. The organization they both work with has shied away from both the remote piloting of planes on 9/11 theory as well as the investigation into the possibility that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

That’s not surprizing considering the fact that Gregg Roberts got his start in the 9/11 Truth movement working with Jim Hoffman. Hoffman leads the efforts in the Truth movement to support the Official Conspiracy Theory version of the Flight 77 and the Pentagon narrative. He and his followers are rabid when it comes to attacking anyone who dares discuss the possibility that something else hit that building. Hoffman bases his entire argument on the FBI and prosecution “evidence” supplied during the trial of the “20th hijacker”.

It should be noted for complete transparency, the Gregg Roberts and I don’t really see eye-to-eye on the proper course for the current unofficial investigation into the events of 9/11. I suggested to Gregg Roberts over a year ago that we should run tests on the Ground Zero dust they have in their possession for the trace residual elements of conventional high explosives commonly used in the demolition industry, and Roberts refused to do so, even though in the last paper written by Roberts, Jones, Harrit and others clearly stated that they thought SOMEONE should run the very same tests that Roberts had refuse to run 9 months before.

In fact, those tests could be run now. And no word still from Roberts on that.

Let’s recap…

Gregg Roberts (a guy who refused to test for trace residuals of high explosives) got his start with Jim Hoffman (a man who uses the Federal Government’s “evidence” to keep 9/11 Truth investigators from even considering the possibility that something OTHER than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon) and is working with and co-authoring papers with the man who helped create and ran remote piloted plane and drone aircraft research programs for NASA.

Does that about sum it up?

Not finished yet.

3. Global Hawks

The Predator isn’t the flagship of the drone industry. That title belongs to the Global Hawk. With a wingspan as large as a jumbo jet, the Global Hawk was setting flight records in early 2001, winning Pentagon contracts in mid 2001, and ready for operation in late 2001. Of course, one of the 5 supposedly ready for action in Afghanistan in Dec of 2001, was “unavailable”.

But did the Global Hawk have anything to do with NASA? You betcha..

First flight of the Global Hawk was on 28 February 1998. Five prototypes were built, and put through a thorough flight test program. Beginning in the spring of 1999, the Global Hawk performed a series of operational evaluation flights, some of which were remarkable demonstrations of the aircraft’s capability.

The Global Hawk was scheduled to reach operational service in late 2001, and this timeframe coincided with the US intervention in Afghanistan. Four Global Hawks were available at the time, though only three were regarded as suitable for operations. These three UAVs were operated in the war, though specific details of their missions are unclear. One crashed on 30 December 2001 due to a malfunction. Wiki

In the background you will see Dryden Flight Research center…


Early Global Hawk Tests at Dryden

And later we see, in 2007, the Global Hawk actually being pulled out of the hanger at Dryden…


Global Hawk at Dryden 2007

Eyewitness descriptions at the Pentagon attack on Sept 11th vary greatly. Some reported seeing a jumbo jet, but many others also reported seeing a “small commuter jet” or even a small white “business class” jet hitting the Pentagon.


"Small business class jet?"

The discrepancies between the physical evidence and what one would expect from a 757 crash can be argued all day long. But we do know this much; from the early photographs from the crime scene, we can’t make out what hit that building. We can’t rely on the “evidence” supplied by the FBI and the Justice department in the “20th Hijacker” case either; those bastards lied about everything else, why should a faction of the Truth movement parade their “evidence” around as if it were immaculate? Doesn’t make sense.

Were it not for this image, would Truth activists even consider the FBI’s evidence in this matter? But ask yourself this; does the curvature of this piece look like it fits the massive body of a jumbo jet, or does it look more like one of these painted to resemble a passenger plane?


Think about a different paint job

It’s hard to say.

But one thing I do know… it’s worth investigating with so much money on the line for the drone industry back in 2001.

But not for Jim Hoffman and his contingent. They spend most of their time trying to convince 9/11 Truth advocates that the Bush Administration is telling us the absolute truth about what happened at the Pentagon.

Bush lied about everything else… lied about the War in Iraq… lied about what happened at the Trade Centers… but if you question the odd story of the Pentagon, you are what Hoffman calls a “disinfo agent”.

Hoffman himself has come under fire from several other Truth activists. Mainly because he used to work for a NGO, MSRI, that has ties to the NSA. And some say he still works for them.

You won’t find any mention at all of MSRI on Hoffman’s several bios on his “Truth” websites. He seems to like to keep that bit of his background on the downlow, so to speak.

Hoffman came under fire from me for his ridiculous theory about how the nanothermite could have been used to bring down the Twin Towers. 1.8 million ceiling tile bombs… and a lot of “illegal immigrants”… yeah…

And we have to add Gregg Roberts to that group as well, since Roberts himself works with Hoffman on his website.
Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
Victoria Ashley, Research Consultant
Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator

Odd isn’t it? The awkward connections that seem to pop up in the inbred Truth community.

How much time and money do you think has been spend trying to steer the unofficial investigation of 9/11? The world may never know.

But this much I do know;

1. Jim Hoffman and his cronies work diligently to keep people from investigating the events at the Pentagon ESPECIALLY the idea that something other than a commercial jetliner hit the building.

2. Working right alongside Hoffman’s former assistant Gregg Roberts at AE911Truth, is one of the founders of the remote piloted flight program and the drone aircraft industry, Dwain Deets.

3. Since 9/11 the drone industry has skyrocketed making the Global Hawk and the Predator type aircraft the hottest defense contracting ticket there is.

strange bed fellows indeed.

4. The Human Costs

On Sept. 10th 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced $2.3 trillion dollars was “missing” from the Pentagon budget. On Sept. 11th 2001, the Pentagon suffered a direct hit… as it just so happened, that hit took place right in the offices of the accounting departments that were pouring through the records trying to find out where that money went. This is the result.


Surgical Strike by "al Qaeda"? Really?

What you see there are a series of numbers that represent victims of the attack on the Pentagon. Below I have listed the names and occupations of some of them.

1. Carrie Blagburn, 48, Temple Hills, Maryland, civilian budget analyst, U.S. Army.

2. Angelene C. Carter, 51, Forrestville, Maryland, accountant, U.S. Army.

3. Carolyn B. Halmon, 49, Washington, D.C., budget analyst, U.S. Army.

4. Jimmie Ira Holley, 54, Lanham, Maryland, accountant.

5. Peggie Hurt, 36, Crewe, Virginia, accountant, U.S. Army.

6. Brenda Kegler, 49, Washington, D.C., budget analyst, U.S. Army.

7. David W. Laychak, 40, Manassas, Virginia, civilian budget analyst, U.S. Army.

8. Samantha Lightbourn-Allen, 36, Hillside, Maryland, budget analyst, U.S. Army.

9. Shelley A. Marshall, 37, Marbury, Maryland, budget analyst, Defense Intelligence Agency.

10. Patricia E. (Patti) Mickley, 41, Springfield, Virginia, financial manager, Defense Department.

11. Odessa V. Morris, 54, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, budget analyst, U.S. Army.

12. Martha Reszke, 36, Stafford, Virginia, budget analyst, U.S. Army.

13. Cecelia E. Richard, 41, Fort Washington, Maryland, accounting technician, U.S. Army.

14. Robert E. Russell, 52, Oxon Hill, Maryland, civilian budgetary supervisor, U.S. Army.

15. Marjorie C. Salamone, 53, Springfield, Virginia, budget program analyst, U.S. Army.

16. Antoinette Sherman, 35, Forest Heights, Maryland, budget analyst, U.S. Army.

17. Edna L. Stephens, 53, Washington, D.C., budget analyst, U.S. Army.




“Civilian employee”

1. (Retired) Master Sgt. Max Beilke, 69, Laurel, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

2. *Sharon Carver, 38, Waldorf, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

an accountant for the Army

3. John J. Chada, 55, Manassas, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

administrative assistant for the Department of Defense Information Management Support Center

4. *Ada Davis, 57, Camp Springs, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

an Army accountant

5. Amelia V. Fields, 36, Dumfries, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

6. *Cortz Ghee, 54, Reisterstown, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

a budget analyst for the Department of the Army

7. *Brenda C. Gibson, 59, Falls Church, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

worked in budgeting and accounting for the Army

8. Ron Golinski, 60, Columbia, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

9. Diane M. Hale-McKinzy, 38, Alexandria, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

10. Sheila Hein, 51, University Park, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

11. *Angela Houtz, 27, La Plata, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Navy.

Senior Analyst at the Pentagon

12. Judith Jones, 53, Woodbridge, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Navy.

13. James Lynch, 55, Manassas, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Navy.

14. Teresa Martin, 45, Stafford, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

15. *Ada L. Mason, 50, Springfield, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

served as a budget analyst for the U.S. Army

16. *Robert J. Maxwell, 53, Manassas, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

he served as a civilian budget analyst for the Army

17. *Molly McKenzie, 38, Dale City, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

a civilian budget analyst for the Army

18. Ted Moy, 48, Silver Spring, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

program manager in information management support for the Army

19. *Diana B. Padro, 55, Woodbridge, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

a staff accountant for the Office of the Secretary of the Army

20. *(Retired) Capt. Jack Punches, 51, Clifton, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Navy.

Deputy Head, Navy Interagency Support Branch in the Pentagon.

21. Deborah Ramsaur, 45, Annandale, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

Office of the secretary for the Army

22. *Rhonda Rasmussen, 44, Woodbridge, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

a budget analyst, Office of Budget Analysis

23. *Edward V. Rowenhorst, 32, Lake Ridge, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

a civilian accountant for the Army.

24. Judy Rowlett, 44, Woodbridge, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

25. **Charles E. Sabin, 54, Burke, Virginia, civilian employee, Defense Department.

…began his federal service career as an accountant with the Army Audit Agency

As a key DIA senior manager, his incisive analysis and outstanding leadership led DIA’s financial policy and accounting office through the major organizational and systemic changes of the 1980s and 1990s…

26. *Janice Scott, 46, Springfield, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

46-year-old Army budget analyst

27. **Marian Serva, 47, Stafford, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

Office of congressional affairs contact officer for the Army office moved to that side of the building 2 months prior to 911.

28. Don Simmons, 58, Dumfries, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

29. (Retired) Lt. Col. Gary F. Smith, 55, Alexandria, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

30. Patricia J. Statz, 41, Takoma Park, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

31. Sandra Taylor, 50, Alexandria, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

32. Meta Waller, 60, Alexandria, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

special programs manager for the administrative assistant to the secretary of the Army

33. Willie Q. Troy, 51, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

civilian program analyst in the office of the administrative assistant to the secretary of the Army

34. *Sandra L. White, 44, Dumfries, Virginia, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

Sandra White, 44, was a civilian in the Army budget office, but her husband, a retired Army colonel, said she displayed the fortitude of a soldier.

35. Lisa Young, 36, Germantown, Maryland, civilian employee, U.S. Army.

Sep 11, 2009
National Geographic Channel on 9/11: Manipulation vs. Objectivity
— Dwain Deets and Gregg Roberts

AE911Truth plans to release a longer response than this one as soon as resources permit. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to examine these other recently published pieces:

Jim Hoffman, National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie

Kevin Ryan, Finally, an Apology From the National Geographic Channel (with comments at Kevin Ryan's Blog).

Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler, Evidence for the Explosive Demolition of World Trade Center, Building 7 on 9/11

National Geographic Channel (NGC) first broadcast its two-hour special misleadingly entitled "9/11: Science and Conspiracy," on August 31, 2009. NGC, with 67% ownership by Rupert Murdoch, posed as a neutral party explaining both sides in an ongoing dispute. In reality, it manipulated the presentation, doing many subtle and not so subtle things to support the side of the official story.

In actuality, this so-called documentary was a de facto hit piece, an assault on truth, and obviously skewed in support of the government's explanation of 9/11 and against "9/11 truth." Whatever their intentions, the producers failed completely in any supposed attempt at balanced reporting and a fair presentation of both sides of the story.

The Manipulation Channel

The first big manipulation was the use of a highly misleading title, suggesting that those supporting the official story represent the scientific viewpoint, while those questioning the official story are merely "conspiracy theorists" who have no science or scientists on their side. The truth is that those supporting the official story were manipulating and those questioning the official story were much more objective in their reasoning.

Most troubling, NGC used a devious tactic at program's end against those questioning the official story. These four leaders of the objective side (Dylan Avery, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and Steven Jones) had pointed out shortcomings in the several "experiments" (better called pseudo-scientific demonstrations) sponsored by NGC. According to NGC, these experiments would answer the key questions in the dispute between the two sides, but the 9/11 skeptics were critical of each of the demonstrations, saying that each of them were irrelevant. NGC twisted this criticism of the experiments as evidence that 9/11 skeptics would refuse to accept any experimental results that work against their conclusions – and would do so for that reason alone.

NGC actually used the term "truthers" to refer to the objectivists, a silly-sounding label used as shorthand within the community of 9/11 skeptics, but not one that they use when speaking to critics. The use of that insider label was one of the many appeals to emotion rather than reason used in the show. To help understand this, compare the use of the "N" word by African-Americans themselves, as opposed to its use by people who are not members of that group and instead are hostile toward its members. The repeated use of the word "beliefs," more appropriate to emotional and religious contexts, rather than the word "conclusions," which carries a connotation of rationality, is another example of this kind of manipulation.

In each case of critiquing the demonstrations, Gage said, "the experiment design doesn't even take into account the evidence for explosive controlled demolition." His critique was glossed over by NGC as if he hadn't even said it. What did he mean by this? It turns out, Gage had provided NGC a full briefing on this evidence, and what he meant by explosive controlled demolition. Gage furthermore was assuming as he was making these critiques that his terminology would convey the meaning developed during his full briefing. It turns out that, in what survived the producers' cuts, NGC chose to exclude all of this evidence presented by Gage.

Had Gage known that NGC would censor his list of evidence, he might have given a more specific reason for criticizing the various demonstrations. For example, in the aviation fuel fire test, where NGC showed that a single steel beam under load would sag when it reached over 2,000 degrees F. In reality, 2,000 F wasn't an important temperature at all in the larger context, or even the fact that aviation fuel could burn that hot. Part of the evidence for explosive controlled demolition was that temperatures in the structures reached more than twice that temperature – far above what burning aviation fuel could produce. NGC's experiment was moot. Not a single leading 9/11 skeptic would deny that steel that is sufficiently overloaded and heated will twist out of shape and eventually fail entirely. Indeed, Gage said this on the show.

Other key parts of the evidence for explosive controlled demolition was the more than two seconds of free-fall acceleration of Building 7, the molten metal at Ground Zero that remained extremely hot for many weeks (unexplainable for jet fuel and office fires), the evidence of unignited nanothermite in the dust, the massive girders thrown 600 feet horizontally, and the symmetrical destruction of all three buildings, accelerating into what should have been the paths of greatest resistance. Although the nanothermite was discussed by Jones, it was dismissed by the NGC narrator as merely something some 9/11 skeptics believe in. NGC reinforced this dismissal of the importance of nanothermite by not at all being bothered that their thermite demonstration did not address nanothermite, which was found in the dust from the destruction, but rather its tamer cousin thermite, which NGC was willing and able to obtain.

The NGC narrator was cast as a voice of authority. The tone and inflection conveyed the idea that this show was presenting the "final word," bringing truth out of the controversy. During the lead-up to the building demolition demonstration, the narrator commented that it would take so many people and so much time to wire the explosives, she didn't even know if it would be possible to wire ''both'' buildings. The use of the term "both" was part of an effort throughout the program to ignore Building 7. It falsely implied that only two buildings "collapsed" that day. Building 7 is widely regarded among 9/11 skeptics as a more obvious problem for the official story than the Twin Towers, since its destruction precisely resembled a controlled demolition. (It takes some people longer to see that the destruction of the Twin Towers also had to be a controlled demolition, albeit one that used an "overkill" amount of explosives and started at the impact zones.)

NGC attempted to make its case using personalities in the public's eye, casting them as authorities on this matter. One was Matt Taibbi, editor of Rolling Stone magazine. At one point, Taibbi said, "We ask people who really know the answers. I've asked dozens of structural engineers and scientists about what happened on 9/11, and the answer I uniformly get from credible sources is always the same—overall, this story tends to be supported by the evidence." Such a statement completely dismisses the expertise of Gage and Jones, the more than 800 architects and engineers at Gage's website, in favor of unnamed alleged dozens of structural engineers and scientists somewhere out there. No opportunity was given to counter this outrageous put-down and dismissal. With regard to structural engineers, see our a recent article "29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11" by Gregg Roberts and AE911Truth staff. The article presents hard evidence that Taibbi's unnamed dozens would find hard to refute.

Had any of the show’s producers bothered to research Dr. William Pepper’s exoneration of Martin Luther King’s alleged assassin, James Earl Ray, in a civil trial in 1999, they would have learned that there was in fact a bona fide conspiracy to murder King that was conducted by agencies within the US government and the Memphis police department. US Army snipers followed orders, taking up a position as backup shooters, without knowing why they were so ordered. They were never ordered to shoot because the primary shooter did his job. After realizing what they had been made part of, several of them left the US and went into hiding, two of them returning reluctantly and courageously to testify at the trial. The jury rendered a rapid verdict in favor of the King family’ endorsing the evidence and conclusions that Pepper presented. Real conspirators were exposed and identified, proving that these types of activities do in fact occur, but are kept almost completely out of public awareness with the help of media collaborators like the NGC producers. This victory for truth in the King case creates the disturbing dissonance that comes before comfortable lies give way to uncomfortable but ultimately empowering truths. It would have established a critical precedent, of which there are others, for people to understand the horrible reality of 9/11.

As normal, some corrections need to be made:


They are not weapons of mass destruction (WMD).


UAVs save the lives of allied service personnel, removing the need for them to be placed in harms way. The targeting accuracy and collateral damage from their employment is debatable but it is not cowardice.


Misleading; most countries are investing in UAV technology. UAVs can fly longer, in high-threat areas, without risking humans.


Actually, UAVs have been steadily gaining wider employment for decades. The improvement in computer technology has been the driving factor. It has meant the aircraft can be flown more accurately, can fly autonomously, and most importantly sensors and weapons have become lighter.


UAVs (or drones) have been flying since the mid-1930s. They were used in WWII by both sides.


No it wasn't. It was all about testing high maneuverability designs without risking a human pilot.

Because the planes were controlled from a ground station, experimental technologies and high-risk maneuverability tests could be employed without endangering pilots.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Fa...S-025-DFRC.html


It wasn't a jumbo jet; that label is normally reserved for the Boeing 747. It wasn't even a wide-body. It was a Boeing 720, a variation of the 707. The similarity between the 720 flight control system and the HiMAT FCS was they were both flight control systems, nothing more. In fact, the HiMAT system was using an early version of Fly-By-Wire (FBW). The Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) with the B720 used a purely mechanical linkage, as the aircraft was built with mechanical control systems. The CID was testing not only the fuel additive, but also seat restraint / cabin structural systems.



No, not quite. They flew 14 manned flights, which included:

- 9 remote takeoffs
- 13 remote landings
- 69 CID profiles

This consisted of a little over 31 hours of flight time, of which a little over 50% was conducted under 'remote control' conditions...but the aircraft was still manned.

There was only one unmanned flight: the actual CID test.

(Source: DOT/FAA/CT-87/10 Summary report - Full scale transport controlled impact demonstration program dated SEP 87)


Many? Only 2 out of over 100 described it as "corporate jet". 26 said it was an American Airlines jet. 39 say that it was a large jet / commercial airliner. 7 said it was a Boeing 757.



So these were the only records? These were the only people who could investigate? Did the AA77 impact destroy all records? I think not. BTW, what proof is there that this accounting area was doing the investigation? I would think that an IG area or the GAO would be more appropriate.