dadeets's blog

Faith in Science -- Retired NASA engineer explains why he doesn't believe the official 9/11 report

In an article by Shane Cohn in the Ventura County Reporter, an interview of 9/11 Truth spokesperson Dwain Deets is presented. The interviewer asked good questions, and presented the responses accurately.

This article was published shortly before two speaking events in Ventura, California, on the 9/11 anniversary weekend.

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/faith_in_science/8213/

Dwain Deets LTE: Protecting the public from information

Letter to Editor, North County Times, published August 3, 2010
nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters

We have a federal agency showing disdain for the Freedom of Information Act. Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Director of National Institute for Standards and Technology, denied a request from structural engineer Ronald Brookman, who sought detailed structural analysis information gathered by NIST when they determined the cause of the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse. Gallagher's stated reason for denial was that releasing it "might jeopardize public safety."

What might jeopardize public safety is "not" allowing professionals in the building industry such as Mr. Brookman to independently study the NIST analysis of the highly anomalous building failure. A 47-story high-rise suddenly collapses straight down into its own footprint — highly anomalous.

Why Progressives Should Press for Building-7 Exposure

Check out my article just published on OpEdNews. I wrote it with the hope that the topic would be discussed at the national Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) conference taking place in Cleveland. I am attending the conference.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Progressives-Should-Pr-by-Dwain-Deets-100723-333.html

Dwain

An appeal to fairness

I have been trying to argue on the Sam Harris.org forum that 9/11 Truthers shouldn't have the burden of proof placed on them to falsify the official story. This is a response I made on 1/23/08 to someone taking issue with my statement that we should assume we don't know how the airplanes were controlled, rather than accept the official story (prevailing opinion) that Muslim hijackers were in control.

My quote of this someone: "How do any of these things disprove the idea that the hijackers were responsible for the attack? Are the 9/11 commission and the CIA both holding secrets from us that could tell us what REALLY happened?"

My response:

This gets at the crux of my point. I’m saying I shouldn’t have the burden placed on me of needing to disprove the prevailing opinion. I’m instead pointing out the complete lack of standards applied to the original explanation. By standards, I’m referring to the concept of the accused being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Or, that it is necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.