Nasa E-mails prove that Nasa knew - and I told you so - anyone care to apologize?

2/27/03 | Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

My first post on this forum was in relation to the initial Nasa Press Conference after the horrible disaster. I said that the Director's response to questions asked made me think he was hiding something. I said he was side-stepping the issues asked about. I cited my experience as an attorney and the thousands and thousands of questions/answers I had experience in tense legal situations.

I was flamed over and over again. My registration date was cited to attack my opinion. My profession as a lawyer was cited to attack me personally and my opinion.

The moderator even removed my post. "Comment #129 Removed by Moderator" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833981/posts?q=1&&page=101

I wrote "It wouldn't be the first time someone in a government-funded program or agency skirted the truth in order to justify their mistakes, or to avoid negative fallout.

I don't know what he knows or doesn't know. All I know is what I heard in the press conference. And, as someone who has professional experience in Question and Answer sessions dealing with serious or touchy subjects, I'm just trying to offer my reaction to his response.

Noone asked him if tiles could be repaired. All that was asked was if Nasa had considered a spacewalk to investigate the impact that occurred during launch.

His answer was totally defensive. Between several of his responses, the "theme" was "Nothing could have been done to repair tile damage" - I don't believe that for a minute. Regardless, who cares if it couldn't have been repaired? That is NO justification for failing to fully investigate before re-entry.

158 posted on 02/01/2003 2:08 PM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh"

People like "steveegg" called me a "trial lawyer troll since 2/1/03" etc. Typical Freeper response to a new person who dares to suggest that someone did something wrong. (Unless that someone was a liberal or foreigner or a non-conservative etc)

Well, the emails show that Nasa knew DAYS before the re-entry that there was a problem, that there was potential for a catastrophic left wheel/wing failure. And they didn't do jack squat about it. They let those 7 heroes come back and "crossed their fingers" hoping that the Red-Flag was wrong.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/nasaemail1.html

You know what? This isn't the first time that I have been personally attacked and flamed for showing up with an unpopular opinion or forecast.

Remember the Bush-Gore election? I was the first person on this forum, or ANY forum for that matter, who posted a warning that Gore was going to attempt to selectively challenge vote tallies in heavily democratic areas, and that Gore might WIN the election by doing that.

AND I WAS RIGHT.

And I got flamed and insulted and called every bad name in the book - until, of course, I was proved right over the next 24-48 hours after that post.

Want the proof? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/111000-04.htm

----------------------------------

For any of you who would like to apologize for how you flamed me, insulted me, and called me names, attacking me personally for the posts I made calling into question the Nasa director's evasive responses, and my conclusion that they did something wrong and that they KNEW, please feel free.

For those of you who don't feel like it, at least maybe you will commit to thinking before you type next time. Because, I for one, am ashamed of many of the self-described "conservatives" on this website who are so close-minded, so quick to defend ANYTHING that they deem patriotic or conservative, that you end up embarassing yourself, and the true conservative ideology.

May God Bless the 7 heroes who died, and their families, and may we rise to the occasion, and fix what we did wrong, fix the ineptitude and idiocy that led to their senseless and avoidable deaths.

[Arkinsaw]

I am shocked that the freep audience would be so unkind.

What are you talking about us for. You're the meenie.

[smokeyjon]

That's a suicidal do-nothing loser attitude. There were MANY things that could have been done, had people be set to do them.

If I'm missing being clubbed with blatant sarcasm, then please club me good. :)

Otherwise, some examples of these "many things" would be of great interest to me.

[MississippiMan]

I missed the original thread, but if you got flamed it was probably more a matter of the tone of your comments than the substance.

Sorry, Cicero, but there's an error in that assumption. I defended someone--can't say for sure it was this poster--who posted a suggestion similar to the one under discussion here, who was instantly attacked because he had a recent member-since date, as often happens here. It's an infantile practice IMO and it goes on a lot.

MM

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

"""3. Assuming that NASA knew of critical, irrepairable damage, nothing could have been done"""

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

They could have
1. Used remaing fuel to maintain orbit as long as possible.
2. Studied various options.
3. Downloaded scientific information.
4. Allowed crew to make their own decision.
5. Allowed crew to say goodbye to their loved ones.

The "there was nothing they could do" answer is not just wrong, it's cleary a defense mechanism and illogical.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

My first post on this forum was in relation to the initial Nasa Press Conference after the horrible disaster.

Remember the Bush-Gore election? I was the first person on this forum, or ANY forum for that matter, who posted a warning that Gore was going to attempt to selectively challenge vote tallies in heavily democratic areas, and that Gore might WIN the election by doing that.

Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh signed up 2003-02-01.

Well, which one is the truth, shyster? Are you this sloppy in court?

[TLBSHOW]

Bill Nelson was on o'reilly about these emails today..

BUMP TO TRUTH

[Semper911]

I didn't flame you, but I apologize for all the others here who did. My advice: Let it go.

[Physicist]

Nasa E-mails prove that Nasa knew - and I told you so

The emails prove no such thing, but in any case, did you tell us so? Here's what you said:

I don't know what he knows or doesn't know.

So you didn't "tell us so".

Here's what else you said:

Between several of his responses, the "theme" was "Nothing could have been done to repair tile damage" - I don't believe that for a minute. Regardless, who cares if it couldn't have been repaired? That is NO justification for failing to fully investigate before re-entry.

There was no way to repair any damage, or even to investigate to any meaningful degree whether there was any damage in the first place. But hey, you believe what you like.

[katnip]

Maybe it's those names that begin with "B" that are prone to flaming?
Try again with another name.

[clintonh8r]

Don't you go to the movies? They solve problems like the shuttle's all the time, and it only takes a few minutes!

[bvw]

Look, you're just gonna knock 'em down for nit-picked reasons, because you are on the loser's vector. That is -- you're looking for why it can't have been done, rather than how to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Yet I'll name two -- knowing you will deny them -- yet both might have been possible. (1) Send up a rescue craft. (2) Cold soak.

[wimpycat]

Maybe you should change your name to "Cassandra".

[smokeyjon]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

They could have
1. Used remaing fuel to maintain orbit as long as possible. 2. Studied various options. 3. Downloaded scientific information. 4. Allowed crew to make their own decision. 5. Allowed crew to say goodbye to their loved ones.

The "there was nothing they could do" answer is not just wrong, it's cleary a defense mechanism and illogical.

Oh come on now. Your original argument was about prevention of the disaster.

Let's assume that they follow your list here (in which you admit there is nothing that can be done to save the ship and crew). What would your endgame be? Assume destruction of the ship, and plow it into the Pacific to minimize the possibility of damage and injury due to debris? Bring them home on their normal trajectory, and subject a public that is now aware that the shuttle has no chance to the same video and pictures that we got in January?

You say I'm being illogical, but you haven't provided any proof. Give me some meat here...what realistically could have been done if NASA legitimately knew that Columbia was doomed ahead of time? The crew had at most 4 or 5 days of life support left. Repair was physically impossible, and rendezvous with any other craft within the available timeframe was physically impossible. So please, before you call me illogical, give me a logical solution.

[dark_lord]

Fella, here is a big clue. It is not about what you say but about how you say it. Note in this thread alone almost every sentence you have written contains the words "I", "my", or "me". Which means you come off as "its all about ME ME ME!"

Constructive suggestion - in your postings, do not use the words "I", "my", "me" more than once every 5 or six sentences. And see the results.

[PatriotGames]

I get flamed all of the time for some of my posts. It's part of the process.

On your next post you might be lauded for your insight.

It's like trying to destroy the DA in court then going to dinner with him.

Live with it.

[bvw]

or even to investigate to any meaningful degree whether there was any damage in the first place.

Unfortunately that's untrue. It may have been that some of our better scopes were assigned to other war-type efforts -- but we have had yesterday or so seen good-resolution telescope photos of the top the shuttle, which if it had merely rotated to show it's bottom, would have provided valuable info. Simply -- because NASA didn't get the word out, nobody tried that could have. That is my thinking.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

"The crew had at most 4 or 5 days of life support left. Repair was physically impossible, and rendezvous with any other craft within the available timeframe was physically impossible. So please, before you call me illogical, give me a logical solution."

4 or 5 days of life support left? How about letting them decide whether to risk death on re-entry, or spend the last 4-5 days of their life preparing to leave their families, and meet their maker.

[TomServo]

They solve problems like the shuttle's all the time, and it only takes a few minutes!

C'mon. Only if Bruce Willis was the commander. Get real.

[MississippiMan]

I agree it's monumentally stupid to take the tack that they didn't inspect because they couldn't have done anything. In such a situation, perhaps any attempt would have been risky but better than doing nothing. And even if you couldn't do anything at all, they still should've found out. The astronauts deserved to know there was a problem. Maybe they would've liked to say something to their families? Get right with God?

MM

[smokeyjon]

Look, you're just gonna knock 'em down for nit-picked reasons, because you are on the loser's vector. That is -- you're looking for why it can't have been done, rather than how to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Yet I'll name two -- knowing you will deny them -- yet both might have been possible. (1) Send up a rescue craft. (2) Cold soak.

You're ignoring reality:

1. Impossible. There was absolutely NO way that any other shuttle could have been safely prepped to reach Columbia before their life support was exhausted. On top of that, Columbia did NOT have her docking mechanism installed. The only theoretical way to transfer the crew would be experimental "bubbles" that NASA played with almost 20 years ago. And finally, no other spacecraft in the WORLD besides STS can support 7 passengers, nevermind the crew to get it there.

2. See #1. You might succeed in freezing the dead astronaut's bodies and keeping them from decomposing until a rescue shuttle could get there, but that's it. You can't go grocery shopping in space, or turn on the water fountain. They would have run out of food, water, and oxygen long before another shuttle could have gotten to them.

This is NOT a defense of NASA. It's an exploration of reality.