Nobody's DISMISSING anything. I haven't heard anyone from NASA completely rule out the "impact" to the wing during launch as a cause of the breakup of the shuttle. All I've heard is that "it does not make sense to us" that this would be the only cause. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but when the engineering calculations suggest to look elsewhere, then the only responsible course of action is to seek other causes. At least until the investigators get the OK to fire a bowling ball at the wing of one of the other shuttles to observe the damage that MAY HAVE resulted from the impact.
And to say that NASA's statements expressing doubt about the foam insulation being the cause of the disaster are based on "speculation" is ludicrous. One could just as easily argue that it is highly speculative to include the foam insulation among possible causes.
to what I said: “They are dismissing the most obvious suspect out of hand,…”
------------------------------------
I can’t believe I have to go though grammar lessons for you to see the meaning of the word “dismissing”, which I intentionally and carefully selected.
There is only a little difference in the spelling between “dismissing” and “dismissed” but there is a huge difference in meaning.
I didn't use the past tense "dismissed" as you inferred (Neither did I say that anything was “completely” done on the matter of dismissing the foam, or I would have used the word “dismissed”).
“Dismissing” = present participle completing the present progressive verb “are Dismissing”. Present participles complete progressive verbs. The progressive verb in this case is "are dismissing".
The word “dismissing” refers to a present process by NASA. If I intended to say it was "completely ruled out" as you thought I meant, I would have said "dismissed".
--------------------------
Typically, there are a few steps when an attempt is made to execute the unwarranted dismissing process in an accident investigation such as this for the foam.
Step 1) Cast doubts about the subject of foam. (done - February 5th, 2003)
Step 2) Based only on the unwarranted doubts cast by these self-serving "experts", you make heavy cuts into the money and effort earmarked for foam investigation in the failure analysis.
Step 3) With limited funds directed at foam investigation, have low level personnel perform only rudimentary tests, write non-consequential reports, and cite "no-prior evidence" on the subject.
Step 4) In the final report, announce that: “In our investigations on foam, we found no evidence to support the theory that foam was the primary cause of failure."
Step 5) Infer the conclusion: "...therefore NASA management was not in any way responsible for the loss of vehicle."
When I did failure analysis, there were people who would do almost the same thing NASA officials are attempting (the progressive verb) now before they were taken to the mat for substantiation.