An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities"

[Charles Drago]

The message in question, Fetzer's article, starts with the claim "Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight". Yet, according to Joe's account in his email to Lawson, that isn't actually the case. Why do you defend Fetzer posting misinformation in violation of the rules of this forum?

Apparently you haven't the slightest idea of the definition of "misinformation" within the deep politics context.

I remind you that I co-founded this forum. I don't need to be educated as to its rules.

Back to the point: You continue to evade the message and instead attempt to deflect attention to the messenger. This is a pitifully transparent ploy to dodge the matter at hand. You are fooling no one -- not even yourself, I'm certain.

[Kyle Burnett]

Apparently you haven't the slightest idea of the definition of "misinformation" within the deep politics context.

Please tell me, how do you figure that the context of deep politics precludes Fetzer's exaggeration of Keith's contribution to the big shaker system from qualifying as misinformation?

You continue to evade the message and instead attempt to deflect attention to the messenger.

My issue is not with the "messager", Fetzer, but with the claims he has presented in his "message". I started with his claim that "Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system", because that is what he chose to lead his article with. However, since Fetzer has now at least given a half-assed admission that Keith actually only designed software for the big shaker system rather than having designed the system as a whole, lets move on to Fetzers next claim where he replies to Lawson with "You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet". I've yet to find Lawson referring to cruising speed in his article, and to the contrary he references Vd, stating:

even John Lear had to admit that the plane is allowed to reach a speed parameter known as Vd. In the Boeing 767's case: a velocity of 420 KNOTS (483 mph), under flight-test conditions, at low altitudes. If that permitted speedwhich is not a definitive airframe or engine performance speedis increased by a mere 21%, the plane's calculated impact speed, when it met the South Tower, would be reached or slightly exceeded. And I have seen quotes along the lines of: Mr. Boeing builds 'em strong; and the inbuilt safety factor may be as high as 50% over a selected safety ceiling. Boeing will not release any wind-tunnel data, so what can be observed from what was recorded on video, as well as common sense, is all that anyone has to go on regarding the actual safety margins. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

So, please tell me Charles, can you quote anything from Lawson's to support Feltzer's claim here, or would you agree that Fetzer has failed to address Lawson's actual argument and constructed a strawman to attack instead?

[Kyle Burnett]

So Charles, and James, am I to take it that neither of you are willing to address Lawson's argument that a speed of 21% over Vd is within the realm of possibility?

[Charles Drago]

So Charles, and James, am I to take it that neither of you are willing to address Lawson's argument that a speed of 21% over Vd is within the realm of possibility?

Kyle,

Save your evasions for someone likely to be taken in by them. I've been at this for too long, I've seen 'em come and go. You don't make the first cut.

I reiterate:

Originally Posted by Kyle Burnett:

As long as you [Fetzer] remain incapable of coming to terms with the simple fact that designing automation software for the big shaker system is not the same thing as designing system itself; I see no point in attempting to discuss far more complicated matters with you.

My comment on this Evasion 101 ruse:

Evasion. Pure and simple. Such nonsense isn't worthy of a high school cheat.

Rather than attacking the messenger, Mr. Burnett, why don't you try attacking the specific message in question?

I shall not allow you to change the subject. Got it?

[Kyle Burnett]

Again, I've been addressing Fetzer's message here. You on the other hand have yet to say even one thing about the claims he's presented, and rather persist in attacking me instead.

[Charles Drago]

Then answer the question that you clearly attempted to avoid.

Address the message; do not attach the messenger.

You are playing deep political hardball here. What I am attacking is your transparent attempt to avoid debate.

I have no expertise whatsoever in matters in discussion. But I am a renowned expert in deep political processes.

Now either respond directly to the Fetzer question you attempted to avoid, or leave the adults alone.

[Kyle Burnett]

Please quote the question you are accusing me of avoiding, and I will be happy to address it directly.

[Charles Drago]

We're done.

[Kyle Burnett]

Well, now that Charles is done with his ambiguous attacks on me, is there anyone here who does care to discuss the subject of this thread?