Really good summary of the "scandal" created by this whole thing, and reinforces my assertion that Weldon is asserting dangers about topics he is not fully versed on, for the most part because he isn't privy (he was fired) to how they are addressing concerns such as his.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10586 times:
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10514 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1): Yes, I posted that link in the "other thread" here.
That thread is too long and this is sufficiently new in that it is an industry analysts assessment of the whole uproar.
I also find it telling that leeham lists Rather's "credibility gap" in their analysis, and Rather files a lawsuit this week. I think Rather has seen that he is no longer considered a credible source, so now he is trying to "sue for his reputation back" trying to blame everyone else but himself for his problems.
I don't think there is any coincidence in the timing of Rather's lawsuit. Once he saw he could not break a "bombshell" story and make it stick like he used to, it was time to play victim. It's sad to see this guy flounder like he is, unable to fade into the oblivion of retirement...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4175 posts, RR: 30 Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10118 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2): I also find it telling that leeham lists Rather's "credibility gap" in their analysis, and Rather files a lawsuit this week.
Didn't you know? Based on comments others made in that other thread, Rather had an illustrious 50 year journalistic career. One small incident wasn't enough to impugn his credibility. Oh, and I forgot: several posters said he wasn't fired.
Anyway...
Regardless of one's position on the issue of CFRP, the fact that Airbus unequivacally supports Boeing's position is indicative that Boeing does not, contrary to what others claim, impugn Weldon's credibility for nefarious reasons. If there are hidden issues with CFRP, they are not hidden because of Boeing's fraudulent or criminal intent.
Flysherwood From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9878 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3): Didn't you know? Based on comments others made in that other thread, Rather had an illustrious 50 year journalistic career. One small incident wasn't enough to impugn his credibility. Oh, and I forgot: several posters said he wasn't fired.
What a bunch of hooey!!! What do you mean one small incident? You call manufacturing a story in order to influence the outcome of a Presidential election a small incident? By doing what he did, he brought into question all of his "BREAKING STORIES" that he ever did. Take a look at the reaction to his lawsuit against CBS from his former colleagues!
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9788 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter): for the most part because he isn't privy (he was fired) to how they are addressing concerns such as his.
That was exactly my impression of him as I watched the Dan Rather program. He did not seem to be aware of the ongoing tests at Boeing (the fuselage drop test in particular).
National757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 717 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9770 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2): I don't think there is any coincidence in the timing of Rather's lawsuit. Once he saw he could not break a "bombshell" story and make it stick like he used to, it was time to play victim. It's sad to see this guy flounder like he is, unable to fade into the oblivion of retirement...
Extremely interesting analysis. I too wondered about the timing of the Rather lawsuit in relation to his story on HDNet.
Formula 1 Grand Prix Trips: YUL '08, MEL '09, BCN '10, SIN '11, and LGW '12
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26684 posts, RR: 83 Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9703 times:
We should probably concentrate on Weldon's claims more then Rather's reputation.
Airbus, at least, understands that Boeing is a reputable company with a long history of making safe, reliable, and effective commercial airliners. Just as Boeing, at least, understands Airbus is the same.
Those who care so passionately about Airbus or Boeing should strive to follow their example a bit more...
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9655 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): We should probably concentrate on Weldon's claims more then Rather's reputation.
Agreed. Dan Rather simply presented the story. I didn't like the slant, but I doubt it would have been much different with any other presenter.
The accusations were entirely by Weldon, and we should talk about that and that alone.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9583 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter): Weldon is asserting dangers about topics he is not fully versed on, for the most part because he isn't privy (he was fired) to how they are addressing concerns such as his.
Not only that but:
-He didn't work on the 787
-He isn't a composites guy
-The title "Senior Engineer" doesn't mean anything at Boeing other than how long you've been there
-He left Boeing before the 787 development really got going
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4175 posts, RR: 30 Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9450 times:
Quoting Flysherwood (Reply 4): What a bunch of hooey!!! What do you mean one small incident? You call manufacturing a story in order to influence the outcome of a Presidential election a small incident? By doing what he did, he brought into question all of his "BREAKING STORIES" that he ever did. Take a look at the reaction to his lawsuit against CBS from his former colleagues!
I'm with you, Bro. I was just repeating the (laughable) comments others had made.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2): I don't think there is any coincidence in the timing of Rather's lawsuit. Once he saw he could not break a "bombshell" story and make it stick like he used to, it was time to play victim.
I thought the "coincidence" really wasn't a coincidence. Rather (no pun intended), I thought the timing was splendidly planned. His 787 whistleblower interview didn't seem to get much traction in the mainstream media so he decides to throw da bomb. I'm sure his lawyers had long ago drafted the complaint. He was just probably waiting to see if this "Hail Mary" pass would connect with the receiver. It didn't. So now comes one final play to salvage his reputation.
Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter): my assertion that Weldon is asserting dangers about topics he is not fully versed on, for the most part because he isn't privy (he was fired) to how they are addressing concerns such as his.
If the drop-test validated Boeing's crash analysis, and the FAA validated Boeing's crash analysis modeling, wouldn't that lay everything to rest? I mean, c'mon, if the 787 were a traditional design, Boeing would still be using a drop-test and the SAME crash analysis to validate the construction of the plane. So why would the test and the modeling be good for one and not the other?
From the article, quoting the FAA...
Quote: “The difference of composites
vs. aluminum is well known and taken into account. The [Boeing] drop test completely
validated the design codes.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9444 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9): Not only that but:
-He didn't work on the 787
-He isn't a composites guy
-He was fired for threatening a supervisor.
-His claim to whistleblower status was reviewed and denied by OSHA.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9288 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 8): Dan Rather simply presented the story. I didn't like the slant, but I doubt it would have been much different with any other presenter.
Yes, but WOULD another presenter with the "reputation and long and storied career" of Dan Rather touch this story with a 10 foot pole, using Weldon as the primary source?
It honestly feels just like the Bush thing. Whether or not you think the 787 has safety issues, he is giving credence to a man, Weldon, who doesn't sound like he deserves the respect he's getting from Rather. This is the same situation as with the Bush case, where Rather was so eager to find the "truth" that he found a very disreputable source and didn't question the validity or motives of the documents he received, then refused to acknowledge his mistake.
It comes from journalists caring more about their viewpoint or breaking the big story than about reporting the truth.
You said you didn't like his slant but also said he "simply presented the story." That's false. You don't slant a story unless you have an agenda. Thus he didn't "simply" tell us anything, but chose how to present it to try to convince you his source was right and everyone else was covering up.
And it worked for a few hours, as other news agencies picked up the story, then seemed to drop it when they realized it was crap. It's gone from the front pages of cnn.com, foxnews.com, bbcnews, etc. just as quickly as it showed up a few hours ago...
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11): -He was fired for threatening a supervisor.
-His claim to whistleblower status was reviewed and denied by OSHA.
And everyone who's worked for more than a few years in the real world knows a guy just like this. Always bitching about his job and the people he works with, doesn't treat his bosses with the proper respect because he "knows better" and then bitches about how he's treated when he's let go.
In fact, it sounds a lot like Rather, which is likely why he sympathizes with this guy a little too much.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9097 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 10): if the 787 were a traditional design, Boeing would still be using a drop-test and the SAME crash analysis to validate the construction of the plane
Not so. A fuselage drop test is not part of the normal certification process. The FAA requested the test specifically because of the new construction methods for the 787 - and again, that's first-hand evidence that the FAA is doing its job and that Mr. Weldon (and Dan Rather Reports) has got it wrong.
Bok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8638 times:
This should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Weldon.
Quote:
But according to a summary of OSHA's findings, Boeing told investigators Weldon was fired for threatening a supervisor, specifically for stating he wanted to hang the African-American executive "on a meat hook" and that he "wouldn't mind" seeing a noose around the executive's neck.
Weldon denied to OSHA investigators that he had referred to a noose and said the "meat hook" reference had not been a threat.
OSHA dismissed Weldon's claim, denying him whistle-blower status largely on the grounds that Boeing's 787 design does not violate any FAA regulations or standards.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4175 posts, RR: 30 Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 5050 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 13): The FAA requested the test specifically because of the new construction methods for the 787 - and again, that's first-hand evidence that the FAA is doing its job and that Mr. Weldon (and Dan Rather Reports) has got it wrong.
The 767 had a fuse drop test performed back in around 1980 or so. I remember seeing the video of it a while back. What was the purpose of that test? Also, although I haven't seen a video of it, others in this forum have spoken of a 737 drop test in 2000. Again, what was the purpose fo that test? Even if they were for other reasons, wouldn't Boeing have benefitted from using the results of those tests to validate their modeling methodology?
USAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1411 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4616 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3): Oh, and I forgot: several posters said he wasn't fired.
They'd better tell Mr. Rather's lawyers that, before his $70 million law suit starts.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4541 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 15): Also, although I haven't seen a video of it, others in this forum have spoken of a 737 drop test in 2000.
It was shown on Dan Rather Reports.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 15): Even if they were for other reasons, wouldn't Boeing have benefitted from using the results of those tests to validate their modeling methodology?
Yes - verification of software models is the reason for these drop tests. The drop test is not part of the FAA certification process, it is used to verify the that builder's modelling is correct, and crashworthiness is then demonstrated using the computer model. Certification is obtained based on the computer model, not the test.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4175 posts, RR: 30 Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2080 times:
Don't laugh, but even though I started that other thread on the Rather-Weldon interview, which is now over 300 posts, I didn't watch it. Sorry, I just don't have time to spend an hour absorbing non-credible information, or at least information coming from non-credible sources.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
