I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by Ian
Stirling on Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:49:25 +0000
(UTC), which said:

How do you reconcile this with
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch4.htm#4.75

Which gives the strut closest to failure at liftoff somewhere around
40% of it's maximum load.?

Do you believe that the rogers report was just sloppy, driven by
pressure to get back to flights, or was intentionally covering up evidence?
If the latter, why?

Ian, I'm not going to tell you to killfile the Maxsons. However, I do
have to ask: Given John Maxson's well-documented history over the
last ~2 years, *why* are you under the impression that he will give
you a straight answer?


-------------
Beady's Analogy: "A conspiracy theory is the intellectual equivalent of a Rube Goldberg machine; it is an overly-complex and dramatic alternative for an accepted adequate, simpler and more mundane explanation."