Boeing Internal Documents - 737 Max “Designed by Clowns” (ethics, government, state)

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by Corrie22

pretty much...one place reports some click bait....they all pick it up from that same one source...it's all about the click bait

they're all quoting the same problematic statements. why would they not sound very similar?

[scarabchuck]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

GAWD. Look at who you linked. They are all parroting each other. If anything else, this tells me the truth is really somewhere else.

This was out last year
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hour-engineers

[turkey-head]

I've worked at a company very similar to Boeing. Engineers are an opinionated bunch. Pilots too. There's nothing unusual about comments like these. Their mistake was putting them in writing.

They'll be crucified for writing down what many at both Boeing and the FAA already know.

[TEPLimey]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

I wouldn't believe anything written by the Slate as the gospel as to what really happened.

Certain posters like to decry the veracity of any media source presented to them, yet never ever ever share what media sources they deem trustworthy, despite being repeatedly and directly asked.

[finalmove]

Originally Posted by uggabugga

just as their stock was getting a boost after it turns out their plane in iraq was downed by a missile, rather than a malfunction.

“The most damaging messages included conversations among Boeing pilots and other employees about
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-congress.html

Slate? Anything from Mother Jones?

Its remarkable how the Left is cultivating this piling-on against Boeing. It's unfortunate that layman critics of all things American can maintain a hold on what's become political.

The plane's remedy is at hand, yet there is a subsurface effort by some to never relent.

[finalmove]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

Certain posters like to decry the veracity of any media source presented to them, yet never ever ever share what media sources they deem trustworthy, despite being repeatedly and directly asked.

Dude, we can just imagine the pubications in your mailbox!

[finalmove]

Originally Posted by uggabugga

take your pick. there are plenty more.

Next you can provide all internal memos from each of those sources pertaining to the President. Have you heard of the term bias?

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by finalmove

Next you can provide all internal memos from each of those sources pertaining to the President. Have you heard of the term bias?

i have no idea what you're going on about. what does the president have to do with any of this?

is fox news an acceptable source to the naysayers?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/boeing-em...onkeys-737-max

what about the wall street journal?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/interna...ty-11578627206

[TEPLimey]

Originally Posted by finalmove

Dude, we can just imagine the pubications in your mailbox!

I make no bones about the fact that I regularly source the BBC, WSJ, Economist, Reuters, and more academic articles from Foreign Affairs. Let's hear WK's trusted "sources" since she is always haranguing others for citing to certain publications yet doggedly refuses to identify with specificity any publications that she deems trustworthy.

[Ponderosa]

One could go through the emails of any company or organization and find similar comments from disgruntled employees, losers who did not get the promotion they did not deserve, whiners who resist corporate change, and slackers. Unless there is proof, it is best to assume that this is all we are looking at here.