They are marketing their political agenda.  For my part, I can see right 
through it and many others can as well.  To allow extremist rhetoric, even 
to the point that it incites action toward fomenting revolution is one of 
the trade-offs for freedom.  I do not favor censoring them. You are already 
responding appropriately by pointing out the logical flaws in their 
arguments.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <tachyon_1@email.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.


> I agree. It's a shame that the mass of wild and ridiculous conspiracy
> theories have tended to minimize and marginalize legitimate questions
> regarding these incidents.
> I wish the believers in the "Evil lizard people from another dimension
> are plotting to take over the world" bunch of idiots would just shut up
> because they make EVERYONE that notices inconsistencies get grouped in
> with themselves. People assume you are as crazy as they are.
>
> I too have read a lot of this stuff and it was all speculation and wild
> theories until a few of the recent bits of factual analysis came out and
> caused me to really re-think what I believed to be true about 9/11 and
> other things.
>
> As you pointed out, the calculations, which anyone can verify in their
> own home from video and a stop watch, that the towers fell at nearly the
> standard rate of acceleration due to gravity. Even air causes significant
> resistance to gravity (which is why sky divers have such a low terminal
> velocity). The idea that the towers crushed each floor successively
> during the fall without slowing the fall is un-imaginable. It totally
> violates simple Newtonian laws of physics.
> The other problem that jumped out at me was the idea that the people on
> flight 93 used their cell phones to call family members. This just will
> not work, In fact it's only in recent weeks that the first airline (Dubai
> airlines) deployed planes with the required on-board repeaters and ground
> links to allow cell phones to work on board a moving aircraft. This has
> been proven in actual tests as well. Cell phones have a 0.4% rate of even
> connecting with a tower long enough to even initiate a call, never mind
> hold a conversation. When faced with this fact many people cry "obviously
> they were using the in flight aircraft phones, not their cell phones"
> however this is patently false. It was widely reported and verified from
> phone records and families that the calls were made from cell phones.
> That and these phones can be shut off from the cockpit which the
> terrorists would surely do. It's telling to me that no news agency has
> followed up on tracking which towers these calls were actually initiated
> from. That and the Cleveland Airport reports of 93 landing there. The
> implications of the flight 93 inconsistencies are enormous and
> frightening. I don't know what to think about it all as I'm not willing
> to accept the enormity of what this evidence would imply. But I DO think
> that people need to do their own research, demand answers from their
> government, and push news agencies to do some real investigative
> reporting. To quote the X-Files, "The truth is out there".
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "James Newtons Massmind"
>  To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'"
>  Subject: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
>  Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:02:38 -0800
>
>
>  Sonoma State University's "Project Censored" has an EXECELLET summary
>  of
>  what is wrong with the official 9/11 WTC reports. The wild conspiracy
>  theories do a lot of damage to the credibility of people who question
>  the
>  official findings, but this write-up, summarizing a Brigham Young
>  University
>  physics professor, points out the specific physical issues that don't
>  make
>  sense.
>
>  http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#18
>
>  E.g. ok, the towers had only a steel exoskeleton and perhaps that
>  melted
>  enough for them to collapse, (perfectly straight down) but how did
>  the fully
>  steel framed Building 7 fall in 6.6 seconds after NOT being hit by
>  ANYTHING?
>
>
>  If the fire in that building caused one part of the steel to fail, at
>  best
>  one floor would have collapsed on to the next. The impact of that
>  floor on
>  the next would, must, slow the fall. You can clearly see this effect
>  as the
>  twin towers collapse.
>
>  Yet an object dropped from a 7 story building will hit the ground in
>  6
>  seconds. So are we saying that each of the 7 floors, hitting the
>  floor next
>  to it, only slowed the fall by .6 seconds? That is patently
>  impossible.
>
>  The only thing that accounts for that building hitting the ground in
>  6.6
>  seconds is demolition charges being set to cut apart each of the
>  steel beams
>  on ALL the floors at the same time as is commonly done in controlled
>  building demolition. The owner of the WTC center is on video saying
>  that the
>  fire department "pulled" building 7 because it could not fight the
>  fire in
>  it. He later recanted that testimony.
>
>  If it was demo'd, how could the charges have been set from inside the
>  building, on every beam, on every floor, during a raging fire?
>
>  The only explanation is that building 7 was rigged for demolition
>  PRIOR to
>  9/11.
>
>  WTC 7 housed offices of the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of
>  Defense,
>  the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and
>  Exchange
>  Commission, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal
>  Revenue
>  Service Regional Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Many
>  of the
>  records from the Enron accounting scandal were destroyed when the
>  building
>  came down.
>
>  The official findings of the 9/11 commission address building 7 only
>  by
>  saying that they have no idea what happened to it.
>
>  And yet, during all the massive media coverage of 9/11, Building 7
>  was
>  mentioned only in passing. The repeated attempts to raise these
>  questions
>  has resulted in no reasonable response from any supporters of the
>  official
>  record.
>
>  But the 9/11 "attack" did move the nation to support the invasion of
>  Iraq by
>  the USA, preventing Iraq from effectively selling oil below OPEC
>  rates to
>  European countries and, of course, precipitating the subsequent
>  Halliburton
>  profits.
>
>  http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#17 "Iraq
>  Invasion
>  Promotes OPEC Agenda"
>  http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war4oil.htm
>  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
>  "Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain"
>  http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/911profit.htm "Someone sold
>  short
>  on the 9/11 airlines"
>
>  "Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is
>  the
>  leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a
>  simple
>  matter to drag people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist
>  dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
>  no
>  voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
>  leaders. This
>  is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
>  denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
>  country to
>  danger. It works the same in every country"
>  -- Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshal at Nuremburg after WWII.
>  http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war-machine.htm
>
>  Now, everything in this email is a verifiable, unarguable fact. The
>  conclusions drawn are obvious (to me) based on the data presented,
>  and I
>  admit that I pulled in only select data, but I will be happy to
>  recant them
>  in the face of some new data to the contrary. Therefore, this is not
>  a
>  religious or a political post.
>
>  ---
>  James.
>
>
>  --
>  http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>  View/change your membership options at
>  http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
> -- 
>
> Search for products and services at:
> http://search.mail.com
>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.3/561 - Release Date: 12/1/2006
>
> 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist