You continue to make highly specious statements without any basis in the
available facts of the evidence, and
also by continuing to ignore points people have already brought to your
attention.

Calls _were_ made from cell phones. Phones records verified this as well
as caller-id and witness testimony.

The Plane DID fly at 35,000 feet or higher the entire flight, until it's
final dive. This fact does not require any
access to flight data recorders. You can see this from the flight track
shown by Flight Explorer and posted
here earlier. All US civilian flights are tracked and logged.

As for the building question, what is this supposed to mean?

" As for the 'building don't fall down like that claim', how many
47-story
building collapses have there been? After a 7 hour fire? How many
110-story buildings have had planes smack into them?"

Building construction isn't magic or voodoo. The properties of materials
and the laws of physics
are pretty well understood and defined. The simple mathematics of gravity
have been known since Newton.
A supercomputer simulation model and failure analysis isn't necessary to
compute acceleration due to gravity.
You continue to propose the preposterous idea that we can't know anything
about how the buildings should
fall until we can see another similar one fall. That only the fall of one
building can predict the behaviour of another one.
And anyway, you are arguing against statements not being made. The
controversy has nothing to do with HOW the
buildings fell, or what exactly caused it. Rather the problem is with the
time it took to fall.
The official findings of the government commission, and repeated by the
media is that as the fire weakened the
steel of the building, the most damaged floor(s) collapsed. This caused
teh weight of the floors above the failure to
crash into the next floor below the failed floor(s). This then compressed
that floor to failure and so on, in a chain reaction.
This can be clearly seen on video of the collapses of both towers. each
floor failes in succession as the combined, and
growing mass of the floors above crash down upon them. The problem comes
with the fact the the amount of time this
took is too short. The resistance of each floor should have slowed the
fall of the floors above. However, the top of the building
hits the ground in an amount of time that is nearly the same as the time
it would take a free falling body to fall under
the acceleration due to gravity in a vaccuum. This is irreconcilable with
the 'facts' of the official story.
It also is one of the few things not a matter of interpretation. Anyone
can get the video, take a stop watch, or use more accurate
methods, and calculate the fall time, and rate, and acceleration.
Now unless you want to include Sir Isaac Newton in your list of
'nutters', you need to explain this anomaly, or stop being so
abrasive to people who still remember high-school physics class, and
don't blindly believe everything they are told by the
media or the government instead of what they see with their own eyes.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Tony Smith"
  To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'"
  Subject: RE: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
  Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:01:38 +1100


  > > A quick rummage around Google didn't turn up the flight data
  > recorder > info, but that's not too unsurprising. It might be
  > out there somewhere.
  > >
  > > Since the plane was equipped with GTE airfones, the cellphone >
  > works/doesn't work question is a moot point.
  > >
  > > Well, it's still valid if the actual call(s) were claimed to
  > have been made on cellphones, not airfones.......


  True, but 'he called me from the plane' implies neither airfone or
  cell.
  How would the receiver know? Easy enough to check from the telephone
  records. Which happened.

  It seem all of those in business class made calls (airfones) and some
  of the
  rest used cell phones.

  Both worked.

  The 'conspiracy' is that no calls were made from the plane. A pretty
  lame
  one that doesn't have any follow-up (ok, then what?), but anyway.

  Anyone got a flight planned shortly & feels like putting it to the
  test?
  Can cell phone calls be make 10km in the air? I can't see why not.

  As for the 'building don't fall down like that claim', how many
  47-story
  building collapses have there been? After a 7 hour fire? How many
  110-story buildings have had planes smack into them?

  Just because the professor stating the question is a smart guy
  doesn't mean
  he's not nuts. Linus Pauling was a Nobel-prize winning smart guy, and
  he
  turned into an orange flavoured froot loop.

  Look like the Mythbusters are going to have to torch a 47-story
  building and
  see what happens.

  Tony

-- 

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