>  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.


Specious my statements may be, but at least they're consistant.  From your
first post you stated:

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.


You now state:

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

You can't have it both ways.  Unless you've changed your mind, which is
perfectly ok.  (Your first statement seems to say the records indicating
cell phones were used were faked. Why?)


> 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.

Actually, I'm quite happy with that statement.  The only question is can a
cell phone operate at that altitude, and you say it can't.  Or it can.
You've actually said both.  My only comment was wondering why the hijackers
stayed at that altitude.

Presumably a GTE Airfone can work at 35000 feet, kinda defeats the purpose
if it can't.  

However, these people aren't happy with 35000 then dive:

http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/timeline/penncrash.html
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/timeline_ua93.html

Maybe it's 35000 then dive then 2000 feet for a bit then crash?  The Flight
Explorer link is a bit crude.  More detail would be nice, ie last 5 minutes
by second.

 
> 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.

It's not magic, but things don't always work the way we expect them to.  I
say let's torch a few 47-storey buildings to get a feel for how the real
world works.


> 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.

You do realise Einstein being right means Newton is wrong... (ok,
sometimes).

And Newton WAS a nutter.  He was right about gravity though, even if he
didn't think much of it.

Tony

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