----- Original Message -----
  From: "Tony Smith"
  To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'"
  Subject: RE: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
  Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 00:12:56 +1100


  > 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?)

  My statements themselves are not contradictory, and have been
  consistent
  throughout my posts. They only seem inconsistent to you because you
  try to force
  these facts to fit what you _believe_ to be true about the events in
  question.


  > 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.

  I never said both. You misinterpret "Cell phone calls were made" to
  be the
  same as "Cell phones do work at 35,000+ feet" because in order to fit
  the facts as you want them to be, they must be the same. I have no
  such problem
  because I have no preconceived ideas about what happend.
  You take what you believe happened and try to make the facts fit. I,
  and others,
  are trying to take the facts and figure out what happened.

  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.

  Not relevant as witness testimony and phone records show many of the
  calls
  happened before the fatal dive, during the time the plane was at
  35,000+ feet.


  > 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).


  Einstein didn't make Newton wrong, he added new theory in addition to
  Newton's, he extended his work.

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

  That's a matter of opinion. However, the part of his work relevant to
  this
  discussion is still valid and proven.

  Tony

  I'll say it again. Calls were made from cell phones. Cell phones
  don't work at that
  altitude. These facts are not in conflict. Your interpretation of the
  circumstances is.

-- 

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