From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:59:22 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   > OK, there is a series called "Sensing Murder" which was screened/made   
   > in Australia and New Zealand, in which old murder cases are given the   
   > pyschic treatment. Two psychics are used, they are given hardly any   
   > information, and no information is passed from one psychic to the other -   
   > yet they seem to provide new information, which can be checked out, either   
   > by the police or private investigators working for the series.   
   > I haven't watched every programme of this series, but from what I've   
   > seen of it, they seem to give exact information relating to the case,   
   > and not giving red herring information, which doesn't sound like the   
   > case in question.   
   > They do provide new information.   
      
   You're assuming that the producers/crew aren't providing information, to   
   make the program more entertaining.   
      
   Why do you assume that?   
      
   Really, you should know better than to believe _anything_ you see on TV.   
      
   > The question becomes, then what planes???   
      
      
      
   I give up.   
      
   > It is possible that it could have been drone, remote controlled   
   > planes, especially if the markings were not of airline markings, and that   
   > would explain the accuracy of impact.   
      
   But not as well as if there was a man in the cockpit, holding the control   
   stick, pointing the *%$£! thing at the big building shaped thing!   
      
   > and security camera footage that does show the said plane in plain view.   
   > The video footage released after the event - can be made up, especially   
   > if the plane simply disappeared into the building - a building is a   
   > 'hard' target, so for the plane to completely enter the building is   
   > very very strange?   
      
   No it's not, as I've pointed out time and again: most of the building   
   structure is relatively thin steel, the rest is glass - the ratio of glass   
   to steel on the exterior face is, what, four to one?   
      
   > Boy do they make those Boeings super tough!!!! Why even stronger than   
   > a building? How is that?   
      
   Because, as I've already pointed out, the plane is;   
   a) Heavy,   
   b) Travelling quickly   
   c) pointy.   
      
   If your argument were true, you might reasonably expect that whenever a   
   car struck a ("super tough") building it would bounce off, since, hey,   
   cars are only made of thin steel, which even a pedestrian can dent.   
      
   But they don't: they enter buildings fairly easily.   
      
   If an object is travelling fast enough, its structural strength is not an   
   issue, since each part of it is travelling at the same speed.   
      
   Ever been hit by a paintball?  They're mostly water, and that can't   
   possibly hurt, right?   
      
   Wrong.   
      
   >   
   > I would be happy to accept the official story, if there are no grounds   
   > not to disbelieve it.   
      
   Your "grounds" for disbelief are based on your own poor understanding of   
   even elementary physics.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- No, not that one.   
   = Mitchell ---   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)