From: you@somehost.somedomain.aus
In article ,
david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...
>
>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.
>
Let's say you were to build a model, that supports your theory ---
seeing you want to appear to be a physics major.
What would you build a model out of? To represent the Twin Towers building?
And just use a standard remote controlled plane, as an example of a
Boeing 757...
And even if you were to select the scale you wish to work to, and
choose any scaled plane to suit your model representation, you ain't
gonna get a scaled down representation that will work, to show that your
theory works! So much for your physics...
Harvey
>--
>=======================================================================
>= David --- No, not that one.
>= Mitchell ---
>=======================================================================
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
