Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Flight 77 obstacles

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags aa77

 14th March 2008, 03:07 PM #41 Anti-sophist Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,542 It's honestly absurd. I've calculated it before that a 30 foot per second descent across those 5 frames as we see them would be about 1 pixel difference in the original image. 1 extra pixel. The idea that those 5 frames mean it's at 0fps is so seriously absurd that it makes my head hurt. If the truthers actually cared about the truth, they'd sit down and -demonstrate- that these absurd assumptions of theirs were even remotely equal to reality. Here's the math, by the way: For there to be a 1-degree descent across that image... 1-degree away from horizontal... it'd be tangent(1-degree)*850 feet per second = 14 ft/second. 0-degree slope across the image = 0 fps descent 1-degree slope across the image = 14 fps descent 2-degree slope across the image = 30 fps descent 5-degree slope across the image = 74 fps descent So will one of you truthers tell me how you've decided that the plane was flying 0 degrees.. horizontal... in stead of... 2 degrees down.. from those 5 images. Someone please tell me how you can determine 0-degrees is right, and 2-degrees is wrong, from those 5 frames. I've repeated this so many times that I'm this close to making an image for you guys so I can paste it. I'll draw a 0-degree line and then a 2-degree line, and ask you to tell me why you believe the 0 is right and the 2 is wrong. __________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire Last edited by Anti-sophist; 14th March 2008 at 03:16 PM.
 14th March 2008, 03:10 PM #42 Jonnyclueless Philosopher   Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,546 What TC fails to understand is that to us the FDR is one small piece of evidence and the conclusions we make along with the scientists are based on assessing ALL the evidence. As opposed to PFT who cherry pick only data that will support their already decided conclusions. When it doesn't support those conclusions it's just dismissed. Not much unlike the unavoidable results that are the result of the conclusions they do make which they dismiss because those results leave 1000 times more holes than the theories they try to point out as having holes.
 14th March 2008, 03:14 PM #43 AMTMAN Muse     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 579 Originally Posted by TC329 That is exactly correct and far from "idiotic". Well, i dont feel a 757 could do it. Im not alone. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html. The list grows regularly. . Since in your opinion it could not have been a 757 then what was it? As for the list growing regularly what you have is an extremely small group beliveing in the fantasy put forth by PfT. Nothing more. __________________ You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
 14th March 2008, 03:29 PM #44 Anti-sophist Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,542 Couldn't take it anymore... Now, can one of you truthers _PLEASE_ explain to me why 0 feet per second is the correct final vertical velocity? PLEASE give me a reason to think that -30 fps is utterly impossible give the above image. I'm not seeing it. It doesn't make _any_ sense to me at all. Maybe my math is wrong. Maybe I screwed up the angles. But can one of you, for the love of all that is right and holy in the world, _please_ come up with a reasonable estimate range of the descent and stop pretending that 0.000000 fps is the only possible interpretation of the above evidence. __________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire Last edited by Anti-sophist; 14th March 2008 at 03:34 PM.
 14th March 2008, 03:46 PM #45 Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,652 Originally Posted by gumboot I'm curious of the claim that the descent rate needs to be arrested at all. Given that the aircraft hit at about ground level (and according to some witnesses, part of it hit the ground just before impact) and given that it clearly was not at ground level immediately prior to hitting the Pentagon (otherwise it, well, would have crashed before the Pentagon) it goes without saying that the aircraft was in a descent at the time of impact. While a final descent rate off 0 is probably not an accurate description of what really happened, it is a lower bound we can work with, and as Myriad has shown, even with that absurdly favourable assumption, the PfT calculations are still wrong, and the plane would have been entirely able to make this maneuver. So with the more reasonable assumption that the plane was still descending at some non-zero rate, their claims are even more unlikely. Not that they'll ever admit it. "Velocity, acceleration, what's the difference?" __________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
 14th March 2008, 04:06 PM #46 CurtC Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,785 Originally Posted by gumboot I'm curious of the claim that the descent rate needs to be arrested at all. Given that the aircraft hit at about ground level (and according to some witnesses, part of it hit the ground just before impact) and given that it clearly was not at ground level immediately prior to hitting the Pentagon (otherwise it, well, would have crashed before the Pentagon) it goes without saying that the aircraft was in a descent at the time of impact. Yes, the descent rate did have to change over the last 3/4 mile (4 seconds), *if* the plane flew over the VDOT tower. The rate from the tower to the first pole would have averaged 80 ft/s, the rate from the light pole to the Pentagon wall was about 20 ft/s. __________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
 14th March 2008, 04:10 PM #47 TC329 Banned   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,453 Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1 Im sure this thread will now disappear into the abyss since we have shown in your own words that your claims still do not add up to the govt story. Some JREFers even delete their own posts. So, which JREFers condone such action? Last edited by TC329; 14th March 2008 at 04:28 PM. Reason: broken link & typo
 14th March 2008, 04:17 PM #48 Arus808 Philosopher     Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204 there goes TC ignoring that P4t has been shown to be faulty. deleted? please. when someone makes a correction in their calculations, they do so, so that their calculatiosn are correct. unlike the fraud Rob who continues to post faulty math. __________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
 14th March 2008, 04:18 PM #49 gumboot lorcutus.tolere     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327 Originally Posted by Anti-sophist It's honestly absurd. I've calculated it before that a 30 foot per second descent across those 5 frames as we see them would be about 1 pixel difference in the original image. 1 extra pixel. The idea that those 5 frames mean it's at 0fps is so seriously absurd that it makes my head hurt. If the truthers actually cared about the truth, they'd sit down and -demonstrate- that these absurd assumptions of theirs were even remotely equal to reality. Here's the math, by the way: For there to be a 1-degree descent across that image... 1-degree away from horizontal... it'd be tangent(1-degree)*850 feet per second = 14 ft/second. 0-degree slope across the image = 0 fps descent 1-degree slope across the image = 14 fps descent 2-degree slope across the image = 30 fps descent 5-degree slope across the image = 74 fps descent So will one of you truthers tell me how you've decided that the plane was flying 0 degrees.. horizontal... in stead of... 2 degrees down.. from those 5 images. Someone please tell me how you can determine 0-degrees is right, and 2-degrees is wrong, from those 5 frames. I've repeated this so many times that I'm this close to making an image for you guys so I can paste it. I'll draw a 0-degree line and then a 2-degree line, and ask you to tell me why you believe the 0 is right and the 2 is wrong. The absurdity of this argument is compounded by the fact that the aircraft only appears in one frame. We do not know if the camera is level, or even what the "level" line is in the frame, we cannot determine the approach angle of the aircraft in the single frame it appears, and we do not have an additional frame of the aircraft from which to determine a change in approach angle. __________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
 14th March 2008, 04:20 PM #50 AMTMAN Muse     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 579 Originally Posted by TC329 Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...howtopic=10905 Im sure this thread will now disappear into the abyss since we have shown in your own words that your claims still do not add up to the govt story. Some JREFers even delete their own posts. So, which JREFers condone such action? I'm sorry but all PfT does is post fiction and lies. If what they say seems so important to you why is it that all they do is sell cheap DVD's and troll message boards? __________________ You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
 14th March 2008, 04:31 PM #51 TC329 Banned   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,453 Originally Posted by Arus808 there goes TC ignoring that P4t has been shown to be faulty. deleted? please. when someone makes a correction in their calculations, they do so, so that their calculatiosn are correct. unlike the fraud Rob who continues to post faulty math. Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything. They just keep spouting the same thing which still doesnt add up to the govt story. Click the link to see for yourself. Others have.. and others do. By the way, Why are R Mackey's numbers so much different from Myriads? You also may want to tell R Mackey to add 1 G for earths gravity. R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's starting at the VDOT antenna to the pentagon. You people contradict each other and dont even realize it.
 14th March 2008, 05:02 PM #52 Jonnyclueless Philosopher   Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,546 Yeah it's those JREFers spouting the same thing that doesn't add up over and over. As opposed to PFT. What? The FDR again? How many years has this been going on?
 14th March 2008, 05:02 PM #53 rwguinn Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 11,098 Originally Posted by TC329 Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything. They just keep spouting the same thing which still doesnt add up to the govt story. Click the link to see for yourself. Others have.. and others do. By the way, Why are R Mackey's numbers so much different from Myriads? You also may want to tell R Mackey to add 1 G for earths gravity. R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's starting at the VDOT antenna to the pentagon. You people contradict each other and dont even realize it. 3.2 vs 3.49 is "so much different"? They started with different assumptions. Ryan did a curve fit to the available data, Myriad did a straight linear derivation. Not much different at all. BTW, "Pentagon" is a proper noun, and don't and doesn't are contractions. The apostrophe is that little key over by "Enter" __________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
 14th March 2008, 07:01 PM #55 twinstead Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,374 TC329 say what you want, agree or not, but what you CAN'T say is that the folks here haven't addressed in detail your OP __________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison Last edited by twinstead; 14th March 2008 at 07:02 PM.
 14th March 2008, 07:12 PM #56 rwguinn Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 11,098 Originally Posted by twinstead TC329 say what you want, agree or not, but what you CAN'T say is that the folks here haven't addressed in detail your OP At this point, the attempts at education must be judged futile and all we can do is watch in fascinated horror as the freight train, despite all heiwa logic, somehow does not maintain its course as he stands beneath the bridge he has blown... Ignorance is not a sin, nor is it something to be ashamed of--unless you maintain it in the face of overwhelming reality. At that point it becomes stupidity, and while it is to an extent pitiable, we need to let nature take her course. Darwin will win... __________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
 14th March 2008, 07:48 PM #57 Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,652 Originally Posted by TC329 Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims. So, which JREFers condone such action? Do PfTers condone other PfTers lying? So, which PfTers condone such action? Quote: Beachnut is their star "FDR Expert" Not even close, not even when he tries a pathetic attempt to explain why this isn't a blatant lie. __________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
 14th March 2008, 08:23 PM #58 Reheat Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 3,693 Quote: Beachnut is their star "FDR Expert" I don't believe Beachnut claims this. This statement implies that there is an "FDR Expert" at the pilot loon site. That is a big fat joke. The ONLY true FDR experts at extracting and interpreting the data are at the NTSB and perhaps the manufacturers. I find it amusing that they tout their consultation with Ed Santana (a salesman) as their evidence of "proven" FDR performance. As AS has indicated there is no guarantee that it will perform as advertised when slammed into a blast resistant reinforced wall at 500+ mph. The pilot loon site has no clue where the aircraft is in it's flight path using the data they have, they are simply guessing to support their theory and touting it as data supplied by the NTSB as if the NTSB endorses their intrepretations. It's about as much proof of an InSiDe JoOb as is CIT's claims of a flyover. Both are as valid as a.....
 15th March 2008, 07:52 AM #61 twinstead Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,374 TC329 Yea, you go back and check those calculations. I realize that declaring yourself wrong and abandoning your untenable position will never happen even if you ARE indeed wrong, but you'll know inside. __________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
 15th March 2008, 08:13 AM #62 Reheat Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 3,693 Originally Posted by TC329 It would be interesting to see R Mackey plug in the numbers based on NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna (699 MSL), last data sample (480 MSL) and Radar Altitude (273+135= 408 MSL) in place of VDOT Antenna height. Hi Robbie, It's going to be real difficult to recover your "lost face" based upon your distinct lack of judgment and deplorable math skills in miscalculating the numbers YOU PROVIDED. In a continued attempt to deceive the DUMB who lurk here, and in a weak attempt to recover you now wrongly label the raw data as "NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna". THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. It is data you (and your drones) extracted and you (and your drones) interpreted. No matter how much you attempt to spin, you don't know the location of the aircraft, nor it's exact flight path other than in it's final second or so when it impacted the Pentagon and that is based upon the Purdue analysis of the damage path. To use that report as the basis for the FDR numbers means that you are accepting that the aircraft indeed struck the Pentagon. You have no clue exactly where it is near the VDOT antenna. In that you accept the damage path report you do a wonderful job of self debunking your fantasy to prove that the aircraft did indeed strike the Pentagon as the FACTUAL PHYSICAL evidence shows. Keep up the good work! Last edited by Reheat; 15th March 2008 at 08:15 AM.
 15th March 2008, 08:28 AM #63 jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,843 TC329 posts Quote: The vertical accelration is 75 fps. Has anyone stundied that refutation of Newtonian physics yet?
 15th March 2008, 08:51 AM #64 jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,843 Originally Posted by TC329 Based on this topography combined with the height of the VDOT Antenna protruding into the reported flight path of American 77, it is aerodynamically and physically impossible for this aircraft to have performed the way the government would have us believe.Top of VDOT Height = 304 MSL (above sea level) Top of Pole 1 height = 80 MSL Difference = 224 feet descent required. Distance between VDOT - Pole 1 = 2400 feet 2400/Speed 781 feet per second (according to Flight Data Recorder) = 3 seconds Conclusion = Impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT Antenna to top of pole 1 and pull level to "impact hole" as reported by the government story and seen in the DoD "5 Frames Video". 11.2 G's was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 G's would rip the aircraft apart. Myriad stated something like this above but it bears repeating starting +75fps downward velocity with an upward acelleration of -10 g(10 X 32 =320 f/s2 ) and with a time of 3 seconds ( 11 g minus the gravity component for the resultant acelleration on the aircraft) D= (75)(3) - 0.5(320)(3)2 D= 1215 feet in the direction of the upwards acelleration. Thus is the plane started at 304 feet MSL and underwent a poistive acelleration of 10 g's then it would be at a height of over 1500 feet MSL in 3 seconds. Therefore since what we wanted to do was calculate the acelleration the plane actually underwent in order to end up in the Pentagon there is something very wrong with the calulations since they will put the plane 1400+ feet above the place where the plane is said to have gone.
 15th March 2008, 10:14 AM #66 Hornit Scholar   Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 96 Looks like a poster by the name of "AirlinePilot" over at 9/11 blogger is arguing with Rob about this very topic!! Excellent!
 15th March 2008, 10:22 AM #67 rwguinn Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 11,098 he's been reported for it at least 2 times. This is about reality, not a data lag. Edit: Sorry--that was in reply to anti-sophlist... __________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 Last edited by rwguinn; 15th March 2008 at 10:22 AM.
 15th March 2008, 10:27 AM #68 Hornit Scholar   Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 96 The position information is even more of a problem for them. The wingspan of a 757 is 124' 10". In order for the aircraft to miss the tower it only has to be 63' to one side or the other. This tower has no guide wires so the accuracy of the position has to be known to some fairly accurate degree. Anyone know in here if that aircraft had a GPS tweaked INS or not? I'm type rated in the 757 and know that Delta's do not have that capability, even today. I doubt that American had this capability then either. Knowing the exact ground track within 63 feet is not likely given the technology used or the radar path and calibration. In my mind this destroys any debate about the tower from the start.
 15th March 2008, 10:42 AM #69 Reheat Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 3,693 Originally Posted by Hornit Anyone know in here if that aircraft had a GPS tweaked INS or not? I'm type rated in the 757 and know that Delta's do not have that capability, even today. I doubt that American had this capability then either. Knowing the exact ground track within 63 feet is not likely given the technology used or the radar path and calibration. In my mind this destroys any debate about the tower from the start. The FDR data in the last frames they (pft loons) have shows the INS position about 19 miles or so from the Pentagon, so apparently it was not tweaked. AMTMAN works for AA, so perhaps he knows for sure what was installed in 2001.
 15th March 2008, 10:58 AM #71 Jonnyclueless Philosopher   Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,546 Oh look, the NTSB video that they claim is not meant for any kind of accurate representation, but simply for demonstration purposes. This is what you are using to make calculations within feet right?
 15th March 2008, 11:22 AM #73 Reheat Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 3,693 Originally Posted by TC329 ........ http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0 ............................ Hi Robbie, You answer with a cartoon. It's already Sat afternoon, I watched cartoons this morning. You're trying to put the thread thru Mammoth Cave rather than a needle and it's not going to work. Why do you continue to avoid discussion of the numbers you provided when this all started. Cat got Robbie's tongue? Are you any better with the FDR based math than the VDOT antenna based math?
 15th March 2008, 11:36 AM #75 rwguinn Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 11,098 Let's knock off the FDR stuff. That's a derail, the twoofer standard policy when they have had their heads handed to them. This is about numbers and "because I feel TC329's original post raised a new claim that hasn't been discussed in detail here before" __________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
 15th March 2008, 11:45 AM #76 jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,607 I remember seeing somewhere (perhaps here) a picture of a mark on the VDOT mast which possibly might have been made by AA77. Does anyone else remember this pic, and if so was the mark confirmed to be made by AA77? It might be possible to get a better idea of the plane's actual altitude if it nicked the antenna mast going by. __________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister
 15th March 2008, 11:57 AM #77 defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami     Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 7,474 Originally Posted by rwguinn Let's knock off the FDR stuff. That's a derail, the twoofer standard policy when they have had their heads handed to them. This is about numbers and "because I feel TC329's original post raised a new claim that hasn't been discussed in detail here before" i disagree that its a derail, if you go by the premises laid out in the OP Quote: (1) Flight 77's path took it over the 169ft VDOT antenna; (2) Flight 77 therefore had to sustain a 4480fpm descent rate to strike the lightpoles on Washington Blvd. (3) To arrest this descent prior to striking the Pentagon would require a 30.1G pullout (note that the website referred to does not assert this, rather it claims 11.2G) (4) This is unsustainable by the airframe. the first premise is dependent on interpreting the FDR data, and without it the entire claim falls apart, you could discuss the other 3 premises, but that would require assiming the first is accurate persoanlly i no problem assuming something is true for the purposes of discussion, but others might not want to do that, thus discussion of how the FDR data is interpreted is relevant __________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
 15th March 2008, 12:05 PM #79 R.Mackey Philosopher   Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854 TC329, I need your strict attention. If you want to talk about flight paths consistent with FDR data, you need to present that data. You didn't do that. You presented altitude data referenced to ground obstacles. You made a hypothesis based on those obstacles, and you screwed it up royally. If you want to talk about FDR data, bring some FDR data. But don't complain that my numbers don't work with the FDR data. You set the ground rules. Now you're changing them. I have no problem showing you how any combination of evidence can be met with a realistic flight path. But you can't hide evidence and claim it doesn't work. That's just stupid. So far, we've established only two things. First, that there are MANY flight paths that work with the obstacles on the ground -- and given this wide range, there's no reason to doubt one or more solutions also agree with the FDR data. And second, you guys fail at basic Newtonian dynamics. You're in no position to even guess about what happened until you correct this problem. We can help, but if and only if you're willing to learn. Last edited by R.Mackey; 15th March 2008 at 12:06 PM.
 15th March 2008, 12:06 PM #80 Anti-sophist Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,542 This thread is about the flawed math of your obstacles calculation. Not the FDR. You've already lost that argument. Data analysis is only as good as the analyzer. You guys can't even solve basic Newtonian physics problems. Please stick to the topic. __________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire Last edited by Anti-sophist; 15th March 2008 at 12:08 PM.

International Skeptics Forum