My apologies to David if I misread his statements.
You're correct. It could've meant many things.
It's just there's so many "theories" out there with no evidence to support
them, and so much evidence no one seems to know about (or in some cases
believe).
The thread is a bit thin at this point. So my apologies again.
-----Original Message-----
From: WA3GIN in Alex. City, VA [mailto:wa3gin@erols.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 6:48 PM
To: 'Ed -K0iL'; 'Donald Chester'; rfi@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [RFI] Fw: cell phone interference on airplanes
Why don't we just let David clarify his comments.
The way I read his message I took David to be saying that if cells phones
had not been in use on that jet (banned usage), the men who eventually
rushed the cockpit to disable the jet would never have known they were on a
jet destined to become a weapon targeting the first responders at the
Pentagon.
In other words he was in support of having cell phone access and wasn't
linking the cell phone usage to the eventual crash of the jet.
That is how I read his message. Maybe this thread has outlived its
usefulness!
73,
dave
wa3gin
-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Ed -K0iL
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:04 PM
To: 'Donald Chester'; rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Fw: cell phone interference on airplanes
Don, I think David was trying to imply that the telephone usage may've
caused the crash.
There is absolutely no evidence of this nor that it was shot down--nearest
F16 was over 150 miles away.
ng.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|