[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**



Pete Simpson wrote:
Paul,

Again I will simply say, refute the data, the principles or the logic.
Furthermore 'ad hominem' attacks just diminish your position.

Clearly you've bookmarked the argumentum page. It would be good if you'd also read it. Nowhere did I launch an ad hominem attack against you or anyone. (You might say this is one, and you would be right now.)

You ask me to refute the data or the logic. Why? It's already been refuted. I'm not keen on reinventing the wheel or plowing old fields. I gave you cites to original material, even quoted a small portion, and your response is, "This is an ad hominem attack"?

The burden of proof is yours, my friend, not mine, for you are the one spouting theories that don't agree with the scientific analysis done by experts in the field or with the rules of the physical universe.

I'm neither a scientist nor a mathemetician, but let's test your theory of the rate of fall of the buildings.

According to the official World Trade Center site, the towers were 110 floors and 1353 feet high.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

Objects fall at 32 feet per second per second (assuming no resistance.) So, in five seconds, an object would drop 480 feet [32(5)]. In ten seconds, an object would drop 1760 feet [32(10)]. In eight seconds, an object would drop 1152 feet. (Remember the total height of the towers included the radio antennae on the roof. The 110 floors would be approximate 1200 feet.)

And from what I quoted earlier:
"Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with
an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour."

"The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse
would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185
miles per hour."

Hmm.....odd how this all works out.

One fallacy that confuses most people is that they see buildings as a huge mass, when in fact they are 95% air. Another fallacy is that a building destroyed by controlled demolition somehow overcomes the rules of nature and falls faster than one falling due to other causes.

I'll just give you one, rather humorous look at the subject:
http://www.jimcarson.com/a/2004/01/monday_morning.shtml

Where'd your ninety seconds come from again?

--
Paul Schmehl (pauls@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/