Date: Wed May 17 17:12:37 2006
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: **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@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5007 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20060517/70747c31/smime.bin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists