full-disclosure - **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <446B39F3.806@utdallas.edu>
Date: Wed May 17 15:59:02 2006
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

Pete Simpson wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> Of all people you surprise me with this dishonest trick of argument -
> appeal to authority. Challenge either the data, the principles or the
> logic.
> 
Oh spare me.  "Appeal to authority"?  What a joke.  You can read the 
analysis yourself.  It's publicly available.

Dr. Thomas Eager, a materials and structural engineer at MIT was one of 
the experts who examined the towers' collapse.  Here's some of his 
thoughts: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

Much, much more here. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

> The buildings 1,2 and 7 fell at near free fall time 10 seconds. Any
> undergraduate should be able to calculate the minimum time for pancake
> collapse as at least 90 seconds.
>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

"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."

My goodness.  Looks like your calculations are wrong.

[snipped most of the foolishness]

> 
> One simple, physically-feasible mechanism for each floor to present no
> resistance to the floors falling from above was for each floor to fail
> due to explosive charges timed to coincide precisely with the fall of
> the floor above. This is known as a 'controlled demolition' and when
> planned and executed correctly results in an orderly destruction, so
> that the building collapses on its own footprint in near free-fall time,
> as did the WTC Twin Towers. 
> 
Sure, Pete.  All we have to believe is that an entire crew of workers, 
working for weeks, carefully planted explosive charges in the right 
places, concealing all the evidence of same and ***not being seen by 
anyone who questioned their presence*** IN BOTH TOWERS, hauling in tons 
of high explosives and wiring and detonators, etc., etc., drilling 
through concrete without being noticed and running all these wires out 
to a hidden location without anyone seeing anything and then waiting for 
two planes to hit the buildings so they could detonate their charges 
without anyone noticing what they were up to.

I'm surprised that you would be so gullible.

-- 
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/20060517/587b7735/smime.bin