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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Wed May 17 19:48:01 2006
From: Pete.Simpson at clearswift.com (Pete Simpson)
Subject: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

It is clear either that you have not the slightest understanding of what
I am trying to explain to you or you are a vindictive liar. Either way I
way I am tired of this fruitless conversation.  Goodbye.

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul
Schmehl
Sent: 17 May 2006 19:27
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

Pete Simpson wrote:
> You have confirmed that the data are correct, you have no way to 
> attack the principles, so where is the logical error? Be very precise.
>
Pete, are you even reading what I wrote?  A building the size of the
twin towers would fall to the ground in under 10 seconds, per the
standard calculations that, as you say, any high school student would
know.

How much more precise do I need to be?  Your calculations are incorrect
by an order of ten.  Instead of 90+ seconds, the answer is 9.0+ - IOW,
precisely the same amount of time it took for the buildings to actually
fall.

Furthermore, you have a logical fallacy in your argument, because you
are insisting that a controlled demolition collapse would be faster than
an accidental collapse.  Which part of the equation tells you that? 
Objects faill at 32 feet per second per second.  The *cause* of the fall
is irrelevant.

Now, you're obviously wedded to this believe of yours that the
government conspired to collapse the buildings.  Why is irrelevant.  But
until you can deal with the facts staring you in the face, there isn't
much point in continuing this discussion.

BTW, there's no need to cc me on your posts.  I can read the list just
fine.

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

Clearswift monitors, controls and protects all its messaging traffic in compliance with its corporate email policy using Clearswift products.
Find out more about Clearswift, its solutions and services at http://www.clearswift.com

This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of Clearswift. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Clearswift by emailing support@...arswift.com quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. Clearswift accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the Clearswift domain.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.