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

Message-ID: <446CC1CB.6090702@utdallas.edu>
Date: Thu May 18 19:50:49 2006
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

Ducki3 wrote:
> 
> There are too many things to debate and piece together (WTC 7, Cell phones
> at high altitudes, Pre warning messages, Northwood, Pentagon Holes, 
> Collapse
> rates, etc.) and some of the conspiracy is utter bull and some seems
> plausible to me. I guess it's up to every individual to make that 
> conclusion
> on their own by looking at "BOTH" sides, not one. And I'm not applying this
> to you Paul but in general because I don't know what you have read and what
> you haven't but when people haven't examine both sides and all of the
> theories then you have ceased to be a free thinker. Because there isn't 
> just
> 1 or 2 subjects in this conspiracy theory. There is more than a few dozen.
>
I've read the conspiracy theories extensively (probably close to 100 
hours of reading - Shanksville, the Pentagon and the towers.)  I've read 
the Popular Mechanics report.  I've watched the PBS video three times. 
I've read the eyewitness reports and looked at the available photographs.

I think I'm pretty knowledgeable of the theories with all three 
incidents (twin towers, Pentagon and Shanksville).  I haven't seen 
anything yet that can't be explained scientifically to my satisfaction, 
and I see huge holes in the conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are easy to believe.  They sow together a few 
disparate and vague facts and make it appear as though they're all 
connected.  They usually avoid addressing the difficult questions (e.g. 
where did the people on the flights go?  How did they rig the towers for 
demolition without anyone noticing what they were doing?  How did they 
know the towers would be attacked again?), and they tend to gloss over 
the known scientific facts (how could a plane disappear without leaving 
much wreckage? - Easily explained if you understand basic physics and 
the details of what evidence actually remained.)  They also tend to 
steer the reader toward their foregone conclusions by selectively using 
the evidence.  But they don't stand up to rational scrutiny.

-- 
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/20060518/39bd7b51/smime.bin