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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sun May 21 05:17:16 2006
From: stevex11 at sbcglobal.net (Steve Kudlak)
Subject: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

Paul Schmehl wrote:

> 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.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
This is really material for a poli group. The interesting thing is that 
we indeed seem to have elected a government that
many of us don't trust and think is up to no good. I am sorry but this 
is unsually high. I have haeard too many curious
things from too many people who one I would have never heard such 
things  from in the past. Of course there is an election
comeing and we can throw some of 'em out of office.  Of course some of 
this sounds like a Sally Churkshank(sp?) Short like
the her "Charbucks" presentation. which lives here:

http://www.funonmars.com/charflash.html

But everytime I hear these things thing comes to mind and it is like one 
is living in a Sally C production  Still really I dunno whther
this would be better talked out on a poligroup. But the amount of 
emotion devoted to all of this is interesting. One would not expect
one's freind's child's 4th grade teachers to be into these sorts of things.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20060520/7a951b81/attachment.html