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: Sun May 21 00:52:20 2006
From: 0x80 at hush.ai (0x80@...h.ai)
Subject: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

who gives a flying fuck?

planes hit building.  buildings fall.  people die.  families cry.  
who fucking cares and why is this stupid subject still coming up.

everyone's life ends in death

On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:26:32 -0700 Paul Schmehl 
<pauls@...allas.edu> 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.
>
>-- 
>Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
>Adjunct Information Security Officer
>The University of Texas at Dallas
>http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/



Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required
http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480

Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail
https://www.hushssl.com?l=485