Re: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

[Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>]

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 () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/