[Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**
pauls at utdallas.edu
Wed May 17 17:11:19 BST 2006
Pete Simpson wrote:
> Again I will simply say, refute the data, the principles or the logic.
> Furthermore 'ad hominem' attacks just diminish your position.
Clearly you've bookmarked the argumentum page. It would be good if
you'd also read it. Nowhere did I launch an ad hominem attack against
you or anyone. (You might say this is one, and you would be right now.)
You ask me to refute the data or the logic. Why? It's already been
refuted. I'm not keen on reinventing the wheel or plowing old fields.
I gave you cites to original material, even quoted a small portion, and
your response is, "This is an ad hominem attack"?
The burden of proof is yours, my friend, not mine, for you are the one
spouting theories that don't agree with the scientific analysis done by
experts in the field or with the rules of the physical universe.
I'm neither a scientist nor a mathemetician, but let's test your theory
of the rate of fall of the buildings.
According to the official World Trade Center site, the towers were 110
floors and 1353 feet high.
Objects fall at 32 feet per second per second (assuming no resistance.)
So, in five seconds, an object would drop 480 feet [32(5)]. In ten
seconds, an object would drop 1760 feet [32(10)]. In eight seconds, an
object would drop 1152 feet. (Remember the total height of the towers
included the radio antennae on the roof. The 110 floors would be
approximate 1200 feet.)
And from what I quoted earlier:
"Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with
an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour."
"The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse
would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185
miles per hour."
Hmm.....odd how this all works out.
One fallacy that confuses most people is that they see buildings as a
huge mass, when in fact they are 95% air. Another fallacy is that a
building destroyed by controlled demolition somehow overcomes the rules
of nature and falls faster than one falling due to other causes.
I'll just give you one, rather humorous look at the subject:
Where'd your ninety seconds come from again?
Paul Schmehl (pauls at utdallas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5007 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20060517/70747c31/attachment.bin
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.