I wonder if the dust is even in it's distribution and depth. Perhaps the result of the "impact" (read: just-barely-faster-than-gradual-agglomeration) that caused to distinct bodies to merge into a "duck"? Much to learn!
5326 posts • joined 31 May 2010
- ← Prev
- Next →
I'm really not interested in explaining the physics of the WTC collapse to someone who by all indications is probably crazy. That said, a few things jump out.
1) All your wanking about the design of the building fails to take into the account the types and amounts of stress it was designed for. Shearing stress, sudden shock, even the momentary difference in weight supported by the floor below before the rubble impacts it (and the recreates the stress, with the added kinetic momentum of having fallen a floor) all play their part. There are some truly great simulations of the collapse done by computer science nerds.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh3qUmNxC6E for one example.
This is a great look at the design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo1WZ9g1IJ4
Here's a computer science rendering of the impact, also well done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg
2) It was not "office furniture" burning, it was jet fuel. From a 767 fueled for a transcontinental flight. Oxygen was continually supplied to the burn because the core of the building was severely damaged on impact, ripping the elevator shafts open and sucking in oxygen from below through the chimney effect.
Take a good look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA <-- you'll see a good example of a bright orange fire (the fuel) burning on the floor below the impact point, and you can even watch the tower deform and shake before collapse. It doesn't blow out, it doesn't suddenly collapse, it's gives way through means of structural collapse.
Is Jet Fuel enough to melt steel? Well, it's not exactly going to turn it into a river of lava. But it will make it soft, pliable...fuel that gets aerosolised for any reason (and considering the complex microenvironments inside those buildings, there would have been pockets of periodic aerosolisation) absolutely would get hotter than a puddle o the stuff burning on the ground.
So you don't have to melt everything completely to do stupid amounts of damage, and you everything doesn't burn equally. There's enough complexity there to account for all sorts of weridness witnessed, but also to fundementally weaken the structure and cause the collapse.
Ultimately, the problem with trying to answer any and ever question you come up with is that you can always find some minor point that you don't understand and claim that proves the towers were demolished. It's the "god of the gaps" argument, but applied to a conspiracy instead of religion.
What I will say, however, is that there are some pretty fundamental - and overarching - issues with your line of questioning. They point to a lack of understanding of the finer physics of the event, as well as a disregard of the cascade effects of the plane impacts (such as what really happens when that much jet fuel goes up. How goddamned hot it gets, and what that does to things.)
You would do well also to research the concept of "shock compression". Towers are build for and rated to handle only so much shock compression. They are primarily designed for continuous compression. A single shock impulse beyond capacity can doom the whole structure. If you want to study that in more detail, don't study the 9/11 collapses. The best research on that comes out of studies on the plasma shockwave effects of nuclear blasts or fuel air bombs.
Just watch what a daisy cutter can do and you'll understand the effects of shock compression.
Last, but not least, http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html is a great start along your journey towards understanding the science of the event.
Additional resources: http://www.debunking911.com/ - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
Re: Not strange to me...
"Something that disturbs me though is the following, why are there so many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11"
Short version? There are two categories of people who make up conspiracy theorists in instances like this:
1) Those who have an issue with the group in question and basically mistrust them so much that see conspiracy even when it isn't there. Their hatred runs so deep that they are unable to accept that the group in question may in fact be doing exactly what they appear to be doing, even when every element of evidence says they are. This is conspiracy through hatred.
2) The second (wildly more popular) group are those with unchecked schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Understand that schizophrenia and autism are two ends of a spectrum, with "normal" in the middle. On the Autism side you have OCD, Depression, ADHD, Aspergers and other Autism Spectrum Disorders. Here you have issues with inadequate serotonin, dopamine, etc.
Autism Spectrum Disorders as usually comorbid to a greater or lesser degree. I.E. an Aspie might have OCD, or an ADHD individual like myself might have Depression as well. The Autism Spectrum is a cluster of issues caused by inability to adequately produce or reuptakr certain neurotransmitters; so it makes sense that few individuals suffer from any one illness.
Autism Spectrum Disorders are typically pervasive developmental disorders and/or mood disorders. They tend to be about "issues getting adequate sensory information into the brain to feed a very fast working brain" combined with "issues with impulse control, focus and ability to make decisions."
On the exact other side of that spectrum, you have Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders. Here you would have paranoia, auditory and visual hallucinations, multiple personality disorder, paranoia, delusions, thought disorder, etc.
Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders occur usually because of too much serotonin, dopamine, etc. The exact same chemicals that, without enough of them - or an error in reuptaking them - cause Autism Spectrum Disorders will cause Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders when there are too many of them in the brain.
Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders are about reality distortion.
You would be shocked how many people walk around undiagnosed on both ends of the spectrum. Also, how many people are improperly medicated. For example: give an amphetamine to someone with an Autism Spectrum Disorder and it will (likely) help them. Give that same drug to someone with a Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder and they'll freak the fuck out. What helps one group harms the other and vice the versa.
There are a lot of people with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders walking around unmedicated. Just like a lot of aspies don't have formal diagnoses and we're only just beginning to identify and help all the people with depression, ADHD, OCD, etc. In a lot of ways, we understand Autism Spectrum Disorders better than Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders, and thus we more readily identify them and are better equipped to help them.
"Is it feasibly possible that they are all wrong, I am not advocating that they are right, just that it seems improbable that they are all wrong. What are the chances that there is Smoke without Fire."
Pretty good, actually. Conspiracy theorists can be pretty damned convincing. They certainly are passionate. When you combine this with someone who knows that not everything is told to the public and who have - for whatever reason - an innate distrust/hatred of an entity (the government, for example), then you end up with people who want to believe.
If you are honestly open to the "why" of this, I could give a freaking seminar. The reasons, techniques and so forth are actually really well studied. It's the same way people get sucked into cults. Especially Scientology.
"Is it just a general consensus that the governements (those in control) are no longer to be trusted ?"
Yes, the evidence does suggest this to be the most likely scenario.
"Is there a reason for someone wanting to create this kind of psychological chaos within society or has society simpy lots its marbles. Is this the precursor of what's likely to increasingly happen in the near/immediate future."
This sort of "chaos" has always existed, in all societies, throughout recorded history. It is human nature to never be satisfied with what we have.
When dissatisfaction becomes too great, social upheaval follows. Old power groups are overthrown. New ones take their place and the cycle begins again. This flows from the fact that humans simultaneously react very badly to being treated "unfairly" or "unequally", yet are only ever truly happy if we have more than the next guy.
There's an old social experiment that basically goes like this; take two people who both make the same amount of money. One of them moved into the smallest house in a richer neighborhood. The other buys the biggest house in a poorer neighborhood. Without fail (once clinical depression has been accounted for), the guy with the bigger house than his neighbors is the happier one.
Is society at it's breaking point? No. The impotency of the Occupy and Ferguson protests demonstrated that. We are several generations away yet.
"At the end of the day the same question will always arise : Who stands or stood to gain from this ? or is it just the kickback from prior errors."
Um, at the end of hte day, Al Qaeda stood to gain from it. Face it: they put a minimal amount of money and manpower into an operation and it was successful beyond anyone's wildest imaginings. In just 13 years they've caused us to become simpering cowards willing do give up our civil liberties at the drop of a hat.
The goal was to make the west look foolish, petty, weak, fallible and corrupt. We played right into that. As a result, Al Qaeda was able to drive recruitment through the roof and solidify their power base: which was the point of the exercise. Al Qaeda accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish, and then some.
So successful were they, in fact, that other radical groups were able to capitalize on the aftermath and this is where you get the rapid rise of organizations like ISIS.
Others within the American government profiteered off the events. Some may even have collaborated. But the groups that benefited the most absolutely were the radical Islamics. They wanted to raise an army, build nations and establish a theocracy. They got exactly that.
With the added bonus that they set off every whacko christian in America and thus got their enemy to spend the past 13 years fighting itself while they seized power. Worked rather well, all things considered.
Re: Not strange to me...
No, what rational person would?
1) Many media outlets have agendas. Look at FOX News. They wouldn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth even if they knew it. Niether would CNN. That doesn't make their agendas orchestrated by the government.
Mr. Burns Murdock is quite capable of being a fucksack all on his own.
2) Nobody knows 100% of the truth. A lot of it is reconstruction of events and consultations with various experts. I believe that many of the experts on reputable media outlets were telling what they believed to be the truth, given the evidence they had.
3) I also believe that investigations were undertaken by the government agencies involved to get to the bottom of it and that those investigations were undertaken in good faith. This is because they relied on so many individual from so many (often competing) agencies, at so many levels of government, civilian agencies, independent experts, industry experts, contractors, etc. that to mislead or brianwash all of them would have been an undertaking more outrageously expensive than the entire shuttle program.
Did these guys figure every last thing out? Nope. That's not possible. Humans are fallible. But I absolutely do believe they gave it an honest try.
4) Do I believe the spooks were up front and honest with anyone about what they knew, and when they knew it? Hell no. I am convinced their culture of secrecy is so fucked up beyond repair that they don't even know what they knew and when they knew it, or would be allowed to talk to themselves about it if they did!
5) Foreigners were involved. Specifically people from Canada and the UK. I know people who went over to help, in a professional capacity. Forensics experts. Pilots. Engineers. Medics. These are not people that were convinced to lie to the world about what they saw, I guarantee you that. I'd by my life on it. You don't grow up in a family full of shrinks and be unable to spot someone who is blanking something that big.
I don't trust those in charge of the US government. I certainly don't trust the spooks. But I just don't buy that every single foreigner, every civilian, every contractor, every civil servant, every agent, every officer, every investigator, every engineer, etc...
I don't buy that they were all duped. They saw plane wreckage. They analyzed the debris, the treated the wounded, bagged and tagged the dead. What was left of those people wasn't due to a missile impact, Khaptain. They burned by being exposed to a fiery inferno that only a plane full of jet fuel could have produced.
I could go on with evidence that I know of personally that goes beyond what's in the news stories. All of it correlates pretty well. Something that big doesn't just happen and not touch the lives of nearly everyone on the continent in some way. We all have stories about it, mate.
So, is the news coverage or the official reports or so forth all 100% true? Probably not. But how much of that is honest inaccuracy and how much is coverup and how much is attempting to use a tragedy for political gain (or ratings)?
Nuance. It's a required component of critical thinking. The world is not binary.
"If we don't have the 100% truth accurate down to the position of each electron on each atom then it was all a conspiracy and they used missiles, not planes" is outright lunacy. That's a false dichotomy so broad that it is indicative of a mental illness. Specifically something on the shizophrenia spectrum where paranoid delusion and related illnesses live.
We'll never know 100% for sure every last detail of what happened. But nothing supports your hypothesis about the events, and there's a lot that says that the official story is probably at least mostly true.
The physical evidence tells us how the event happened. The bit that needs to be taken on faith - or with a bowl of skepticism - is "what were the motivations of the hijackers." But in all honesty, sir, that's the only major place where there's any real room for debate at this point. Everything else has been tested, retested, modeled, remodelled, analyzed and checked to death.
Re: A different view of 9/11
"Trevor! Americans are Ninja's who get everything right? Seriously?"
Where did I say that? Hmm? Provide the exact quote and context, then please provide a logical and rational reason you interpreted what I wrote to be what you said I wrote.
What I said was two things:
1) Americans have the power, technology, access to skills, resources, manpower and even advanced group manipulation techniques to have pulled off a conspiracy of the scale suggested. If there was a damned good reason to do so. It would take years of planning. It would be a massive undertaking, and it would be the largest, most complex conspiracy of all time...but they absolutely, 100% could do it.
There is, however, no rational reason for them to have done so. If they had wanted to start a war against some brown people so they could steal some oil it is a hell of a lot easier and more efficient to just select a few ultra-loyal troops and send them on a mission to hijack some planes and actually crash those planes into things.
Why, why, why in all the worlds that spin would they waste time and money using missiles against the towers (or demolitions, or what-have-you) when it is cheaper and easier to just actually hijack the fucking planes? Bonus: you don't have to spend the next decade covering it up, because you did what it said on the tin!
2) "Branding everyone who looks at the evidence of their own eyes and finds unanswered questions a 'Conspiracy Nut' or 'Conspiracy Theorist' is lazy and cowardly."
There are unanswered questions. There are also a lot of answered questions that the conspiracy theorists refuse to accept. I call people "Conspiracy nuts" and "conspiracy theorists" not because they question what's in front of them, but because they
A) refuse to believe solid, verifiable evidence that the overwhelming majority of experts vouch for
B) cannot provide a logical, rational reason for why all the various points of data (most of which are provably false) sum up to their claims.
C) they can't answer the most basic questions about flaws in their logic. For example "why would anyone destroy the towers and claim it was planes, but not just actually use planes?" Especially since there is all sorts of evidence and testimony from a huge number of experts that verify that planes could (and did, thank you very much) cause the level of devastation under discussion? Are you really going to tell me that people setting about to start a war that will kill millions are squeamish about a few hundred people on some planes? When they blow up towers with thousands in them? Really?
"Do your OWN research, look at photos of the construction of the twin towers, the state of the sites afterwards with no concrete chunks, just powder, and the hugely strong core of the buildings which included the lift shafts completely gone."
I have. I was once very interested in the design of those buildings because they used a non-standard design for sky rises. I got into studying them as an adjunct to some really neat stuff I had learned about Bamboo skyrises in China. I then learned all sorts about how they collapsed, which lead me to study a massive amount about demolitions (both of skyscrapers and underwater demos of things like oil platforms).
I learned enough about these topics that I would feel perfectly comfortable sitting down to discuss any aspect of thing with someone who legally qualifies as an expert. You know what I learned? There is nothing about the collapse of the towers, the dispersal of the debris or the type of trauma received (point impact + massive thermal disturbance) that is untowards. It all makes perfect sense, given the materials in play, the construction used and the temperatures involved.
I even built models. We used them in an attempt to design a server enclosure that would withstand an oil pipeline incident in which the bitumen caught fire. Could we keep the equipment inside collecting sensor data the whole time, and relaying signals down the line from sensor webs further up? What sorts of impacts could it withstand, and what temperatures? Etc.
So, I've done my homework. Are you now going to tell me I'm just a sheep because, having done my homework on this subject, I came to the same rational, logical conclusion as the majority instead of the uninformed and irrational conclusion held by the unmediated and unwell minority?
"Be sceptical of other opinions, even ones you agree with."
You really don't know me, do you? I rarely agree with anyone, and I'm skeptical of everything.
"Don't just parrot the insulting and ignorant garbage you've been taught over and over again."
When I want to insult someone, I don't do it by parroting what I've learned from others. I come up with my own, completely novel ways of doing it, and I do so because I have done the fucking legwork to be confident in my position.
Seek professional help. Your quality of life will improve.
Re: Not strange to me...
"I do not believe that 19 Al Qaeda terrorists managed to fool the entire US Secret Service, that they managed to hijack 4 aircraft, whilst leaving no trace of how they managed to execute what can only be considerd as a perfectly executed scenario."
Then you lack imagination. I can personally think of about six different ways this could be pulled off today with the existing security at airports. To say nothing of pre-9/11 security. And I'm not a black ops mastermind. Lots of people have rightly pointed out that much of existing airport security is security theater, not actual security. Imagine how much worse it was "back in the day"?
Also: ECHELON wasn't exactly PRISM, ya know? It was easier to organize bad guys to do bad things back then. I don't see why it's so hard to believe this was doable. It's far harder to defend a fixed point (or a whole crazy metric shitload of fixed points) against a mobile attacker, let alone one that is willing to die to see their mission accomplished.
"I cannot believe that these attacks were not pre-planned by someone on the American side of the fence, it's just not feasible."
Why not? Also: why couldn't Al Qaeda just get some Americans to help them out? Or just bribe the right people? Or infiltrate agents into the government agencies so they had people in the right low level positions to look the other way? Virtually every nation on this planet has spies and saboteurs deep into every other nation...why wouldn't transnational radical movements?
"I cannot believe that there was not a political motivation behind these attacks."
There was. You don't do something like that without a political motive. But why does it have to be an American political motive? And how does "there was a political motive" translate into "it wasn't planes?"
You are just asserting, asserting and asserting. But you aren't joining any of these dots - half of which are provably false - into anything that logically or rationally explains why planes weren't used..
Re: Not strange to me...
"I will give you 1 point for your theory on foreign satellites; this is a subject that I have never seen mentioned anywhere. I presume that foreign governments are not likely to admit spying in the states though, so they have to remain quiet."
Foreign governments spy on America openly all the time. Many - including Canada - have released images from their spy satellites at various times. (For example, I believe we released imagery of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.) Why would any nation with spy satellites be worried about revealing that they spy on the USA? Everyone does it, and everyone openly talks about it.
"You are right, I cannot prove or disprove what was actually flown into the buildings or Shanksvilel, nor how it was done but I am convinced that it was certainly not done using the means that were publicized."
Why are you convinced of this? The evidence that we, the public, have to hand actually supports the official story perfectly. The only item that I can see which might be conspiratorial is that those who hijacked the plane may not have been in the employ of those we are told they worked for. But there is no way to prove that one way or the other.
"The manner in which the 2 towers and the WTC 7 fell, the statistics of this happening defy all probability. All three building fell “perfectly” to the ground"
Actually, that's incorrect. In buildings where the exterior structure is load bearing, this is how they fall, especially when it's due to thermal stress. I can demonstrate this using ice forts that are commonly built by Canadian children. Also: if you don't believe me, try talking to demolitions experts who are familiar with the design and construction of the towers in question. They'll confirm. Making buildings collapse in that exact manner is their job. There are really neat videos all over youtube of them doing that. They can tell you why and how that amount of jet fuel will cause that exact collapse pattern.
"7 of the hijackers are alive and well, the BBC found them and interviewed them. So ban goes the theory about 19 hijackers."
Why would all members of a hijacking team need to be on the planes? You send the minimum force required so that some can stay behind and train new radicals. For that matter, how do you know they aren't simply mentally ill individuals seeking glory/to be copycats/whatever? There are lots of disturbed people that "attach" themselves to the horrible crimes of others.
"Both “planes” hit their targets perfectly, this is a task that is apparently “extremely, read almost impossible” for a very seasoned 767 pilot and yet they would have us believe that people barely capable of flying a Cesna managed to do it with complete control. ( I have been in and tried a real flight simulator, a C-130 and learned first hand that yes it is difficult to fly a plane. I cant even begin to imagine what it means to fly a 767.... )"
They're actually pretty easy. I've flown several planes, and I'd have no trouble hitting those towers with far more finicky aircraft. Remember that a modern 767 is essentially "fly by wire". Unless you've taken all three computers offline, they will compensate for pretty much everything (including the weird drafts and gusts you get trying to fly that low over a bunch of highrises) and allow you to hit a great big fat target like the twin towers.
Trust me when I say that it is way harder to put one of those planes down on a standard runway in the middle of an Albertan snowstorm (where the winds go 100 kph and shift directions suddenly and randomly). Especially when there's been a local power outage and the IVR is down. Yet I've been on one while it was done, and the pilot absolutely managed to land it on the button.
"Why was a 747 engine found on Murray street. AA and their 767s do not use these kinds of engines."
It was not. I know what you're referring to, and the individuals in question got it wrong, but this has been perpetuated by the conspiracy theorists ever since, regardless.
"When Convar recovered data some of the mainframe hard drives there was proof that more than a 100 Million dollars was illegally moved on the morning of the attack. This leads to believe that someone was aware of something was going to happen."
And? That doesn't mean that people didn't crash planes into it. A does not connect to B in any way.
"TC7 – Not a controlled demolition, very hard to believe. Coincidently it is well known that is was an FBI/CIA/NSA building."
You belief isn't really relevant. People that know more than you are convinced that it happened as described. The overwhelming majority of experts are. Until you have some pretty massive expertise in this area, your opinion is invalid.
"WTC6 Core – Wtf happened t here.."
That's not even a claim of anything.
"The Pentagon – Why do so many pilots and even Gen. Stubblebine refuse to accept that an aircraft hit that building? There are far too many credible people refuting the facts, these are people with nothing to gain and a hell of a lot to lose. This doesn’t make sense."
Why do so many people believe in a deity when none exists, nor there is any proof of it. Most have nothing to gain and a hell of a lot to lose. It doesn't make sense. Yet they continue to believe in a deity that doesn't exist. You are starting from a false premise: that all human being act logically, consistently and rationally. They don't. People do stupid, harmful things based on false evidence all the time.
"Stock markets - 600% increase in “Put Options” on American Airlines on Sept 10….. No one has yet claimed the money that was maid on these transactions..."
And? A does not connect to B. It doesn't remotely indicate that it wasn't planes used to crash into those towers.
"The Pentagon’s defense sensors were switched off except for the one that captued the incoming aircraft? Now this really is hard to believe..."
Those same sensors detect cruise missiles. Which, being honest, is the only thing the pentagon would have had to worry about in a time of peace with no known hostiles anywhere near their location. It's perfectly rational.
"Flight 93 – Shanksville – Absolutley nothing to show that an aircraft hit the ground except for a hole. No parts, no engine, no bodies, no luggage, nothing… A 100 tonnes of Airfcraft + passengers etc just “disintegrated”."
Plenty of wreckage was recovered. You are proceeding from false information and accepting it as truth.
"Please do not respond to the above points, we would be at it for weeks and neither of us would advance. I just want to convey some of the issues for which I do not see, nor have read any truly rational solution that outweighs the pro-conspiracy theory solutions thesis."
Oh, no, I feel I absolutely had to reply to the points. Because what it points out is a pattern of broken logic on your behalf. You are making completely irrational judgements over and over and in many cases clinging to outright false claims that were later clearly and publicly refuted. You have lost any and all objectivity.
You have decided that what occurred was that planes were not crashed into those towers and you are actively altering your perception of reality to fit this. You reject anything that doesn't fit your theory and accept anything - no matter how thoroughly debunked, no matter how irrational - that might support it.
I largely share your distrust of the American government and I am telling you that this instance your objectivity, logic and rationality has been compromised. You have read The Register's forums for enough years to know that I am not someone who would blindly accept anything told to them - especially if it was told to them by supporters of the American government - and I am telling you sir that you have gone to a really dark place here.
I do believe there is lots about 9/11 that we'll never know the 100% truth of. That's perfectly rational to believe, as the US government loves to classify everything, and only release as much information as the law forces them to. I can even buy that it is possible the whole thing was done by some sociopath war profiteer. That's possible.
But it is categorically not possible that those towers were taken down by anything other than a pair of passenger liners. That you insist on claiming this indicates a very severe mental disorder on your part. Please, sir, I beg of you: seek help. You're not well, and the truth of it shows in shattered "logic" and thoroughly refuted evidence that even someone as prejudiced against the American government as I simply cannot accept might be true.
Re: Not strange to me...
Let me try to put this a simply as possible: the government of the United States of America is not as stupid as you portray them to be.
Look, anyone who reads these forums as much as you knows that I am no fan of the US government. So please, take what I have to say here with careful consideration, instead of dismissing me out of hand for disagreeing with you.
I know that no matter how much physical evidence, video evidence or so forth is presented to you, you will not believe it, because there is always a way to fake it. You know it, I know it; if the United States government wished to fake something like 9/11 in the manner you described, they probably could have.
There's only one problem: I don't believe they're that stupid. Here's why:
By 2001 the United States has had well over 50 years of having the best black ops intelligence community on the planet. They are the smartest, they are the best, they are the most well resourced and by far the most experienced. The whole crux of your belief in their ability to pull of such a conspiracy rests on that fulcrum, and I cannot deny the truth of it.
But in being so experienced they would never - I repeat never - be so careless as to use missiles on those towers, then claim it was planes.
I fully believe that there are people in the US government callous enough to destroy those towers in order to start a war so they can go club some brown people over the head and steal their oil. Dick Cheney alone is the fucking dark lord of the Sith, and he's far from the only one. But I need you to understand this:
If the United States government wished to start a war by getting everyone all riled up about bad guys crashing planed into the twin towers, then they would hijack the fucking planes themselves and crash them into those towers.
The risk of something going wrong, of things not looking right, of some foreign nation having a spy satellite in the right place at the wrong time...there is no black ops department anywhere in the US of A that is stupid enough to use missiles and claim it was planes. Even the fucking janitors can plan a better op than that.
I don't know who crashed those planes into the towers. There certainly seem to be enough crazy fundamentalist Muslims that it's perfectly plausible that exactly who everyone claims was behind it actually was behind it. I could also believe that any of several dozen complete psychopaths in the US government ordered the hit.
But they would absolutely have used real planes full of real people to do it.
And that - that right there - is why your conspiracy theory falls apart. If you wanted to hold up evidence that said "here is why I think the hijackers were actually black ops fanatics hired by Blackwater and in service to Dick Cheney" I might well be inclined to review your evidence and give it honest consideration.
But starting this out with "it wasn't planes, it couldn't have been planes, it had to be missiles" is just lunacy. Sheer lunacy. At the end of the day bra, no black ops team is that sloppy.
Re: Why not just unauthorized
"but try to pause for a moment to recognize the hypocrisy of telling me that my morality is meaningless while yours trumps it"
Nope, don't see it. My morality is all that matters to me. You can follow it if you wish, but I have no reason whatsoever to follow your morality.
"You participate in society and society provides a framework around your actions."
And why should I care, or obey?
"Society has a set of rules. You can rebel against the rules, rail against them, raise holy hell, even outright ignore them. Consequences can be minor like being ostracized by people you don't like. It can also be incarceration, confiscation of property, freedom, or even your life in extreme situations. Them's the rules. You don't like them, use the levers of power provided and recognized by society to change them."
And there's the crux of it, isn't it? I need to do what you say because if I don't I will be threatened with one of two options: voluntarily allowing myself to be incarcerated by people I don't respect or death. In other words, for all your vaunted "rules", it is still "obey or die". I should convert to your belief system why again? Sounds like you're an almighty peckerhead of the first degree.
As for rebelling, resisting and seeking change, that's exactly what I do. This little windy thread of fockosity is where it is because you didn't like my questioning of authority and encouraging others to do the same. You just felt you had to tell me to acquiesce and comply, because currently it's people with your morality that have the guns.
I'll bet you care a fuck of a lot less for the importance of authority when it's people of my morality telling you to "obey or die". Of course, we'll wrap it up in laws and politics so that it's all disambiguated and proper, but I, for one, look forward to the day you have to choose between the barrel of a gun or your belief in right and wrong.
"But if things don't change, they don't change. You don't win hearts and minds by prattling on about how your morality is superior to mine on the basis that my morality shouldn't be used to override yours."
Really? Because that's what you're doing. I'm just following your example. And my morality is superior because it's my morality. Your morality may be a superior fit for you. I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm telling you to back the fuck off and let others believe what they want.
The alternative is fomenting revolution. Repressed people become very angry. And if you repress them long enough, then when they take control they don't allow you the space and freedom to practice your beliefs. Instead, they emulate their oppressors and demand that you obey, or die.
Give up your morals, or go to prison. Go to prison, or die. It's okay for you to demand this of others? Why? Why not give others the space to live their lives as they want, hmm? Keep it up, and your successors won't give you the option either.
"You want to live by your own set of rules and have no one ever tell you where you might be wrong, you need to remove yourself from society."
Aha! There's a kernel of truth right there. You believe people who disagree with your morality are wrong. That there is an absolute right and wrong, and those who do not recognize it believe the wrong thing, and should be punished accordingly. The truth comes out, finally!
I don't care if someone tells me I'm wrong. I care when they try to enforce their belief with violence. The rights of the individual end at the point where that individual attempts to tred on the rights of another individual.
You have the right to believe what you wish, but not to tell me what I may or may not believe. You have the right to prevent me from harming another, but not from undertaking actions which do not harm others. That is what I believe, I will die to defend that, if necessary.
You are allowed to believe I am wrong with all your might. You are right to tell me I am wrong until you are blue in the face. But I will fight you to my dying breath if you attempt to prevent me from undertaking actions which harm noone and where all participants in those actions are consenting adults. From jumping on a trampoline to an 11,000-man homosexual space orgy.
You will have to kill me to see my alter my behavior because your morality ordered it so. Are you prepared to do that? To kill a man for doing something which harms noone? Are you man enough to hold the knife yourself? Can you do it without trembling? Can you look me in the eyes when you do so? How deep does your conviction go, son?
"Otherwise, life is about compromise and realizing that some things just aren't going to be your cup of tea. If you can't change it, you can't change it."
Wrong. Life is about standing up for what you believe in. To the death if necessary. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Compromise only applies where the fundamental rights of two people are in conflict. You have no fundamental right to tell me what I may or may not do, when those actions do not harm another.
Now we have the responsibility to work out a compromise where there is a conflict between the rights of two people. If my actions may harm others - including through indirect methods, such as harming the environment - then we need to find a compromise between the actions I wish to undertake and the fundamental rights of others such that I can achieve as many of my goals as possible via a limited set of actions, but the rights of others aren't harmed. That is part of being an adult.
Nowhere in there is there an obligation - or a right - to limit actions which do not harm others. That "right" only exists in the minds of the fanatic; one who spreads their beliefs at the point of a gun.
"If you can't change it, you can't change it."
If you can't change it, you fight it. Through every means at your disposal. You use your actions and your words to inspire others to take up the fight alongside you. You never accept the limitation of rights and freedoms simply to make someone else more comfortable. Our ancestors died for those rights. It may be that in standing for them, we die too. We all go some time, and I'd rather go with my head held high saying "no, I refuse to comply" than in my bed at the age of eleventy, with a jackboot at my throat or some priest telling me what's to be.
" I agree that there are some actions currently criminalized by the government that maybe shouldn't be due to either arbitrary bright lines (alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine good, everything else bad) or political process by a group better connected than another. But that's how things are done. Try to change them, move the needle. In the US, that's worked for gay marriage and the pot smoking thing is starting to take off. Things change, they take time.
Sometimes, however, things don't change."
And yet, change is exactly what I'm trying to accomplish. You just don't seem to like the change I represent, so you attack. Because that's how things are done is the shittest, most cowardly excuse I have every heard in my life. "Because that's how things are done" does not, under any circumstances mean that's how things should be done, or that I should feel myself bound to the strictures and regulations of others.
Change happens because people refuse to comply. Change happens not by bowing to those in charge and pleading with those who benefit from authority to limit themselves and their power.
Change happens because you stand up and say "no". It happens because one man inspires millions and those millions march. Change requires resistance. It requires questioning, defying and eventually tearing down authority.
I won't be acceding to authority any time soon. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. If you believe so strongly that I shouldn't have rights, that my morality should be subject the whims of others, then wield the knife yourself, you coward.
Otherwise, stay the hell out of my way, and don't tell me what I can and can't do. Freedom is a test of wills. Is yours the stronger?
Re: Why not just unauthorized
"The only true libertarian is one who disappears into the woods and lives off the land, far away from the rest of society. "
And what's wrong with this? Hmm? I happen to like it.
You still haven't told me why your morality should override mine. You've made a lot of baseless claims about libertarians, but you haven't answered the question. Sounds to me like you're just an entitled prat angry that people are questioning authority and threatening to upset a social order in which you are currently in the position to tell everyone what to do.
I see no need to listen to you. Your morality isn't mine, and I don't accept or acknowledge your "right" to dictate my ethics, beliefs, values, morals or behaviors.
To wit: Go fuck yourself, ya goddamned poncy prick.
Re: What total rubbish!!
"Profit won that battle a long time ago, principles today, are all well and truly dead and buried!"
Personally knowing quite a few senior people at Google, I must disagree. They value their principles quite highly. I don't happen to remotely share most of their principles, but they do believe in them as strongly as I do mine...and they'd be willing to see off a lot of profit to achieve them.
Re: Time to get started!
You need oil to go to space. You can do it using light and water. More resource intensive, sure...but the idea that there will never be a group of humans so fanatical about the idea of leaving the rest behind and setting out to spread their seed/ideology/religion/whatever is ridiculous. You clearly don't understand what human passion, insanity, fervor or curiosity are capable of.
One good crusade and you'll get humans on other planets, even if just to escape the peckerheads that live here. Besides, Elon Musk will probably prove you wrong inside your own lifetime. Every time someone tells him it can't be done, the bugger goes ahead and does it anyways.
Re: Not what I have read..
Because it is not the place of Sony to be policing the distribution of stolen goods. They have to rely on the police like everyone else. Anything else is vigilantism and that is flat out illegal pretty much everywhere but the USA. Even there, most jurisdictions would call it interference with the law.
Sony doesn't get to play by a different set of rules than regular citizens. Either digital vigilantism is legal, or it's not. If it's not illegal, you can't go after Anonymous any more than you can go after Sony.
Pick a side, and live by the law. Even when you find that law inconvenient.
"I find the thought that Sony would launch a DDoS fairly hard to believe."
Why? Sony have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no morals or ethics whatsoever.
"Poisoning the well by adding a bunch of fake torrents"
This is digital vigilantism no different from a DDoS. Interfering in the distribution of stolen property is the job of the police, not an individual or corporation. In Canada, you'd go to jail for this. You aren't allowed to run down robbers, shoot people because they're on your property and you don't want them to be, etc. Be mindful that almost every country on the planet has laws against being a cowboy vigilante.
Re: No fan of Sony, but...
Interfering with dissemination of stolen digital property is the job of the police, not of Sony. What you are describing is an act of digital vigilantism, no different from any of the things Anonymous gets up to when trying to be the good guys.
So pick a side: is digital vigilantism illegal, or not? If it is, then it is as illegal for a corporation as it is for an individual, full stop.
Re: Magnetic dust a problem, how about this then ?
The oil exists to accept the heat, then transfer it to the exchangers? Why else are we submerging computers in oil?
Re: Magnetic dust a problem, how about this then ?
But the electronics are magnets, too. They generate their own magnetic fields. Rather a lot of testing would be required to solve the problem, factoring in the flow of liquids as they interact with heat, possible entry points for the metal dust, etc.
Re: Boggle our minds
I'm going to be honest and say that I suppressed my internet troll instinct to photograph and spread the pain. Some things should not be shared. Thus I don't actually have pictures of any of these things. If I could forget them, I would.
Re: Ah... The memories
We tried a few times. The problem isn't really cooling, but how then keep it warm enough during the winter. Winters in the mountains or up north can get pretty cold, and the heat transfer has to be sunk crazy deep to be of any use. That isn't always possible. Where it is, oddly enough, there tends to be a more permanent admin trailer (or other setup) which will generally allow for more systems than we would put in a "shed".
Sheds go where people don't want to. 'round here that usually means "where the ground 'ain't dirt and getting heavy machines in is really freaking expensive."
Re: Anyone else having trouble with the latest batch of Office updates?
Pull out .net 4.5x and put it back. Solves it. If not, then I suspect it's the MSXML update. Mind you, I've only seen that with 2010 on XP.
Re: Here's the REAL fix
100 patches a year for one version of Windows, maybe. Microsoft make a lot of products, and some of us run multiple versions of Windows.
Re: Here's the REAL fix
"overall problems had been pretty rare"
Define "rare". I get at least two "requires intervention on all affected systems" patches of the "Microsoft really fucked this one up" every year. Exchange Update Rollups, I'm looking at you...
Mobile first, cloud first.
Security last, privacy last.
Microsoft's priorities are 180 degrees from where they should be.
Re: Come to Vancouver
"everyone wants to live here"
Lies. I loathe Vancouver. Now, Tofino...I would like to live in Tofino...
There are no good guys here.
For $600,000 a year I will provide you a space - physical as well as virtual - to discuss the governance issues of the internet. I will even provide top quality technical content to help kickstart discussions as well as the manpower to moderate discussions and even edit proposals.
That doesn't take a "council". It doesn't take politicians or chairpersons. It takes an accountant, a devops team, some writers, an editor and an ombudsman. With some money put away to rent a conference room for the annual meeting.
The difference is that what I propose would be focused on generating ideas towards actual solutions. Kickstarting discussion with thought leadership content, a trained ombudsman to work through disputes and an editor to make sure that proposals turned in by special interest groups are actually comprehensible and even engaging to the populace at large.
With $600,000 I could pay the full time salaries of people who would be dedicated to those goals. A hell of a lot more would get done than NetMundial, let me tell you.
What's needed here isn't a council, it's a professional magazine aimed at governance issues. Turning ideas into viable proposals then bumping those back to the various other organisations that work on internet governance and letting them vote on them, lobby for them, or otherwise do what they get paid to do to make the internet go.
Screw captain cockwombles and his band of merry council misfits! Give me Timothy Prickett Morgan and a gaggle of technosphere support staff any day.
Re: IBM Power has CAPI
That's...really bloody sexy. That makes my inner nerd very, very happy. Want.
The Netlist lawsuit looks to be flaming out. To put it bluntly, Netlist is running out of money. Their stock price is in the toilet, their patent judgements are still in limbo, the judge bumped one lawsuit for time and all but killed the other. Netlist got their notice from NASDAQ, has failed to have their much promised "large order" show up for the past 9ish months...
Diablo doesn't have to worry about Netlist anymore because they simply won't be around much longer. At the end of the day, Diablo has access to more financial resources than Netlist do, and they aren't bleeding cash at the same rate. Even if Diablo is guilty of breach of contract - which will be down to how the judge interprets things, methinks - Netlist just might not make it that far.
Hell, Netlist has had to recently admit that they are having trouble "securing raw materials". Rumor has it they only have about $10M left, at a burn rate that will see them bankrupt by June.
Meanwhile, Diablo does have a DDR4 version in the works, it's called Carbon2.
Many of us are skeptical about MCS's claims. is it really that much better than PCI-E? What are the real-world numbers? Do the headline numbers make real world difference in today's applications? All good questions, and I absolutely don't intend to let Diablo just make a bunch of claims without holding their hands to the fire.
We all have questions, so please, do suggest tests to throw at this kit. Getting hold of it has been hard because every single MCS DIMM that Diablo's partners crank out seem to get bought up before anyone can really run them through the wringer. If I have anything to say about it, The Register will get the opportunity to test the validity of Diablo's claims about this technology soon. So let's get some real tests designed to push this stuff to the limits.
At the end of the day, it's about the proving out the tech. The rest of this stuff? I don't think it's going to be an issue for much longer at all.
Things I like about the new design:
1) Articles have pictures on them. Yay! Pictures add a lot to the experience, I think.
2) New masthead: the awesome motto of awesomeness is now nestled under "The Register." Biting the hand that feeds IT, forever!
3) Social Media buttons are more visible on article pages, make more sense, aren't blocked by my anti-spam stuff. Works out well, looks very nice.
4) I like the new footer. All the info you want, but not crammed so close together the links feel claustrophobic. Much nicer.
5) Articles on the front page have little counters for comments. It's cute. Shows the community engagement.
Things I don't like about the new design:
1) Articles have pictures on them. Boo! This means I have to pay a lot more attention when choosing my article images. Work, work...
2) Author info, posting time and social media buttons are below article picture. It seems counter intuitive. I keep looking for them above the picture.
3) The whitey whiteness of whitening. My kingdom for a black theme.
Re: WTF have you done to this site?
Ars looks a lot better if you log in and play with the settings some. You can move to a much more dense display of the articles, and have them in list form rather than that stupid verge-like tile format. Plus, dark theme, yay!
Ars does a lot wrong, but they do science reporting right and they offer some flexibility in the display of their site. Gotta like that.
Re: Hard on the eyes
I agree. I am currently mocking up a black theme as part of my CSS overrides for El Reg. I can't take all the white. Sadly, there's no ability to choose between various colour schemes in and apply to your profile while logged in, so it's "create overrides, then distribute to every bloody browser I use".
Why don't more sites offer black themes? White on light on dark is way easier for some of us to read than dark on light. Must be getting old. Bad eyes.
Re: Good article
@JLV, I've no problem with someone saying christmas. Go hard. If that's your holiday, that's your holiday. But I've quite a bit of issue with someone telling me not to say "Happy Holidays". Where does anyone get off telling me I cannot choose to be inclusive?
This time of year doesn't belong to any one religion.
Personally, I won't call it "christmas" because I choose not to acknowledge one group over another, especially one group that - not to put to fine a point on it - have more than enough well funded and obnoxious sociopaths trying to run it for everyone else already.
Maybe once people like Westboro have been ostracized, banished and dismantled by the other believers in their particular sky fairy I'll do that particular group the honour of acknowledging their holiday. Until then, they're just one amongst many...and the least of the bunch.
How do you get promoted beyond "co-owner of the company/dude who runs the thing?" I'm curious.
Re: Washington State corporate charter
So what you're saying is "non Americans should never use any American public cloud service".
Good to know. My nation's laws > US laws. If you can't abide by my nation's laws, then I'll not be using your service. I suspect most of the world will feel the same.
I don't know what's got you in a twist. I don't exactly remember saying NonStop servers were generally applicable. They are, however, a hell of a lot easier to use than they were back when they were Tandem. They are x86 now, have virtualisation capabilities (give or take) and are a perfect platform to run containerization on top of.
Expensive? Yes. Bulletproof? Absolutely. But you don't need to design the application for NonStop (though it helps.) Is Docker itself on NonStop? Not yet, but it's only a matter of time. HP has it's own containerization technology on there for now, but adding Docker support is simple, logical and inevitable. And it will make their NonStop-X line far more attractive.
So what is your beef? That I called NonStop expensive? That I didn't mention some fault tolerant product you personally sell? Or that I pointed out that containerization needs mainframe-like setups or to completely recode the application for application-level fault tolerance in order to actually achieve HA or FT?
Perhaps you'd be happier if I said "Superdome X" instead of NonStop? Afterall, it's basically a NonStop X with Linux instead of NonStop OS.
NonStop was an Itanium-only thing that needed a lot of care and feeding. HP is evolving it into something that is so easy to use that it is a real and legitimate challenger for virtualisation systems in the commercial midmarket. 2015 will see NonStop X and Superdome X make some real inroads here, especially as the prices come down from "holy what the hell crazy madness" to "that's worth a look."
So, if I am wrong in how I have talked about NonStop, please, do enlighten us all as to exactly how?
From what I've seen of the units, they seem promising (though admittedly one has not crossed my lab as yet.) One thing I will say, however, is that I like whoever did Exablox's industrial design. For a filer, they're really pretty. It's silly, but they always make me smile because of it.
Re: @User McUser
"How does the presence of reflectors on the Moon prove humans personally put them there?"
Short version? Because back then we were really shite at that level of precision in remote space robotics. We couldn't have aimed the bloody things properly. Getting things "within a few meters" was spectacularly accurate.
Re: It won't work.
"abortion and breast cancer"
Really? I missed this one. Is this a geolocated bizarreness, or am I just unobservant? (Both are possible.)
Unbelievable. What utter bunk. The scientists are just in it for the money. It's a conspiracy!
Side note: please imagine a "joke alert" icon has been selected. Apparently the mobile UI doesn't offer the option...
Re: @Mark...well , there you have it....
No, I think we'll have a bunch of people on Earth who try to kill off everyone else on earth who believes the aliens exist, because they won't accept the science, and find those that believe in aliens to be heathens. The question is: will those be a lot of people, or only a few? It's the next couple of generations that will tell the tale, as (thank $deity), we're starting to really get people to move away from being literalists.
The fewer literalists, the lower the chance for massive social upheaval.
"Informed faith" is an oxymoron. By definition, faith is belief where knowledge isn't possible.
That said, methinks you presume a lot from other "people of faith". Just because you have manged some high level of cognitive dissonance in which you compartmentalize faith and an understanding of at least basic science doesn't mean the majority do.
The number of people out there who honestly believe in the god of the gaps - and use it regularly when attempting to convince atheists their faith is true - is huge. There are far - far - more people out there who reject science, reject the idea that things like "life on other planets" could exist than you seem to be willing to accept.
Maybe you got "lucky" and ended up with a shaman and congregation that actually believe some variant of $_religion that is compatible with $_Y_percent of modern scientific understanding. Congrats. That's pretty cool, in a way, but it isn't the "mainstream" experience.
If anything, those sorts of questions and discussions are carefully avoided by the "mainstream" shamans. They focus on $_mandmans_text and espouse their interpretation. But for billions of people on this planet religion is taught far closer to "$_madmans_text is the literal truth". And there's where it all goes horribly wrong.
If you're a harmless religious type who is capable of somehow reconciling modern science with irrational belief in the unknowable, then to put it bluntly, it doesn't matte what you believe, or why. You are highly unlikely to be a threat.
But the $_mandmans_text literalists? They are threats. Each and every one. Anything that can be done to get people to walk away from that belief system is worth doing. The money spent becomes justified quite quickly when the ranks of the literalists is thinned.
Maybe the move from being a literalist to a science/faith cognitive dissonance type. Cool. Groovy. I don't care. Once they're not $_mandmans_text literalists their chances of being a threat are spectacularly reduced.
So what's important here isn't proving "god doesn't exist" to the cognitive dissonance types. They're not relevant. What matters is having one more tool to use in attempting to save those who have been sucked in to $_mandmans_text literalism.
We'll work on the cognitive dissonance types in future generations, once we've dealt with those who are actual threats.
"Okay, that doesn't actually use the word prove, but it's strongly implied the intent is to have some due process. Of course what the law will actually say once the politicians and lobbyists finish warping it will likely be a different story."
Really? And how has that worked out in other countries which have used these sorts of laws? I seem to recall quite a few UK blunders in which things like the Chaos Computer Club get blocked. Or where an newspaper is blocked because of a comment.
Just because the "implied intent" is that there be some form of due process doesn't mean that the citizens of a nation should accept that it will be so. The default position must be one of not trusting those in authority over us, and of stipulating explicitly their rights and responsibilities, with as little wiggle room as possible.
Otherwise, they will inevitably abuse each and every privilege they are granted. And once powers are granted to governments, they are rarely - if ever - released.
This is a means to censorship without the right to challenge before the censorship is enacted. That, by definition, means there is no due process. Everything else is hand waving. Relying on the judge and/or the companies involved ot act in good faith is - pardon my french - outright fucking lunacy.
They is no reason whatsoever to assume that they will act in good faith, or that said judges are somehow immune to regulatory capture.
See; FISA courts.
"But generally a court will kick out a case based just on suspicions, if the plaintiff cannot back up their suspicions with evidence."
Sure, if it's an actual trial. There are lots of instances in which you go to a court to get them to sign off on something but that it doesn't involve a trial. A warrant would be an example.
So it seems to me it's entirely possible here what we're talking about is Big IP going to a court and saying "we suspect BobsDildoShack.com of hosting our IP", getting a ban and then it being up to the owner of BobsDildoShack.com to respond to that ban.
See, in a trial, there's representation. The opportunity to answer your accuser and defend yourself. In anything else, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the court's involvement is anything more than a FISA-court-like rubber stamping process.
Nothing about this seems like these are presented to the court as "cases". As described, it's far more like "getting a warrant". Show minimal evidence, get rubber stamp, and the onus is on the accused, not the accuser.
Except, you know, there's not actually any "getting a warrant" involved, and no reason to assume that even that minimal level of evidence is required.
"As long as the IP holders have to put the evidence before a court of law and prove their suspicions, before a court order allowing the site to be blocked is issued, I don't really have a problem with it."
There's no evidence this is required. Just that Big IP needs to have "suspicions". There was no mention they'd have to actually prove anything.
Not yet proven. Suspected of. Nice. 'Straya!
Article about Microsoft saying "put video/audio surveillance in the cloud" appears on El Reg the day after I finish churning out a whitepaper about why that exact scenario is a really bad plan. Not from a privacy and security standpoint, but from a pragmatic one.
After I pick up the exploded remains of my irony meter, I need to go pester the client to see if we can fast track acceptance so that I can post the link. Because this is a debate I'd actually really lov eto have with a group of very smart people from Microsoft.
"Why do you mistrust US so?"
Why should I trust it?
- ← Prev
- Next →