The Linux Kernel Prepares To Be Further Locked Down When Under UEFI Secure Boot

[starshipeleven]

Maybe not.... But you know, it makes me wonder how you think neolithic man learned how to smelt iron and steel?

They didn't. Iron melts at temperatures that you can't reach without modern technology.

Up to modern times they just threw iron-rich ores in furnaces fueled with wood or wood coal and then hammered the red-orange blob into shape. But it was not anywhere near molten. Just softened up, while the lesser ores were molten and poured out of the furnace.

It has the consistence of crappy soft metal, like say lead, or gold, which you can hammer into shapes, but it is still solid, not molten. Look up on youtube for Shadiversity or others that discussed the old technology used to make swords before modern high-temperature smelting processes were possible at all. The whole thing is very well-known and documented.

To cause a structural failure in a building you don't need to melt anything, just to heat the beams enough to soften them up a bit so they become too malleable to support the weight they have on, which is usually even before they start to glow red, for the type of loads in a building.
If a couple guys can soften iron enough to hammer it into a sword by using a crappy clay furnace fueled with normal wood, go figure a shitton of jet fuel burning like hell with massive oxygen intake due to wind at the skyscraper height.

Which is the reason why spray-on heat-resistant coatings on steel structure of buildings are a thing in modern designs.

[phred14]

I can see how they don't want system parameters to be able to be changed from userspace after boot. But what about a kernel module that may need specific parameters, based on the hardware configuration. How is the loaded module "tweaked" for the specific hardware, in the UEFI New World Order?

[starshipeleven]

Building 7 too? Or... you have a different, vaguely plausible story for that particular, free-falling, sky scraper.

Got hit by large debris by the main falling ones and started burning pretty hard, then since it was empty there was low priority on putting them out before they went out of control completely.

Since what I said above still applies (a normal fire can soften up steel beams enough on its own if they are not protected properly), the fire caused the structural failure.

A good example would be the Windsor Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower a normal fire caused collapse of the metal parts of its structure. The core was made of concrete, and was still up after the fire.

[starshipeleven]

I can see how they don't want system parameters to be able to be changed from userspace after boot. But what about a kernel module that may need specific parameters, based on the hardware configuration. How is the loaded module "tweaked" for the specific hardware, in the UEFI New World Order?

As said above, this is a KERNEL patch, UEFI is just required for this "secure kernel" feature, it's not UEFI imposing itself over Linux somehow.

And if you decide to enable this kernel feature you will have to make sure all your modules don't require configurations that are deemed not-tamper-safe by this thing.

[cybertraveler]

Since what I said above still applies (a normal fire can soften up steel beams enough on its own if they are not protected properly), the fire caused the structural failure.

You know it spent a number of seconds falling at free fall speed right? If the beams were softened by the office fires, the beams should still create considerable resistance. I can't build a plausible model in my mind that would allow a partially softened grid of supportive steel beams to provide so little resistance as to allow for even momentary, symmetrical, free fall collapse.

A good example would be the Windsor Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower a normal fire caused collapse of the metal parts of its structure. The core was made of concrete, and was still up after the fire.

There's no citation for the claim in that wikipedia link. If there was a decent source backing that claim it still wouldn't be a good example because the buildings are not close to being equivalent in structure or how they behaved during the fire.

The narrative you are presenting is not even close to being plausible. Weakened structures do not intuitively allow for free fall as they still provide resistance. Asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical pockets of fire do not intuitively result in symmetrical collapse.

Look at video footage of Building 7's collapse "due to office fires" and compare it to any and all other skyscraper or high-rise collapses (steel frame or otherwise): it is freakishly anomalous.

[quaz0r]

starshipeleven, while im sure you mean well, lets be honest, you are not actually applying any sort of critical thinking much less the scientific method to what actually happened to those 3 buildings, you are just saying random things in defense of the official story because you assume it impossible for the official story to be incorrect. if you apply basic logic and critical thinking skills to what actually occurred it becomes readily apparent, however, that the official story is at best incomplete.

take for example the north tower, which was struck "between the 93rd and 99th floors." at 110 stories, this leaves the segment above the impact zone at about 10% the total height of the building, though by mass the upper sections of these buildings were made to be much lighter than the lower sections, but lets even say for sake of conversation 10%. while defenders of the official account love to focus on myopic details like the potential for melting or softening of steel, at the end of the day we are still talking about the same thing, regardless of how you get there: a gravitational-collapse hypothesis which leaves you with a physically impossible series of events in which the top 10% of a 110-story steel-framed skyscraper accelerates straight down through the bottom 90% of intact structure, acting as an invincible piledriver to somehow pulverize that bottom 90% of intact structure to dust before pulverizing itself to dust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_third_law

as newton's third law tells us, this is quite simply not possible unless the structure below was being removed by another force, such as in a controlled demolition.

standing in clear contrast to this is for instance your windsor tower example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower

which states "It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors; firefighters needed almost 24 hours to extinguish it. The city council of Madrid covered the cost of demolishing the remains of the building," along with a picture of an almost completely intact structure, save for a little drooping of the upper exterior. and of course it then had to be demolished by humans with explosives, as such buildings do not in fact demolish themselves. no such building ever has or ever will. the official account of 9/11 states that wtc 1, 2, and 7 are the three lone exceptions here, but of course there are in fact no exceptions to newton's third law.

[starshipeleven]

You know it spent a number of seconds falling at free fall speed right?

"free fall" isn't a speed. Terminal velocity is a speed.

If the beams were softened by the office fires, the beams should still create considerable resistance.

Grossly underestimated weight/inertia? If a floor falls down even a very small amount of height it gets a ridicolous amount of inertia, as it weights very fucking much.

It would then crush any structure under it with little effort in its fall.

I can't build a plausible model in my mind that would allow a partially softened grid of supportive steel beams to provide so little resistance as to allow for even momentary, symmetrical, free fall collapse.

Pancaking. A floor collapses, and it does a sledgehammer effect on the lower ones that won't stand a chance at stopping a whole floor coming down after it fell for a floor height or more.

Also I invite you at looking how the collapse damaged neighbouring buildings, "symmetrical" is very optimistic.

There's no citation for the claim in that wikipedia link.

Yeah it was totally an alien attack that caused that failure.
-there was a fire
-pics of the aftermath where the metal parts were collapsed

the buildings are not close to being equivalent in structure or how they behaved during the fire.

The metal part did exactly the same thing though.

The narrative you are presenting is not even close to being plausible. Weakened structures do not intuitively allow for free fall as they still provide resistance.

Inertia is a thing. Once a floor fails and falls for even a short distance it becomes unstoppable because it gains inertia and exterts a massive force on anything under it.

There are other examples of buildings that pancaked here, for various reasons https://www.bestonlineengineeringdeg...es-in-history/

It's perfectly acceptable way of coming down, only thing needed is a local structural failure that lets a floor fall more or less free for a short distance.

Note how the ones that pancaked did basically "free fall" down in a few seconds, and they were more or less "symmetrical".

I mean, some even collapsed under their own weight (too much floors without proper design and then added far more water than usual on the water reservoirs on the roof top).

Asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical pockets of fire do not intuitively result in symmetrical collapse.

It was fully on fire, and your "intuition" is irrelevant as other buildings had failures on some parts of some floors only and still came down more or less symmetrically.

Look at video footage of Building 7's collapse "due to office fires" and compare it to any and all other skyscraper or high-rise collapses (steel frame or otherwise): it is freakishly anomalous.

anomalous compared to what? how many videos of buildings coming down accidentally (i.e. not a controlled demolition) are there around?

[duby229]

They didn't. Iron melts at temperatures that you can't reach without modern technology.

Up to modern times they just threw iron-rich ores in furnaces fueled with wood or wood coal and then hammered the red-orange blob into shape. But it was not anywhere near molten. Just softened up, while the lesser ores were molten and poured out of the furnace.

It has the consistence of crappy soft metal, like say lead, or gold, which you can hammer into shapes, but it is still solid, not molten. Look up on youtube for Shadiversity or others that discussed the old technology used to make swords before modern high-temperature smelting processes were possible at all. The whole thing is very well-known and documented.

To cause a structural failure in a building you don't need to melt anything, just to heat the beams enough to soften them up a bit so they become too malleable to support the weight they have on, which is usually even before they start to glow red, for the type of loads in a building.
If a couple guys can soften iron enough to hammer it into a sword by using a crappy clay furnace fueled with normal wood, go figure a shitton of jet fuel burning like hell with massive oxygen intake due to wind at the skyscraper height.

Which is the reason why spray-on heat-resistant coatings on steel structure of buildings are a thing in modern designs.

That's not true, the Celts all across Europe were smelting high quality steel They had little ground furnaces with foot bellows that burned pre-made wood charcoal. It was the oxygen provided by the bellows that made those temperatures possible. By the 900's there were dozens of germanic tribes producing steel that rivals todays steel. That's a fact

[duby229]

Building 7 too? Or... you have a different, vaguely plausible story for that particular, free-falling, sky scraper.

Yes. Absolutely. Mankind has been smelting steel for several thousand years now. We know exactly how steel melts. We have for a long time.

[starshipeleven]

That's not true, the Celts all across Europe were smelting high quality steel

Show me a ground furnace that can reach the 2000-ish °C (3632 F) to melt iron.

This is what they had up until the Renaissance, more or less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery

Then they started pulling up blast furnaces that could at least melt the thing, but Celts were no more around by that time.

By the 900's there were dozens of germanic tribes producing steel that rivals todays steel. That's a fact

You were home schooled perhaps?

To even approach crappy modern steel they would have been able to melt it, AND to be able to control the carbon content, which is NOT something that was possible before much later times.

Unless by "900's" you mean 1900 and later.

Then again, whatever kind of steel they could make would totally destroy bronze swords and armor, so it was good enough.