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

[starshipeleven]

Whoever felt it dealt it, you're a troll. My answers on this thread are 100% the truth, you answers on this thread are your own opinion and logical fallacy.

Thanks for confirming my statement right there.

[cybertraveler]

Also please stop using "free fall speed" which is meaningless. Just using "free fall" is sufficient.

Sorry. I know what it means and how to use it properly. It's just a bad habit.

Would be cool to cite directly from relevant articles in there, not just pull a link to the main site.

I don't think it's worth my time. I used to give people well cited info; direct links etc. I've found that most people are incapable of thinking clearly and fairly assessing information on this topic. So now I just say my piece and point people in the general direction of good info. The AE 911 Truth site contains lots of fantastic information. If someone truly want to find out the truth, they will then I will have given them a nice starting point.

[starshipeleven]

I don't think it's worth my time.

Protip: I have a document of canned answers and links to copy-paste for the most common debunking, takes moments and gives a better impression.

[F.Ultra]

For building 7 there is. Do some searching and you should video footage and analysis pretty quickly. Also, NIST admitted in some correspondence (with an AE 911 Truth guy I think), that they accept that Building 7 fell at free fall speed during some of its collapse. You should also be able to find that pretty easily if you search for it.


AE 911 Truth are a good source of info on the event. I wouldn't recommend the Loose Change guys.

I've noticed that many people who are unwilling or incapable of thinking outside of the bounds prescribes by their culture/authorities will seek to "debunk" the arguments of amateurs and then suggest something along the lines of "everyone who doesn't hold the view that my culture/authority-figure says is true is just like this stupid person I just debunked". I hope you're not that and you'll check out the AE 911 Truth stuff if you have interest in this topic.

Of course there will be free fall at some point in time for some of the structures, but that does not mean that this where a controlled demolition. Do you truthers seriously believe that thousands of people working there not once thought that it was strange that their entire offices where filled with explosives?

And not I don't think that you are stupid or that truthers are stupid, they are simply suffering from Dunning-Kruger combined with "oh some little detail might be strange or here is a strange little coincidence so then this vast conspiracy must have happened instead of following Occam's razor.". Another thing that really hurts me is the level of competence that these conspiracies cast on the Bush Administration.

[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.

i dont feel too bad quoting myself here, as michael delayed my post by a day, and the conversation continues to be shamelessly sophomoric and unscientific. as always, instead of engaging in any kind of sincere debate or critical thought, people try to divert the focus to the smelting of steel or some similar tangent, ridicule some poor lay schmuck about their usage of "speed" vs "acceleration," anything to divert and distract, ridicule and gaslight, instead of entertaining critical thought or engaging in honest discourse. on the infrequent occasion the actual pertinent science of the matter is addressed, it invariably amounts to uneducated emotional arguments instead of informed scientific arguments, embarrassing displays of ignorance like this:

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.

an emotional argument made in frustration at your own inability to apply real scientific principles. again i would direct you to newton's third law. "it weights very fucking much" is not a scientific argument, nor does it reference a valid scientific principle. there is no "very fucking big" or "very fucking heavy" exception to basic physical principles; that is an obvious and well-known common misconception among the uneducated. just as a pebble cannot completely pulverize a pebble of equal composition and 10x its mass, nor can a rock the size of a planet completely pulverize a rock of equal composition and 10x its mass, nor can a section of a building completely pulverize another section of building of equal composition and 10x its mass.

Inertia is a thing. Once a floor fails and falls for even a short distance it becomes unstoppable.

and since we are making an emotional argument instead of a scientific one, we predictably double, triple, quadruple down on it with progressively more embarrassing displays of ignorance like this. try taking a physics course some day and propose your theory of "once an object moves even a little bit, it becomes unstoppable" and see how far you get.

[starshipeleven]

And not I don't think that you are stupid or that truthers are stupid,

I do.

They don't think with their own head but are convinced by someone posting videos or articles or other clearly biased material meant for mass-consumption. Then accuse others to be following government's propaganda. They're still sheeple.

Real truthseekers don't do that, they go read history/science/engineering books and use scientific method to form their own opinion on material that is guaranteed to be unbiased.

This takes time, and may not be worth it, but that's the only way you can stop being sheeple. Just choosing to believe a different master does not make you any less sheeple.

[cybertraveler]

quaz0r : thanks for the thoughtful posts. I could say a lot more myself in response to these guys, but when I see them using sophistry, diversionary tactics and negatively associating me with groups I don't think I even belong to (IE "truthers"... whatever that means), I feel it's not worth my time replying. I still think it's great that you dropped some reasonable arguments and counter-points in the thread. It may be of value to curious people who read the thread.

[duby229]

And yet you completely fail to even look at how the buildings were designed. Each of them were -designed- for a controlled demolition. They were built to be taken down. You want to talk about ten percent of a buildings weight, and that's fine, but lets about ten percent of a buildings weight falling on the floor below it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out none of those floors would have been designed for that. In fact the twin towers were specifically designed to tolerate the impact of aircraft, yeah that's right, they even simulated Cesnas hitting the buildings during the design. Those men that flew those aircraft into those buildings knew exactly what they were doing, they already knew full well they couldn't survive a 747 impact.

[starshipeleven]

And yet you completely fail to even look at how the buildings were designed. Each of them were -designed- for a controlled demolition. They were built to be taken down.

That's a weird way to say it, but the concept is correct.

Modern buildings by design tend to concentrate all load-bearing in relatively small parts (metal or reinforced concrete beams/pillars), and this makes them more susceptible to damage from fire (if it is untreated metal) or explosives in a controlled demolition.

Old school buildings (brick or stone walls) are a massive pain in the ass to take down with explosives, as there you don't have pillars but whole bigass structural walls that can take so much more punishment to actually fail.

But old school buildings can't go that much high because of all the added weight.

they already knew full well they couldn't survive a 747 impact.

For that matter, many nuclear plants and pretty much all chemical plants and oil refineries aren't rated to survive a 747 impact/fire either.

[duby229]

That's a weird way to say it, but the concept is correct.

Modern buildings by design tend to concentrate all load-bearing in relatively small parts (metal or reinforced concrete beams/pillars), and this makes them more susceptible to damage from fire (if it is untreated metal) or explosives in a controlled demolition.

Old school buildings (brick or stone walls) are a massive pain in the ass to take down with explosives, as there you don't have pillars but whole bigass structural walls that can take so much more punishment to actually fail.

But old school buildings can't go that much high because of all the added weight.

For that matter, many nuclear plants and pretty much all chemical plants and oil refineries aren't rated to survive a 747 impact/fire either.

It's all there in the 911 report. These guys try to act like that report was incomplete or faked, but the real truth is that it was extremely thorough. You all should actually seriously look at it.