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

[starshipeleven]

if you and F.Ultra followed your own links, you would see in both the report for the towers and the report for builing 7 that there was in fact no investigation into the actual collapse of either the towers or building 7.

I don't care if you don't understand how post-disaster analysis works, but that's what you asked.

You don't like it? Ask for something else.

in other words, no investigation of the actual crime scene or the actual physical evidence from that crime scene, no analysis of the actual collapses of the buildings of which there is also ample video evidence, just "this is what might have happened...prior to collapse."

Post-disaster analysis is about finding the causes of the collapse, stop doing shenanigans with words.

They can't have 100% certainty on minor details because it's not a controlled experiment, but the dynamics depicted in that document are the most probable.

and when we're done citing investigations that never happened and analyses that dont exist, now we are back to just saying random things as we go that have no basis in anything. clearly those buildings were not literal houses of cards

So, when you cite them as example it's correct, when I point out that even your own example shows you are posting bullshit then it's not correct anymore.

of course far more pertinent than the exact mass of the buildings is the extreme degree of destruction performed on that mass. as i have already noted, that mass could not have destroyed itself so completely in the way that it did by way of a simple gravitational collapse. the actual physics of the actual real world just simply do not work that way. it is physically impossible for those buildings to have accelerated straight down through themselves, all the while pulverizing themselves nearly completely to dust, without more energy being applied than would have been available in a gravitational collapse.

I quite frankly don't even understand from where this claim of "pulverizing nearly completely to dust" comes from. I suspect it comes straight from your ass.

There was a shitton of rubble in all pics I saw, see this for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F...n_New_York.jpg

[quaz0r]

starshipeleven, every time you attempt to back up an argument with some kind of evidence, the best you can muster is "as you can see here, black is white," followed by a link to something clearly stating and clearly showing that black is black and white is white.

you cite a collapse of windsor tower that did not happen with a link to an article which clearly states that the building had to be demolished by humans with explosives, along with a picture of that post-fire intact structure which had to be demolished. you cite investigations, analyses, and conclusions that do not exist in the nist reports with links to those very nist reports. and now here you cite the existence of "a shitton of rubble" with a link to a picture of the exact opposite - a scant pile of thoroughly obliterated remains.

i wonder, too, what exactly constitutes a "shitton," and how might one apply this figure to a scientific analysis of the actual events that transpired that day? perhaps you could provide me a link to the scientific literature which defines this term. the same literature which defines concepts like "weights very fucking much," "very fucking heavy," and "very fucking big" perhaps.

[cybertraveler]

quaz0r : I hope you don't burn yourself out on guys like these. Obviously duby229 is just straight up trolling. I don't know what the deal with starshipeleven and F.Ultra is, but please don't let them drive you crazy.

You are making perfect sense. Your request for investigation and analysis is reasonable (especially considering it is them who are making the fantastic claims about what occurred to those buildings). They did not and are not able to deliver what you asked for (because it doesn't exist).

They're going to keep following up to everything you say with diversions, false-observations, fallacious reasoning, strawmans and silly associations with "truthers".

You have written enough already that people who are capable of critical thinking and who care about knowing the truth will have something to think about.

[duby229]

quaz0r : I hope you don't burn yourself out on guys like these. Obviously duby229 is just straight up trolling. I don't know what the deal with starshipeleven and F.Ultra is, but please don't let them drive you crazy.

You are making perfect sense. Your request for investigation and analysis is reasonable (especially considering it is them who are making the fantastic claims about what occurred to those buildings). They did not and are not able to deliver what you asked for (because it doesn't exist).

They're going to keep following up to everything you say with diversions, false-observations, fallacious reasoning, strawmans and silly associations with "truthers".

You have written enough already that people who are capable of critical thinking and who care about knowing the truth will have something to think about.

Yeah of course. Because the fact that those buildings fell pretty much exactly how they were designed to doesn't matter all to you.

[starshipeleven]

you cite a collapse of windsor tower that did not happen with a link to an article which clearly states that the building had to be demolished by humans with explosives, along with a picture of that post-fire intact structure which had to be demolished.

I stated that the metal parts of the building failed, and provided images of that. Never stated it collapsed so that came for your imagination.

you cite investigations, analyses, and conclusions that do not exist in the nist reports with links to those very nist reports.

I provided links to the Nist reports because you asked for them so hard, never cited a damn from them. I don't need them to prove you're posting bullshit, you aren't that good at it.

and now here you cite the existence of "a shitton of rubble" with a link to a picture of the exact opposite - a scant pile of thoroughly obliterated remains.

A "scant pile" that is 5-6 stories high, and this can be clearly seen in that image, there are escavators also for scale.

i wonder, too, what exactly constitutes a "shitton,"

See above.

and how might one apply this figure to a scientific analysis of the actual events that transpired that day?

Matter didn't dissipate in thin air, it fell down and piled on the ground.

This would also have happened with a controlled demolition, and with any other process that does not involve aliens you would have ended with the same amount of rubble on the ground.

I still don't understand what kind of process you think could have happened that had so large amounts of mass just disappeared, and justify your bullshit argument that "there isn't enough rubble on the ground so your pancaking theory is wrong".

perhaps you could provide me a link to the scientific literature which defines this term. the same literature which defines concepts like "weights very fucking much," "very fucking heavy," and "very fucking big" perhaps.

Pfft, you have no standing to ask for that, stop acting "sciencey".

You used highly unscientific terms like "extreme degree of destruction" "that mass could not have destroyed itself", misused "gravitational collapse" (which is a term used for the process that creates stars and black holes, not buildings falling down).

You pulled Newton's third law as if it was a proof, but it doesn't prove anything per-se. It only states that the upper part of the building is exerting a force on the lower parts, and that the lower parts are counteracting it with a force high enough to counter it.

The force coming from the lower parts must be at least F=m*9.81 with m being the weight of the upper parts. But it's not relevant as this remains the same force throughout the fall (as the mass didn't disappear and the Earth's gravity didn't change), not needed to prove anything.

But what happens when we talk momentum? Due to simple p=m*v if the upper floor fell even a tiny bit the force it would extert on the lower part (in addition to the pure weight which is already countered) would be multiplied by that speed. If it fell in kinda freefall for even just half a meter (which is possible if the metal structure softened and stopped become load-bearing for a floor) multiplies the mass by 0.5, and this is a force in addition to the weight's force.

So we end up with a total force that is now around 150% the original, and there is no way in hell the lower floors can withstand that.

And this snowballs, the longer the freefall, the higher the mass of collapsing stuff, the higher the force it generates.

[cybertraveler]

I provided links to the Nist reports because you asked for them so hard, never cited a damn from them. I don't need them to prove you're posting bullshit, you aren't that good at it.

He didn't at any point ask for links to NISTs reports. It's quite obvious he knows that the reports exist and has seen them. He asked for evidence of an investigation into what actually caused the collapse, here are is words from earlier:

you provide a link to their website but where are the results of this investigation that you think happened? where is the link to the analysis of how those buildings were actually destroyed? i challenge you to point to the investigation and analysis of the actual destruction of the buildings. where is it?

He is saying that evidence of the investigation does not exist. As such there is nothing he can cite. You can't prove the absence of something with a citation... to that something!

starshipeleven; the burden of proof is on you. You must provide the citations to back your claims. You must cite the parts of the NIST reports which contain the investigation and analysis into what caused the buildings to be destroyed. You are the one making the claim that the buildings fell because "the fire caused the structural failure" and that combined with structural damage led to a rapid pancake collapse. You're the one claiming that "If a floor fails nothing under it can realistically stop it, after a few floors that pancaked nothing can even slow its fall". You've made the claims and you think that the NIST reports backs your claims, so cite the specific NIST report and the location in it, where NIST can be shown to have investigated what caused the actual collapse and concluded based on the evidence available that it was indeed the fires that weakened the structural supports causing floors to fall and pancake downwards causing complete destruction of every floor of building 7 leaving only dust and rubble.

[starshipeleven]

He didn't at any point ask for links to NISTs reports.

He asked for articles about the investigation and analysis. The NIST articles are the official investigation articles.

However lousy and uncertain they may be, that's the investigation and analysis done by engineers, which is what he asked for.

starshipeleven; the burden of proof is on you. You must provide the citations to back your claims.

Wrong, this discussion started when you posted your own claim here https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...22#post1010822

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

This is the first statement related to 9/11 topic (excluding duby because we all know he is just a blatant troll, and the "trolling can't melt steel beams" I posted was just an innocuous joke based on a meme http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/jet-fu...lt-steel-beams ).

This statement from you says that the official explanation is not plausible, and it is the thing I reacted to.

According to the burden of proof rule it is YOU that must back it up with citations first (which you failed to do, beyond linking the home of a website and told people to educate themselves), before anyone else is required to.

See? I know the rules of engagement.

Why you think I'm into low-effort mode? Because I know you will never do that.

[cybertraveler]

He asked for articles about the investigation and analysis. The NIST articles are the official investigation articles.

However lousy and uncertain they may be, that's the investigation and analysis done by engineers, which is what he asked for.

Perhaps you lack reading comprehension skills or you're just incredibly disingenuous. It's amazing that you are responding to my post where I quoted him saying "where is the link to the analysis of how those buildings were actually destroyed?"

I need not say more on this matter. Anyone who has been following the conversation who has a functioning mind will see as clear as day what you're doing.

Wrong, this discussion started when you posted your own claim here https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...22#post1010822

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

You might actually be insane. Are you seriously suggesting that the burden of proof is not on you to back your claims because "this discussion started when" I posted my own claim?

Not only does that make zero logical sense (why would someone not be required to provide evidence to back their claims just because someone else didn't back a claim they made?), but it contains two falsities embedded within a single sentence.

1. I didn't start the conversation (duby did as you admit below)

2. The post of mine that you linked to and even quoted in full contains a question not a claim. The only thing close to a claim in my sentence are my statements that Building 7 is a sky scraper (it is) and that for a period of time it was free-falling (it was). Do you disagree with either of those statements?

This is the first statement related to 9/11 topic (excluding duby because we all know he is just a blatant troll, and the "trolling can't melt steel beams" I posted was just an innocuous joke based on a meme http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/jet-fu...lt-steel-beams ).

This statement from you says that the official explanation is not plausible, and it is the thing I reacted to.

You're telling me that my statement -- which you just quoted verbatim above -- says that "the official explanation is not plausible", when it absolutely does not. Simply reading my statement is enough to prove that. You're seeing things that aren't there.

You are literally pointing to evidence which does not support your claims and saying that it does. I'm not even talking about evidence of what physically happened to Building 7. I'm talking about simple statements of fact about what you have quoted and how you are describing the quote.

After I made that post that you quoted and before I made any other posts, you then make a claim "the fire caused the structural failure." [cite].

Later on I did say this:

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.

You didn't quote or cite that and I said that after you made the claim I cited slightly above.

Perhaps you are thinking of this quote of mine? If so: firstly, this statement I made did not start the discussion. You made two posts prior to me saying that (one of which contains the claim: "the fire caused the structural failure"). Secondly: It should be clear to you from what I said, that I don't find your claim plausible. I haven't offered my own explanation for what caused the collapse. I don't need to provide a citation for my absence-of-an-explanation for what happened. You need to provide a citation for your multiple claims about what you have concluded caused the collapse of building 7 (including the pancake theory you later brought up).

According to the burden of proof rule it is YOU that must back it up with citations first (which you failed to do, beyond linking the home of a website and told people to educate themselves), before anyone else is required to.

See? I know the rules of engagement.

Why you think I'm into low-effort mode? Because I know you will never do that.

Tell me what claim I made which you don't agree with and I'll find a citation for you. So far you haven't; as I've made abundantly clear above. So far, you have not only failed to provide claims for the statements you have made about what caused building 7 to collapse, but you have even failed to correctly describe and cite your claims for what has been said so far in the discussion.

[quaz0r]

You used highly unscientific terms like "extreme degree of destruction" "that mass could not have destroyed itself", misused "gravitational collapse" (which is a term used for the process that creates stars and black holes, not buildings falling down).

really? thats what youre going with right now? black holes? asserting that i misused the words "gravitational" and "collapse" because "gravitational collapse" happens to be a term used in astrophysics? so if someone said to you something like "the strong force of the water current swept me away" you would attempt to ridicule them by explaining that "strong force" happens to be a term used in particle physics? how embarrassing for you.

F=ma, p=mv

gosh, look at you getting all sciencey on us now! just as well, seeing how your attempt to get all englishy on us didnt work out so well. so you would like to utilize things like math and science to get at the truth of what really happens with regard to physical processes in the real world? does that mean i get to smear you as being a truther now? or a mather or a sciencer or something? a sciencey truther? a truthy sciencer? a truthy mathing sciencer? im probably getting the smear formula wrong; perhaps you could share that formula with us as well.

no matter though, luckily for you i have much more interest in the math and science of the matter at hand, so lets do some math!

F=m*9.81 but it's not relevant

aww, there goes half your math already. oh well.

Due to simple p=m*v if the upper floor fell even a tiny bit the force it would extert on the lower part would be multiplied by that speed. If it fell in kinda freefall for even just half a meter multiplies the mass by 0.5, so we end up with a total force that is now around 150% the original, and there is no way in hell the lower floors can withstand that.

unfortunately your proof for the pancake conjecture feels a little thin. lets go ahead and do some more math!

In all, the towers were assembled from more than 200,000 pieces of steel manufactured around the country, 3,000 miles of electrical wiring, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, 40,000 doors, 43,600 windows and six acres of marble.

quite the houses of cards these buildings were! lets even just take a look at the concrete alone. with a side length of 207 feet, the area occupied by each tower would then be 42,849 ft², which is 4761 yd². if we take 212,500 yd³ of concrete per tower, the amount of concrete in each tower would have been the equivalent of a solid block of concrete with the same area about 45 yards tall, or 12.5 stories.

Matter didn't dissipate in thin air, it fell down and piled on the ground.

did it? can you point to a single shot of ground zero with anything even remotely resembling 2x 12.5-story piles of 42,849 square feet of concrete? it looks perhaps a bit sparse. not much resembling chunks of concrete either, much less 220 one-acre pancakes.

aliens

did aliens take it? i understand your confusion, but lets stick to the evidence. so where did it go then?

Matter didn't dissipate in thin air

didnt it?

https://imgur.com/a/53zss

hey look, i think i found it! dissipating into the air ironically enough.

I quite frankly don't even understand from where this claim of "pulverizing nearly completely to dust" comes from.

so i wonder (even though i know you said it is irrelevant, just humor me for a moment if you will), if we take f=ma for example, would the m here which was providing the f responsible for piledriving those buildings straight into the ground be the dust you arent sure exists, or would m be the 2x 110 pancakes of 212,500 yd³ of concrete that didnt exist in the rubble pile?

And this snowballs, the longer the freefall, the higher the mass of collapsing stuff, the higher the force it generates.

well, if the mass was accumulating to continue piledriving itself into the ground, then it wasnt pulverizing itself into dust as it went, so i guess m would be the 2x 110 pancakes of 212,500 yd³ of concrete that didnt exist in the rubble pile.