Re: latest false flag attack?
On 9/20/18, jam...@echeque.com wrote: >> Anyway, 9/11 was done by governments fuckery around the world. > > 9/11 was done by terrorists with boxcutters. And as you well know, that was caused by the fuckery of governments around the world. Thus the first above is true.
Re: latest false flag attack?
On 2018-09-20 21:06, z9wahqvh wrote: they have quite a bit of good evidence collected regarding WTC 7, both the official and plausible stories about what brought it down, and the questions that they think remain. I agree with them. The explanations are ad hoc, often stretching the limits of credulity, often at odds with whatever physical evidence remains, and as in WTC 1 and 2, posit a mechanism for building collapse that, whatever else you think about it, has never been seen before or since, despite the fact that planes do crash into buildings and fires do happen in buildings pretty frequently. Oh come on. Where is a comparable disaster? When has a commercial airliner crashed into a tall building? Massive damage strips the insulation, fire burns, cool at first, but shortly before the collapse, burns red hot, yellow hot. Yellow hot fire is going to turn uninsulated steel into noodles. Part of the structure was smashed, then more of the structure was subject to fire. The fire got hotter. When it went yellow hot, hot enough to drastically weaken steel, building collapsed.
Re: root "login" xterm to increase security?
0On 09/16/2018 11:15 PM, grarpamp wrote: > Any search will bring basic stuff like > > https://insecure.org/sploits/xsecurekeyboard_fequent_query.html > https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/linux-and-open-source/three-features-you-may-not-know-xterm-has/ > http://tutorials.section6.net/home/basics-of-securing-x11 > https://www.reddit.com/r/openbsd/comments/83adcn/does_openbsd_x11_not_have_security_problems/ > > Whether xorg, wayland, xenocara, drivers, ttys, init, login, getty, > etc are receiving any level of scrutiny, audits, fuzzing, code > scans, etc. The ancient and obscure it is, the less people look, > and all the above are exactly that. > Even mashing kbd on a FreeBSD can throw console into > unrecoverable must kill state. > And people talk how trust X? I take it as self evident that physical access can defeat any computer security strategy. One can limit what a naive and/or unprepared party can do with/to a computer they get their grubby fingers on, but a competent and properly equipped adversary - not so much. If the machine is off when the hostile party arrives, at least the data on an encrypted hard drive is safe. Until the next time an authorized user switches the machine on and mounts the file system, under the watchful eye of a hardware keylogger or flashed BIOS. :o) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: latest false flag attack?
On 09/19/2018 11:09 PM, jam...@echeque.com wrote: > On 2018-09-20 12:03, Mirimir wrote: >> But again, does it really matter whether there was a plane, or just a >> missile? As long as we're assuming that the US military orchestrated the >> attack, or at least played some nontrivial role, that is ;) > > It is unlikely that the US military orchestrated the attack. > > Insofar as the US is to blame, the hijackings were obviously and > undeniably real, planes got destroyed, airline passengers died, bits of > them got spread over the landscape. > > And the guy who ordered the FBI to turn a blind eye to the hijackers is > Robert Mueller, who is in a state of proxy war with the US military. Sorry, I was being careless. You believe that it was the blue team. The main player being the State Department, plus the FBI and (I'm guessing) the CIA. And that the blue team, mainly the military, and including (I'm guessing) the NSA. I gather that BushII was a CIA asset, so the 9/11 attacks were part of his (or rather, Chaney's) game plan. Cheney was part of Iran-Contra, a CIA operation. And a cohort in that, Lee Hamilton, went on to whitewash Chaney's role in 9/11. And of course, we can't forget Condoleezza Rice, who served as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under W. Anyway, back to the point. I gather that Juan holds the US government responsible for 9/11. And he focuses mainly on the military, which is Jim's red team. But I suspect that Juan hates all aspects of the US government, more or less equally. So is that accurate, Juan? And could you agree that it developed out of an internal power structute=r I am rather taken with the red team vs blue team analysis. But I think that it's too simplistic. There are arguably many more power centers in conflict.
Re: latest false flag attack?
On 2018-09-14 04:22, juan wrote: 1) there was no 'hijacked' commercial plane at the pentagon So what happened to flight 77 and the people on board, and what was that commercial sized plane that flew over the road so low that it clipped the light poles?
Re: latest false flag attack?
On 2018-09-20 18:36, grarpamp wrote: Anyway, 9/11 was done by governments fuckery around the world. 9/11 was done by terrorists with boxcutters. The US government was only involved in that it closed its eyes, in much the same way and for much the same reasons as Major Hasan's colleagues listened politely and respectfully to his power point presentation on why he was going to to kill them.
Re: latest false flag attack?
I find the work by the 9/11 Consensus Panel to be the best-documented, most detailed, and most sober set of questions about the event that I've read. they have quite a bit of good evidence collected regarding WTC 7, both the official and plausible stories about what brought it down, and the questions that they think remain. I agree with them. The explanations are ad hoc, often stretching the limits of credulity, often at odds with whatever physical evidence remains, and as in WTC 1 and 2, posit a mechanism for building collapse that, whatever else you think about it, has never been seen before or since, despite the fact that planes do crash into buildings and fires do happen in buildings pretty frequently. all their stuff is worth going through, but here's the WTC 7 material: http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/#WTC71 - z On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:37 AM grarpamp wrote: > Show docs / pics of any significant damage to 7 attributed and > accepted by analysts as being from *planes* bits. 7 appears done > by the north tower ejecting into it, and resulting fire. > > Anyway, 9/11 was done by governments fuckery around the world. > > Which in the worst cases, were peaceful dissolutions to fail, > would take excess efforts to root them out... > > https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shadow-government-news-to-congress/ >
Re: latest false flag attack?
Show docs / pics of any significant damage to 7 attributed and accepted by analysts as being from *planes* bits. 7 appears done by the north tower ejecting into it, and resulting fire. Anyway, 9/11 was done by governments fuckery around the world. Which in the worst cases, were peaceful dissolutions to fail, would take excess efforts to root them out... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shadow-government-news-to-congress/
Re: latest false flag attack?
On 20/09/18 03:35, juan wrote: so yes, a controlled demolition. If you are talking about QTC1 and WTC2, while at first glance the collapses may look like explosive demolitions, if you look closely they are very different. (I think you mean explosive demolition, or perhaps building implosion - a controlled demolition is just a demolition which is done to a plan, manual demolitions are supposed to be controlled too. "Controlled Demolitions" are also a large firm) First, let's look at some real explosive demolitions of large-ish structures. There are many ways to do explosive demolitions and implosions, and they are often computer-modelled to a fare-thee-well these days, but here's a start. If you have a tallish large building and you want it to implode into it's own footprint, in the the modern classic implosion method, you start by weakening it with pneumatic hammers and chisels. In the actual explosion you might first cut up two sides, but leaving some horizontal strength so that as they collapse downwards they pull the other two sides inwards: then once those walls are in motion, cut the bottoms of them - but leaving the rest of them uncut so they have enough strength to lean inwards as a whole. In general, you leave some strength in the bits which are falling, so they can drag not-yet-falling bits with them. Another common technique is where a large structure is first weakened with high explosives and/or linear charges to cut some steel and concrete columns and beams; then a few milliseconds or seconds later low explosives are used to move the remaining structure away and to eg ensure the cut ends of the columns move in the direction you want them to. From outside you hear first the cutting charges, crack-crack-crack, then the shifting charges, boom-boom-boom. Though they tend to let them all off at once nowadays, which I think is a pity. The cutting charges can be distributed through the building, but mostly they are at the bottom - shifting charges are almost entirely at the bottom. There is a variation on this theme where the building is divided into two or three horizontal parts, and modern classic is used on each part. This is done for safety, the preweakening with chisels etc which is normally done being judged too dangerous (or too time-consuming). Also it can limit spread. One characteristic of the modern classic method is that the bottoms of the buildings are always cut, which means that the lower stories begin to fall at the same time as the upper stories. There are other methods, but the only one I know of where the bottom stories don't start to fall at the same time as the upper stories is what I might call the chop-it-in-half method. It tends to be used on 10-15 story buildings with one longer side. It does have a few advantages; it uses less explosives, it is quick and simple to set up, and it is fairly easy to ensure that most of the rubble falls to one side. You chop off 5 stories by blowing a vertical slice in one long side of the building 5 stories down from the top - this then collapses, and the top 5 stories fall as a lump to that side. You can do this twice in one go, so chopping off ten stories. You tend to be left with a pile of rubble that's five stories high, but that can be dealt with in non-explosive ways (and the rubble has to be dealt with anyway). So, what do we see in the WTC1-2 collapses? In WTC2 there are fires and damage about 20 stories down from the top. The fire seems to cover an entire floor. One corner of the building's shell is badly damaged. The top 20 stories tilt and drop a little, giving off dust/smoke, and then fall vertically down on through the remaining stories in a ball of dust or smoke. The bottom stories remain intact and in place until the falling top stories hit them. Some vertical core structure remains for a few seconds. (the dust and smoke as the top tilts is not the result of explosives, too slow, wrong velocity profile. It's just shake) In some videos we can see the dust and smoke coming out of the building in puffs, floor by floor, though it doesn't come out from all sides simultaneously. This may look superficially like the result of highly-timed [2] and controlled sequence of explosions, but it comes out too slowly to be the result of explosives and is almost certainly caused by the floors collapsing under the weight of the top 20 stories falling on them, pushing out the air which was in them, along with concrete dust, paper, etc into the ball of dust. (the concrete floors of the top 20 stories weighed 12,500 tons - each lower floor was rated for a static load of 1,300 tons, and would have had absolutely no chance whatsoever of stopping the moving weight from above) In WTC1 there is a fire and damage about ten stories down. The fire seems to cover more than one story. The top ten stories then twist slightly, and fall. The
Re: “caricatures of movie villains” - as black (humour) as it gets - [PEACE] [YOU KNOW YOU SHOULDN'T LOVE IT]
On 09/20/2018 12:39 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Black humour is black, yet compellingly humorous. > > Notwithstanding, we ought not chuckel folks - doing so is beneath > us... > > > > Spain: Patriotic Dog Bites Off Migrant’s Dick > https://dailystormer.name/spain-patriotic-dog-bites-off-migrants-dick/ I hate dogs :) Especially yakuza attack dogs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKKsvc1aW4U
“caricatures of movie villains” - as black (humour) as it gets - [PEACE] [YOU KNOW YOU SHOULDN'T LOVE IT]
Black humour is black, yet compellingly humorous. Notwithstanding, we ought not chuckel folks - doing so is beneath us... Spain: Patriotic Dog Bites Off Migrant’s Dick https://dailystormer.name/spain-patriotic-dog-bites-off-migrants-dick/
Re: latest false flag attack?
On 2018-09-20 12:03, Mirimir wrote: But again, does it really matter whether there was a plane, or just a missile? As long as we're assuming that the US military orchestrated the attack, or at least played some nontrivial role, that is ;) It is unlikely that the US military orchestrated the attack. Insofar as the US is to blame, the hijackings were obviously and undeniably real, planes got destroyed, airline passengers died, bits of them got spread over the landscape. And the guy who ordered the FBI to turn a blind eye to the hijackers is Robert Mueller, who is in a state of proxy war with the US military.
