Super combative terminal jokey from the winning team is on camera saying he can't close IE On a system that is supposed to be secure ... I'm guessing CTF at DEF CON would wipe the floor with these folks.

Claiming to have "won" against the NSA at the end, more like failed less than the others.

These exercises are fine in themselves, but anybody who knows what they are doing and has been tasked to comply with NIST security controls ( the ones the US Gov requires) will notice that many of the requirement unambiguously reduce the security of the system, and the folks who audit these projects don't care how bad it is as long as it's checked on the list.

The problem for the military is that regimentation, "sailor proof" instructions and other necessities of running a massive organization that has to assume the lowest common denominator just don't work in computer security. If people don't know what they are doing no amount of check-listing is going to solve the problem.

Anybody who really knows what they are doing -- as some of these students may one day -- will realize that you have to choose one or the other optimal security or regulation compliance.

disclaimer: my rant may be excessive, I just wasted 18mo building a server cluster that needed to pass gov audit - so I'm bitter

>> ^beekinder:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^beekinder:
According to Palm Beach Post today Republican Congressman Allen West warned constituents at a Tuesday town hall event that he's "heard" that dozens of his Democratic colleagues in the House are members of the Communist Party.
We haven't left Joe McCarthy very far behind it would seem.

You mean this, right?
http://videosift.com/video/Allen-West-78-81-Democrats-are-in-Commu
nist-Party

I mean that Allen West is an idiot. I can't stand this kind of idiotic garbage that passes for patriotism. Good luck to this country if he is the kind of politician getting elected.


Yes that is the video where he calls some 80 democrats in congress members of the communist party.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I have always wanted to make a plot of federal funding for science plotted as a function of year for the last 50 years.
My suspicion is that Bush was one of the worst supporters of scientific research.
On a separate but related point, I also suspect that major contractions at government research institutions (like NIST, Argonne, Los Alamos, Lincoln labs, etc) occurred during this time, making the places older on average and thereby less apt to do cutting-edge research.
I firmly believe that funding science is correlated with economic prosperity. And that academic and government research can lead to innovation in the private sector. I think this is the primary reason I could never support a candidate that advocated the dismantling or castration of government science.

http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Who-s-More-Pro-Science-Repubs-or-Dems

I have always wanted to make a plot of federal funding for science plotted as a function of year for the last 50 years.

My suspicion is that Bush was one of the worst supporters of scientific research.

On a separate but related point, I also suspect that major contractions at government research institutions (like NIST, Argonne, Los Alamos, Lincoln labs, etc) occurred during this time, making the places older on average and thereby less apt to do cutting-edge research.

I firmly believe that funding science is correlated with economic prosperity. And that academic and government research can lead to innovation in the private sector. I think this is the primary reason I could never support a candidate that advocated the dismantling or castration of government science.

>> ^Fade:
Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.
fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.


Wait, what? You're claiming, "I have read the full report, everything that is public", but also "If there is evidence then why isn't it public?". Uh, dude, most of the evidence *is* public.

There are 3 reports specifically related to the WTC 7 investigation. The one I assume you've read is probably the NCSTAR 1A report. But I already pointed out, there are two others, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. The NIST NCSTAR 1-9 report is ~800 pages containing loads of photographs and stills from video clips on which they based on the investigation. On top of that, videos and photos from their collection they used for the investigation are also available on their web site.

The only thing I can't find are the interviews. I don't know if that means they are not public (although there could be any number of reasons for that, not necessarily "ZOMG it's a conspiracy!"), or if I just can't find them.

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. You don't buy it, that's your choice. You want another investigation, go help fund one then.

Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.

fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.

First of all, every single model of any real life event is going to involve assumptions and estimations. That's the nature of constructing models of real life events, since information about any event is never going to be 100% complete or 100% accurate. Your complaint is invalid in this regard.
Second, I don't believe you actually have read the NIST WTC 7 report. If you had, you'd have noticed they refer to reports NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. And if you look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 in particular (all ~800 pages of it), they detail a lot of the evidence they used in their findings (photographs, video, interviews).
Now, if you choose to look at that and still believe it's all fraudulant (since you've already made that charge), that's your prerogative. But to suggest there is no evidence for their report is simply false.

>> ^Fade:
Re. your point about funding. A 47 story skyscraper collapsing is a worrying event. Since the new york skyline is dominated by many such buildings, all at risk of fire you would think that funding for an investigation would be readily available.
The NIST report basically says that every building in New York is going to have to be rebuilt. That's hard to swallow since no building before or since has collapsed due to fire, therefore a rational conclusion would be that the investigation was potentially flawed and should be rerun.


Funding for an investigation was available; it's what NIST did. The government funding yet another investigation doesn't make much sense, especially since the NIST report was supposed to be a more thorough investigation after FEMA already made their preliminary investigation. And so far you haven't really given any good reasons to do so. There's no real evidence of controlled demos. And arguing via precedent (i.e. "other buildings didn't fall down!") is a fallacy and concluding their investigation was flawed on those grounds is illogical.

The alternative is a privately-funded investigation, but that means individuals have to cough up the cash. The NIST investigation cost about $16 million; I imagine just for WTC 7 probably ran a few million alone, so who is going to pay for it? Would you be willing to chip in a few thousand dollars of your own money to help fund such an investigation? How important is this to you really? Enough to cough up some real cash?

>> ^Fade:
re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.


First of all, every single model of any real life event is going to involve assumptions and estimations. That's the nature of constructing models of real life events, since information about any event is never going to be 100% complete or 100% accurate. Your complaint is invalid in this regard.

Second, I don't believe you actually have read the NIST WTC 7 report. If you had, you'd have noticed they refer to reports NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. And if you look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 in particular (all ~800 pages of it), they detail a lot of the evidence they used in their findings (photographs, video, interviews).

Now, if you choose to look at that and still believe it's all fraudulant (since you've already made that charge), that's your prerogative. But to suggest there is no evidence for their report is simply false.

Re. your point about funding. A 47 story skyscraper collapsing is a worrying event. Since the new york skyline is dominated by many such buildings, all at risk of fire you would think that funding for an investigation would be readily available.

The NIST report basically says that every building in New York is going to have to be rebuilt. That's hard to swallow since no building before or since has collapsed due to fire, therefore a rational conclusion would be that the investigation was potentially flawed and should be rerun.

re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
You continue to miss my point. All I'm saying is that there should be a more thorough investigation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If an independent agency conducts a thorough bit of research that isn't ham strung by secrecy as the NIST investigation is (Right there my alarm bells go off since why is there a need to keep evidence secret? It makes things seem conspiratorial <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">) then I will happily accept that the building collapsed due to fire.
So far I have seen zero evidence that fire damage caused the collapse. Why are you so zealous about defending a hypothesis anyway?
If you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're certainly do a good impression of one.
As far as another investigation, the issue there is funding. Investigations aren't free, especially if you want a "more thorough" one. So who pays for it? It doesn't make sense to have another taxpayer funded one, especially since I'm sure people will still cry conspiracy any time the government is involved. OTOH, if people want to privately fund one, sure, go nuts. But is/was there actually any funding for such an investigation? If not, then the whole point is moot.
As to claiming there is no evidence for fire collapse, the NIST report is there for all to read. If you choose to reject it on conspiratorial grounds (which you are admittedly doing) then that's your perogrative. Not sure what else to say about that really.

>> ^Fade:
You continue to miss my point. All I'm saying is that there should be a more thorough investigation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If an independent agency conducts a thorough bit of research that isn't ham strung by secrecy as the NIST investigation is (Right there my alarm bells go off since why is there a need to keep evidence secret? It makes things seem conspiratorial <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">) then I will happily accept that the building collapsed due to fire.
So far I have seen zero evidence that fire damage caused the collapse. Why are you so zealous about defending a hypothesis anyway?

If you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're certainly do a good impression of one.

As far as another investigation, the issue there is funding. Investigations aren't free, especially if you want a "more thorough" one. So who pays for it? It doesn't make sense to have another taxpayer funded one, especially since I'm sure people will still cry conspiracy any time the government is involved. OTOH, if people want to privately fund one, sure, go nuts. But is/was there actually any funding for such an investigation? If not, then the whole point is moot.

As to claiming there is no evidence for fire collapse, the NIST report is there for all to read. If you choose to reject it on conspiratorial grounds (which you are admittedly doing) then that's your perogrative. Not sure what else to say about that really.

You continue to miss my point. All I'm saying is that there should be a more thorough investigation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If an independent agency conducts a thorough bit of research that isn't ham strung by secrecy as the NIST investigation is (Right there my alarm bells go off since why is there a need to keep evidence secret? It makes things seem conspiratorial ) then I will happily accept that the building collapsed due to fire.

So far I have seen zero evidence that fire damage caused the collapse. Why are you so zealous about defending a hypothesis anyway?>> ^shponglefan:

Like I already said, the WTC 7 collapse is a relatively unique event. You can't go with historical prescedent because AFAIK, there is no other case of a similar building being hit by debris then burning for 7 hours. And even if there was, another building not collapsing does not prove that buildings can't collapse from these types of events. No two events are completely identical. Your entire line reasoning here is one giant fallacy.
Second, the controlled demo, as I've also already said, is considerably more complex as you are adding many speculative, unknown factors. That's what makes it more complicated. If you don't understand that, then I suggest looking up "complex" vs "simple" in the dictionary, because I think you have those terms confused.
Third, "governments lie about everything" is just a cop-out to ignore things you don't like (like the NIST report). And this is what conspiracy theoriests do. Whenever the evidence doesn't support you, claim it's a conspiracy. In fact, if there was a 3rd party who did the investigation and concluded the same thing as NIST, you'd just turn around and claim it's still part of the conspiracy. Basically, facts are irrelevant to you.
So yeah, you got nothing.
>> ^Fade:
The controlled demolition claim is the simplest explanation of the event. The claim that it collapsed due to office fires is the extraordinary one. This is something that has NEVER happened before. Therefore, by definition it is extraordinary. There is ZERO evidence that fires caused the collapse. NIST refuses to release the data it used to model the collapse and all the evidence was destroyed. Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at what is in front of you.I used the analogy to drive home the point that we need to establish that a crime has been committed before we look at HOW the crime was committed.
Governments lie about everything. This is a fact. Why should this be any different? NIST is a government agency, therefore their report is biased. The investigation needs to be independent and transparent. That is all.

Like I already said, the WTC 7 collapse is a relatively unique event. You can't go with historical prescedent because AFAIK, there is no other case of a similar building being hit by debris then burning for 7 hours. And even if there was, another building not collapsing does not prove that buildings can't collapse from these types of events. No two events are completely identical. Your entire line reasoning here is one giant fallacy.

Second, the controlled demo, as I've also already said, is considerably more complex as you are adding many speculative, unknown factors. That's what makes it more complicated. If you don't understand that, then I suggest looking up "complex" vs "simple" in the dictionary, because I think you have those terms confused.

Third, "governments lie about everything" is just a cop-out to ignore things you don't like (like the NIST report). And this is what conspiracy theoriests do. Whenever the evidence doesn't support you, claim it's a conspiracy. In fact, if there was a 3rd party who did the investigation and concluded the same thing as NIST, you'd just turn around and claim it's still part of the conspiracy. Basically, facts are irrelevant to you.

So yeah, you got nothing.

>> ^Fade:
The controlled demolition claim is the simplest explanation of the event. The claim that it collapsed due to office fires is the extraordinary one. This is something that has NEVER happened before. Therefore, by definition it is extraordinary. There is ZERO evidence that fires caused the collapse. NIST refuses to release the data it used to model the collapse and all the evidence was destroyed. Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at what is in front of you.I used the analogy to drive home the point that we need to establish that a crime has been committed before we look at HOW the crime was committed.
Governments lie about everything. This is a fact. Why should this be any different? NIST is a government agency, therefore their report is biased. The investigation needs to be independent and transparent. That is all.

The controlled demolition claim is the simplest explanation of the event. The claim that it collapsed due to office fires is the extraordinary one. This is something that has NEVER happened before. Therefore, by definition it is extraordinary. There is ZERO evidence that fires caused the collapse. NIST refuses to release the data it used to model the collapse and all the evidence was destroyed. Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at what is in front of you.I used the analogy to drive home the point that we need to establish that a crime has been committed before we look at HOW the crime was committed.

Governments lie about everything. This is a fact. Why should this be any different? NIST is a government agency, therefore their report is biased. The investigation needs to be independent and transparent. That is all.>> ^shponglefan:

You need to provide some real evidence to support your claim. You've heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Claiming a pre-planned controlled demo and a resulting cover-up conspiracy is an extraordinary claim. So where's the extraordinary evidence to support it?
>> ^Fade:
You say it doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Fine, I think it does. How will we come to a consensus?

You're not making any sense.

First, the building falling into "into its own footprint at freefall speed" is indication of a) structual failure, and b) that gravity was working that day. In both cases, the building collapse wouldn't necessarily be any different. So this is not evidence in your favor.

Second, it's not my job to disprove your point. You're making the positive claim for a controlled demo; therefore it's your job to provide evidence for that claim. And so far, your evidence amounts to: a) the building fell down (which is irrelevant as it applies to both scenarios), and b) there were explosions (which based on my viewing of the videos sound nothing like controlled demo blasts, plus NIST also concluded there were no indications of blasts capable of destroying a structural column). So really, you don't have any real evidence of a controlled demo. At all. And claiming the lack of evidence is part of a cover-up is just a cop-out.

Incidently, I'm not making an argument from incredulity. An argument from incredulity (look it up) is "I can't imagine X, therefore X is impossible". I've never suggested a controlled demo is impossible. Rather that it's incredibly far-fetched given the complications of such an event and that you need some real evidence to support that claim in lieu of the more reasonable explanation. You haven't done that.

>> ^Fade:
A skyscraper falling into its own footprint at freefall speed. If you can provide evidence of this happening that wasn't the result of controlled demolotion then you might have a valid point. Until then you are arguing from incredulity which we have already established is a fallacy.