Posts by we are all ignorant

New PlayStation Network hack hijacks user accounts

Where are...

...the die hard sony users who will actually stick with this drowning behemoth? I remember seeing a few of them comment on the earlier two major security breaches, lol.

User data stolen in Sony PlayStation Network hack attack

Actually...

... you are the hypocrite. You want to be able to use the system you paid for? How does it feel? Wimper more.

Sony unsure if PlayStation Network user data was stolen

Poor baby

"And now a bunch of pathetic losers have potentially got hold of my credit card details because they can't cope with that fact. And that really pisses me off."

Sounds like you need your own waaaambulance, poor baby.

Pot, Kettle....black

"Also there is a risk that I will have my credit card details stolen when prior to these crybabies being butthurt"

You know what you risk giving your credit card info to any company. Its your fault for putting your information into the system. Besides, no one has confirmed any CC theft, so stop your butthurt crying, baby.

Oh do shut up

Your loud mouth posturing online is completely unimpressive. Hackers exist. Deal with it. Legit players exist, deal with it. Get a life you clearly don't have. They are VIDEOGAMES people, lol. But oh no, you all are so uber-serious. Pathetic.

Euro police smash online paedophile ring

Or if...

...your website linked to streaming movies and tv shows. The authorities clearly have their priorities.

Patent attack on Google open codec faces 'antitrust probe'

I would think....

...it's more about Google's cozy relationship with the NSA and various other intelligence agencies. They can't have anything stand in the way of their number one intelligence gathering tool on the web!

Antennagate Redux: Consumer Reports condemns Verizon iPhone 4

Hmmm.....

Understanding for someone who's first language isn't english, ever heard of it bigot? No wonder you're anonymous.

iPhone's Wi-Fi problems cause heated speculation

@Chort

Another obvious apple fanboi who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the shortcomings of just another tech company. congrats you c**k sucking loser. Keep trolling the apple forums feeling superior, lol.

MoD begins full UFO-files public release

My, my.....

Pompous, rifk. Yeah, they're human, prone to unfounded, and sometimes harebrained ideas. But perhaps they are in a better position to make an assessment than you or I. I am glad you people have all the answers to the universe in your little brains.....speaking of pompous :P Whatever, keep thinking what you like. As will I. Fair enough? Good, k, thx.

@Halligan

Got a beef with organized religion have we? Why you bring that up? This is about U.F.O.'s., don't vent your frustration with Father Feely in this venue. Go to counseling for that....honestly.

only nutters like these....

"More than 10,000 sightings have been reported, the majority of which cannot be accounted for by any ‘scientific’ explanation, eg that they are hallucinations, the effects of light refraction, meteors, wheels falling from aeroplanes, and the like…. They have been tracked on radar screens… and the observed speeds have been as great as 9,000 mph.

I am convinced that these objects do exist and they are not manufactured by any nation on earth. I can therefore see no alternative to accepting the theory that they come from an extraterrestrial source.”

Air Chief Marshall Lord Dowding, Commanding Officer of the RAF during WWII.

"I have frequently been asked why a person of my background—a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee—why I think there is a cover-up (of) the facts about UFOs. I believe governments fear that if they did disclose those facts, people would panic. I don’t believe that at all. There is a serious possibility that we are being visited by people from outer space. It behoves us to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want."

Admiral Lord Hill-Norton, British Royal Navy, former Chief of Defence during a videotaped interview for the Disclosure program.

"The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, manoeuvrability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted… lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled…”

General Nathan Twining, Head of Air Material Command (AMC), 1947.

"Reliable reports indicate there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds and controlled by thinking intelligences.”

Navy Admiral Delmar Fahrney in a public statement during 1957.

"Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe that unknown flying objects are nonsense.”

Former CIA Director, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, public statement, 1960

You're right Danny... Buncha nutters.......

Surprise: Ohio's e-voting machines riddled with critical security flaws

Never been CAUGHT

Just because we never heard about an 'attack' doesn't mean it hasn't actually happened...first this 7 year old video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBI33kOiKc

and this 4 year old article.....

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2003/07/09/us-election-fraud-scandal-looms

I love the people who say "I didn't see anything....It never happened!" lol

Virgin Airlines drops in-flight 9/11 conspiracy movie

Here's another photo for you sieve

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-photo-cropped.jpg

(it's a big picture, so deal)

Maybe you will trust this source. Probably not, most likely...

"...you would think" it "rigged if it" doesn't "meet your prejudice".

Or, even more deluded you will think it supports your "underground collapse" fantasy. Too predictable.

By the way, you still haven't cited any sources supporting your arguement. You continue to rely on your own opinion("IMO"), which is increasingly unreliable considering you're split personality regarding the supposed "...genuinely nefarious deeds" you mentioned earlier. Go check another fire extinguisher.

"Me: I have the ability to reason and make an informed and balanced judgement"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Further....

Hmmm, sieve is curiously silent.

But hey, if you really want to do this....

"I don’t doubt there could have been financial irregularities during the run up to the event, but the people highlighting this immediately lose all credibility by aligning themselves with the junk science surrounding it."

You just highlighted these potential "financial irregularities", so I suppose, in your own words.....well, I don't want to embarress you too much sieve.

"The real conspiracy, if indeed there is one, is that the US government managed to successfully cover up financial irregularities by planting these junk science based theories..."

So, again with these "finacial irregularities", and again you seem to think there is the possibility of some sort of conspiracy....you're sounding like a nutjob, sieve.

"A partial collapse would seem like a full collapse to underground (or nearby ground) workers."

From whom did you obtain such views and opinions?

Who can you cite having reported an underground (or even partial) collapse of WTC7? No one? Perhaps that is because there has never been ANY mention of a underground collapse of WTC7 what-so-ever, not even in the NIST report. Until, that is, you made some wild claim as such. You're sounding nuttier by the minute sieve.

"My response was not intended to be hostile, it’s more a case of a lack of respect of those who by choosing to publish wild and baseless accusations without proper consideration, so undermining examination of what could have been genuinely nefarious deeds."

I could comment on your clear hostility, your own blatant lack of respect, or your consistently poor sentence structure, but what's more interesting is that you again seem to imply there may have been some "...genuinely nefarious deeds."

"911 conspiracy theorists – idiots all of them!"

You seem to have some internal conflict going on, sieve. I suggest you address that.

"The core structure is only good for forces in a certain directions at certain places."

So you're a structural engineer now? If not, your opinion means little. Those unspecified "letters behind your name" don't lend you much credence.

"The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure."

Yep, this quote again. It's such a gem.

FYI, in the scientific community it is generally accepted that when you put forth a previously unmentioned postulation, it is expected that you will provide proof or evidence supporting your claim. You have done niether.

"You will not accept that my points are valid"

No, I won't. And with good reason; because, when asked for evidence supporting your claims...you don't have any, all you do is avoid the question and engage in personal attacks.

"...and now you are backing out because you have nothing to support it!"

Speak for yourself, sieve.

I could go on, but why bother. A logical discourse would have been preferable, but as it is you will just continue to rant...(btw definition of 'rant...:"a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion" - http://dict.die.net/rant/, seems you're the only one ranting here)...about your fanciful theories and imaginations, toss insults instead of answering questions regarding those fanciful imaginations, and simply make a further fool out of yourself. Though the show may be fun, I have better things to do.

"Endgame" indeed.

"It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question." - Decouvertes

Since you seem obsessed with my simple grammatical error I will address it. You seem to only apply it to others arguments, and not your own, so I thought I'd give you a simple definition.

Logical fallacy: "A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning." - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html

Now the quote I was applying Logical Fallacy to...

"The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure."

Hmmm, seems to fit the definition of logical fallacy well. To assume your answer is correct based on your own conjecture seems like a mistake in reasoning to me. I'll ask again, (but you won't answer) did you come up with that idea all on your own, what sources are you citing that observed this imagined damage?

"Let’s try again with the "accidental early press release""

If you read carefully (hard for you I know, in your rush to criticize) you will see I never said it WAS an accidental press release. That view was postured by the video clip ( I even put it in quotes as to avoid some moron misunderstanding). I asked for any alternative explanations. You replied with your unbased "probably due to underground damage" comment, and went on the offensive.

"Do you believe it impossible for the underground structure to have sustained any damage?"

You conveniantly ignore the point I was making, that you are coming to conclusions based on your own assumptions. That underground damage was POSSIBLE and whether it actually occured are two entirely different things.

"I also have experience with fire regulations (it’s been my job for 10 years), mostly EN but some UL."

Yeah...and?

"Why would the ‘evil henchmen’ risk leaking out information of an imminent collapse?"

Who said anything about evil henchmen? I certainly didn't.

"Yet you’ve never given an explanation as to how you conclude why this “alternative suggestion” is laughable"

Again, you ignore the glaring flaw in your own point, the fact that you are using your own assumption as an argument, that is what's laughable. Clear?

"Logic dictates that variable is redundant"

You try so hard to sound smart.

"Ah, so you also have selective eyesight!"

Yet again, you conveniently ignore the point I am making, that you are making many assumptions. Assumptions don't hold water, sorry.

"Which you’re clearly not!"

I am open to new ideas, not suggestions based on imagined underground collapses and filled with hateful rhetoric.

"You haven’t hypothesized anything at all (pro or con)...."

Thank you for noticing, perhaps you should consider that before you go on the attack. So much for your petty insults.

"...even though I’ve tried to push you towards it."

Push me towards it? Now I get to LOL...is that what's making you so mad and driven to insult, that I won't respond to your feeble 'push' by taking sides?

" there have been no (causal) events which compares with the lead up to collapse of the three WTC buildings"

Glad we can agree on something, however do you care to name the collapses of the other 107 story buildings of the same construction and materials with the implied different "causal events"?

"why don’t you comment on my ‘formulation of the hypotheses’"

Okay, since you asked, here's another point you'll ignore...

"Science proceeds by a process of observation, hypothesis formulation, hypothesis testing, and on the basis of the test, accepting or rejecting your hypothesis." - http://slack.ser.man.ac.uk/theory/hyp_null.html

You seem okay on the forming part, but any nimrod can hypothesize. However you seem to be lacking on the testing end of things, good old step four of the scientific method. Without conclusive tests and verification, your arguments hold about as much water as a sieve, steve. And back to square one.

"...and I claim my £5!"

You want a biscuit to go with that?

Oh and...

"Errr, no! As of yet you cannot consider yourself to be part of this club"

If it's any club you're in, count me out.

"Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing." - Engineers motto

“A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me” - Frederick Douglass

"The Scientific Method

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature "

There has been no event, past or present, with which to compare the collapse of the three WTC buildings.

Due to the nature of the event in question, any conjecture as to the cause or method of the collapses cannot even qualify as a theory, much less a fact, merely an hypothesis.

So, this does away with....

"It is expected that the towers will collapse when the steel framework is subjected to temperatures significantly below its melting point"

"the reason why the towers took as long as they did too fall is..." (You talk as though this is definite, it isn't)

"Any beams not completely vertical will fail due to the impact from the momentum of concrete falling on them. The remaining vertical beams won’t be strong enough to support their own weight (as well as being subjected to the lateral forces built up at the bottom so exerting more pressure); hence they will quickly fail too"

"The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure"

"I find it impossible to believe anyone would have been allowed to (let alone want to) enter the building given the near ground level fires raging within it and damage to the underground structure beneath it"

"those beams which are not vertical would likely be smashed straight downwards. The remaining vertical beams would simply bend then break "

Congradulations, you can hypothesize. Join the club.

"See how I have given logical arguments and factual based responses"

No, I don't see. I see a bunch of probably's and likely's. Not exactly fact based, or logical.

And as for this.....

"I also have an engineering background: letters after my name: a string of patents in my name"

Irrelevant considering many other people with letters after thier names disagree with your assessment.

And this...

"I find it impossible to believe anyone would have been allowed to (let alone want to) enter the building given the near ground level fires raging within it and damage to the underground structure beneath it."

Using your own speculation on unverified "damage to the underground structure" as an argument is laughable. Besides, what you "find impossible" in those circumstances is irrelevant, you were not there.

BTW, you spell "I'm" with an 'M', since you're so keen on spelling, I thought I'd let you know.

True colors

Steve, many people have already brought up valid points and rather than have a civil discourse or, worst case scenario, agree to disagree, you ridicule and attempt to demean. Your attacks are apparent, though thinly veiled. I suppose you need a tech news site's comment section to spew your hostility and fulfill your need for perceived superiority. It seems those vaguely referenced "letters behind your name" aren't enough to satisfy. Enjoy your small pond minnow.

I said....

I said he "tried" to enter, he was denied access. I don't know what to tell you, he was able to approach the building, period. He apparently had no reason not to do so. Soon after he was denied access, the building collapsed. I am simply relating his firsthand account.

Speaking of logical fallicy...

Steve stated

"The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure."

What do you base this comment on? Are you citing any official sources? Or did you come up with this all on your own? You say a 'probable collapse of the underground structure', then use your own conjecture as an argument, not very scientific.

That there was no percieved collapse was simply that, there was no percieved collapse.

I had hoped to have a civil discourse, however it seems you will simply keep making assumtions and arguing them as fact. Sadly, the people on both sides of this argument are equally defensive and delusional.

I have not made up my mind, I am simply asking questions.

Thankyou

Thank you for your input steve, however it is too bad you cannot have a civil discourse. Your hostility is unnecessary. As for your partial collapse suggestion, may I respectfully say my father, who did not believe any alternative theories of the WTC attack, was there that day (He was a Commodities Trader an EMT and an Auxiliary Police Officer) and tried to enter WTC7 retrieve some of his belongings 5 mins before the building fell, there was no percieved partial collapse. My father was also a PhD, so I believe his opinion was as valid as yours, possibly more so being that he actually witnessed the events of that day.

I would like your input on this video....

I know many of you do not believe in any alternative theory pertaining to the WTC collapse. I am curious how you would explain this video...

http://www.truthring.org/?p=3600

I am seriously open to any alternative suggestions to the "accidental early press release" idea. Other than pure luck or coincidence that is. Thanks for your time and input.

BTW...

...the Salomon Brothers Building WAS WTC7

http://www.nycskyscrapers.com/wallstreet.html