another kook for you guys to 'debunk'

[Sam.I.Am]

I'm sure you know so much more about it than he would.

I mean, Fiduciary Trust... I think they manage a few corner groceries, don't they?

So is that the extent of your "debunking"?

I know that claiming that it would take 3 weeks to back up data that might be lost due to the power being out for 36 hours is total bull. 3 hours maybe but most certainly not 3 weeks. Do you think that they used 5.25" floppies and sneakers or something?

 

[ergo]

Um, guys? The "data back-up" claim was mine, not his. If you'd read my post, and/or actually watched one of the videos on which he speaks, you'd probably understand that. It's entirely beside the point.

My linking to the company in question was to point out that whatever systems needed preparation, it was for a large international finance management company. Not your local video store. K? The power down was obviously very significant for this company. Not a routine event at all.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

For those who are handwaving away the power-down as routine, Scott Forbes describes it as "unprecedented". They had been given three weeks notice, which he suggested was not actually a lot of time to back up their data or whatever it was they had to do.

That certainly reads like Forbes said it and not you. Nice try at back peddling though...

 

[A W Smith]

Um, guys? The "data back-up" claim was mine, not his. If you'd read my post, and/or actually watched one of the videos on which he speaks, you'd probably understand that. It's entirely beside the point.

My linking to the company in question was to point out that whatever systems needed preparation, it was for a large international finance management company. Not your local video store. K? The power down was obviously very significant for this company. Not a routine event at all.

Routine data backups are, in fact. routine. You are saying my example (the state treasury of New Mexico) is the equivalent of a corner store?
http://www.stonm.org/files_uploads/674.pdf

it doesn't matter if the corporations are multi national. they don't keep all data in one place. any data at one location is routinely backed up off site daily.

 

[ergo]

He. Didn't. Say. "Data back-up". I did.



Not a routine event at all.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

We. Know. That. You. Did. You flat out lied and made it sound like he said it to make it sound more ominous and suspicious. The only reason you're back peddling is because you got caught in an obvious lie.

I don't think that powering down a floor in any building would be considered "Routine" but I also don't think that it would be "Suspicious" either.

 

[1337m4n]

For those who are arguing from incredulity about the labour and time required to set up demolition charges

That's not arguing from incredulity. That's fact. Contact any professional demolition company and ask them how long it takes to set one up. Go ahead, I'll wait.

(Hint: They won't tell you that it can be done within the timespan of a brief power outage)

you yourselves argue that global collapse can and even will always ensue from failure of a mere few floors--an idiotic proposition which is not backed up by any historical precedents, but the point is, why are you now arguing that CD prep would need to be done throughout the entire building? What happened to just a few floors?

You yourself argue that this is impossible. Which means that according to your own logic, there would need to be explosives on EVERY SINGLE FLOOR.

We aren't the ones saying there would need to be explosives on every single floor. You are. We are simply taking your moronic ideas to their logical conclusions. If progressive collapse is impossible like you claim, then how do you do it without putting explosives on all 110 floors?

an idiotic proposition which is not backed up by any historical precedents

Now who's the one "arguing from incredulity"? You have NOTHING BUT "incredulity" to support this moronic pure dumb delusion of ignorance. No calculations. No physics. No data. No expert opinions. Just incredulity.

Unless you DO have something besides incredulity. But if you had, you would have posted it a long time ago. Too bad you don't and are trying to hide your ignorance and hypocrisy with red herrings and long-debunked "first time in history" BS.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You yourself argue that this is impossible. Which means that according to your own logic, there would need to be explosives on EVERY SINGLE FLOOR.

We aren't the ones saying there would need to be explosives on every single floor. You are. We are simply taking your moronic ideas to their logical conclusions. If progressive collapse is impossible like you claim, then how do you do it without putting explosives on all 110 floors?

Indeed. Sometimes, to point out flaws in an opponent's argument, you have to operate within the context of that argument.

I can't even begin to understand how ergo fails to grasp this concept. Maybe it's like trying to think in Japanese when you don't actually know Japanese. Except, for truthers, not being able to think in Japanese invalidates the entire Japanese language.

 

[dc1971]

Indeed. Sometimes, to point out flaws in an opponent's argument, you have to operate within the context of that argument.

I can't even begin to understand how ergo fails to grasp this concept. Maybe it's like trying to think in Japanese when you don't actually know Japanese. Except, for truthers, not being able to think in Japanese invalidates the entire Japanese language.

There is no outer space!

 

[dafydd]

i don't know how long it would take. it would depend on how many people were involved and what type of explosives were to be used.
i've not concluded that this power down was the window for doing this, but i'd like it to be investigated given the amazing nature of the collapse of the towers and the larger context of the whole event.

scott forbes has said that the port authority has denied that the power down ever happened. I can see no reason why he would invent such claims.

In other words you have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

[leftysergeant]

Wait a minute. Doofus says that servers were not communicating with the mainframes after the power outage. Does it burn your cookies when you turn off a system? Are they really that fragile?

Or was the power-down about re-working their computer network?

Like THAT really offers a bunch of random schlubs an opportunity to go plant hush-a-booms in the elevator shafts!

And another thing-doofus talks about "guided tours" entering supposedly secure areas. What drooling moron was conducting these "guided tours?" What kind of a docent would not know that an area was supposed to be secure?

Not a bit of what that pudgy little schmuck says makes any sense to me.

Add that to his belief that Park 51 is a "trophy mosque" and you have built a perfect jerk.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Large Enterprise systems usualy back up through the day, eith by being on a cluster or mirror.
I worked on the COntainer Terminal at Teessport. Their database system was the only thing that knew what was in, and the destination of the 25,000 shipping containers that were in the stacks at any time. Their server at the port was a cluster, this mirrored in real time to a similar cluster in a seperate building. This mirror then mirrored in turn to a seperate server on a completely different site . Overnight backups were taken from this last server onto a CD Jukebox.

 

[ergo]

Anyway, so I guess the point's been amply made that the power down was not at all routine. It was unprecedented. And that areas that were formerly secure were unsecure that weekend, while tourists went to the observation decks and even apparently rambled about the building in guided groups. And this is somehow insignificant and non-reportable to the commission that was to investigate the events around a supposed terrorist attack that occurs only two to three days later. In whose logic system does this work? Seriously.

And I guess bee dunkers are saying that taking out only a few floors with explosives would not be sufficient to initiate a complete collapse of the building. Interesting. Okay, glad we got that established. Thanks!

 

[alphahelix]

I'm sure you know so much more about it than he would.

I mean, Fiduciary Trust... I think they manage a few corner groceries, don't they?

So is that the extent of your "debunking"?

(QUOTE EDITED to remove URL)

He is a database administrator, so he has intricate knownledge of the database and database systems for fiduciary trust. Not a problem. But in
the IT world when you have a company large enough to warrant having a DB admin, you most likely have other Administrators along with a support staff for minor issues. Unless you can show where other IT staff stated it would take 3 weeks to back data up and without me or you knowing about any distrubuted file systems, server clusters, live backup, magnetic and optical storage systems. What data is backed up, how often, what method (most of this info has laws governing how to treat the data and who is supposed to have access to this info and keeping up with who has access to it, mainly if it has private information) Then its hard to surmise what he refers to by "3 weeks to back up the data" except his databases are quite large and a full backup from scratch may take that amount of time.

 

[tsig]

Anyway, so I guess the point's been amply made that the power down was not at all routine. It was unprecedented. And that areas that were formerly secure were unsecure that weekend, while tourists went to the observation decks and even apparently rambled about the building in guided groups. And this is somehow insignificant and non-reportable to the commission that was to investigate the events around a supposed terrorist attack that occurs only two to three days later. In whose logic system does this work? Seriously.

And I guess bee dunkers are saying that taking out only a few floors with explosives would not be sufficient to initiate a complete collapse of the building. Interesting. Okay, glad we got that established. Thanks!

Never in the history of planet Earth had the power ever been turned off.

 

[Dog Town]

Anyway, so I guess the point's been amply made that the power down was not at all routine.

You still have no real evidence of this power down!
In a town where you could throw one rock, and easily hit 3 shutterbugs, no picture exists! Wonder why that is? Hmmmmmm......

 

[ergo]

You still have no real evidence of this power down!
In a town where you could throw one rock, and easily hit 3 shutterbugs, no picture exists! Wonder why that is? Hmmmmmm......

I've been wondering the same thing about pics of the south wall of the very large WTC7 burning on that day. None? Not a one? Really? Hmmm.....

 

[DGM]

I've been wondering the same thing about pics of the south wall of the very large WTC7 burning on that day. None? Not a one? Really? Hmmm.....

Wouldn't you have to stand on the debris pile of the towers to do that (and see through the smoke from the same)?

 

[ergo]

(QUOTE EDITED to remove URL)

He is a database administrator, so he has intricate knownledge of the database and database systems for fiduciary trust. Not a problem. But in
the IT world when you have a company large enough to warrant having a DB admin, you most likely have other Administrators along with a support staff for minor issues. Unless you can show where other IT staff stated it would take 3 weeks to back data up and without me or you knowing about any distrubuted file systems, server clusters, live backup, magnetic and optical storage systems. What data is backed up, how often, what method (most of this info has laws governing how to treat the data and who is supposed to have access to this info and keeping up with who has access to it, mainly if it has private information) Then its hard to surmise what he refers to by "3 weeks to back up the data" except his databases are quite large and a full backup from scratch may take that amount of time.

What relevance does this have to the point made? He did not specifically refer to data back-up. You have all latched onto this possibly erroneous assumption of mine as if it somehow debunks everything he has to say. It has nothing to do with it. Nor was the three weeks notice all that important, except insofar as he found it to be short notice. His point was that it was a significant and unprecedented event--NOT ROUTINE--that required him to physically be there on the weekend it occurred.

What possible knowledge could the lot of you have of the preparations that would have been required? Something tells me he would know more about his job than bee dunkers on an internet message board. Okay?

 

[ergo]

Wouldn't you have to stand on the debris pile of the towers to do that (and see through the smoke from the same)?

Or beside it, or behind it...yeah, tough choice there, when you want to capture that image of a supposed raging inferno.