False-flag attack? Syria to be invaded?

[Dark Sage]

I do, but do you know what I like more than TVTropes?

I like when, after I prove a man wrong, that man admits that he was wrong and apologizes for his mockery, as opposed to trying (and failing) to divert my attention to something that is only vicariously related to the topic at best.

I'm not wrong, Blade.

If the U.S. government really used the same security system that video games used, the Al-Qaida would have leveled all of New York City on 9-11, not just the Twin Towers.

And I'm gonna laugh in your face bad when this "big secret" that you've uncovered turns out to be false.

I mean, really, not even Fox News considers this worthy of reporting.

P.S. Btw, I know what LANs are and I know that video game networks use them, but none of your three sources say that the FBI or the CIA do so.

Here's the type of computer that organizations like that use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_computer

It has its own server built in. Companies that use LANs don't even have mainframes, which is a type of computer one notch below a super computer. (You'll find mainframes in big corporations and banks.)

Companies like the type that run TF2... Just expensive versions of normal computers, really. Comparing them to the ones that the government has is like comparing the a comic book to Oliver Twist.

[Blademaster]

I'm not wrong, Blade.

If the U.S. government really used the same security system that video games used, the Al-Qaida would have leveled all of New York City on 9-11, not just the Twin Towers.

How is hacking anything even related to 9/11? Did al-Qaeda send in spies that infiltrated ATC and executed some sort of program that caused the planes to redirect their trajectory into the Towers? No, they sent a few guys with knives to manually take control of the planes and smacked them into the World Trade Center. 'Leveling all of New York City' in such a way is impossible: There aren't enough commercial planes in all of AMERICA to do that much damage, let alone be randomly flying around New York air space waiting to be commandeered.

And I'm gonna laugh in your face bad when this "big secret" that you've uncovered turns out to be false.

I mean, really, not even Fox News considers this worthy of reporting.

'Big secret?' I said in the first post of this thread - in the first LINE of that post, no less - that I found it on 4chan. It's about as 'secret' as your average new meme.


Case in point,
many
people
are
acknowledging
this
.

Now, before you claim that none of these are reputable sources... don't. That was not the argument you claimed. The argument you claimed was essentially "Because Fox News isn't discussing this, it isn't worth discussing." That's a logical fallacy, just FYI.

P.S. Btw, I know what LANs are and I know that video game networks use them, but none of your three sources say that the FBI or the CIA do so.

The FBI and the CIA keep their information private. For obvious reasons. Most of their information is stored on 'classified' parts of the Internet like SIPRNet and the JWICS. And what do you know, LAN Administrators are needed for both networks.

Here's the type of computer that organizations like that use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_computer

I Ctrl+F'ed the following words in that article:


"government"
Two results. Neither was the American government.

"department"
One result, and it's a mathematics department in India.

"corporation"
One result, for a now-defunct corporation that mad early supercomputers.

"organization"
One result, for Wikipedia itself ("Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.").


Also in that article is a list of what active supercomputers are used for:

2010s: Molecular Dynamics Simulation (Tianhe-1A)[76]

Not for government operations, or for corporate use. For calculating and simulating things a normal computer CAN'T.

You just shot your own argument in the face. Well-done.

It has its own server built in.

...I'd need to ask someone smart like Telume if this is technically correct or not, because by definition, EVERY computer "has its own server built in." I think you meant to say some other term like OS or maybe API...

Companies like that use LANs don't even have mainframes,

Too many words, or too few?

which is a type of computer one notch below a super computer. (You'll find mainframes in big corporations and banks.)

First thing you've said so far that's factual... But mainframes use LAN's too.

Companies like the type that run TF2... Just expensive versions of normal computers, really.

You just described pretty much every computer ever.

Comparing them to the ones that the government has is like comparing the a comic book to Oliver Twist.

...They're both books. They can both be 'hacked' by opening them and looking at the words inside of them. They can both be 'broken' by burning them or pouring water on them.

Your analogy is utterly irrelevant because this isn't a debate about quality VS. quantity. You're insinuating that a much BETTER computer than yours or mine is, for some reason, UNABLE to perform a very vital and basic computer process: CONNECTING TO OTHER COMPUTERS.

Sidenote: I've never read anything from the a comic book series... is it any good?

[Dark Sage]

You just shot your own argument in the face. Well-done.

Really? Read this:

http://www.informationweek.com/gover...ates/231903060

It says in black in white, in the first paragraph, that the federal government has five of the top ten most powerful supercomputers in the world under its management.

Not the MOST powerful one, mind you (that one's in Japan), but five of the top ten.

P.S. Can someone here tell Blade that the government's computer is hard to hack into? Frankly, I think he watches WAY too much television.

[Blademaster]

Really? Read this:

http://www.informationweek.com/gover...ates/231903060

It says in black in white, in the first paragraph, that the federal government has five of the top ten most powerful supercomputers in the world under its management.

Not the MOST powerful one, mind you (that one's in Japan), but five of the top ten.

That's great... but again, it's not relevant. The argument, in case you have forgotten, is "Government computers use LAN, just like my computer does." Why is this simple fact so hard for you to accept?

I have REFUTED that argument. Quite soundly. That was the entire reason for this... argument. How is this eluding you?

P.S. Can someone here tell Blade that the government's computer is hard to hack into? Frankly, I think he watches WAY too much television.

I don't watch anything on TV except MLPFIM. Everything else is movies, Youtube, and the occasional random documentary/comedy.

That ad hominem aside, I believe that I already said MYSELF that "the government's computer is hard to hack into" right here:

Give a hacker a computer that can access that local network and he'll probably break into it just as easily as he could any standard surface site. The hard part is accessing the COMPUTER, not the stuff that's in it.

Notice the use of the word "probably." This is because the quote in question is conjecture. However, it's conjecture based on evidence:

Computers can be hacked.
The government uses computers.
These computers are protected by security (I'm referring to guards, cameras, and office buildings here, as opposed to firewalls and antiviruses and the like).
If the security can be bypassed, government computers can be hacked.

I never said it was easy to hack a government computer as is. I said you were wrong about government computer security not using the same computational rules as the rest of the world.

[Dark Sage]

Computers can be hacked.

True.

The government uses computers.

True, but with far more advanced programming than the public has access to.

These computers are protected by security (I'm referring to guards, cameras, and office buildings here, as opposed to firewalls and antiviruses and the like).

And the ones the government has are much better than the ones most people have.

If the security can be bypassed, government computers can be hacked.

Possibly. But very unlikely.

By the way, Blade, you posted links to PressTV, The Right Perspective, Land Destroyer Report, Before Its News, and Poitics.ie as "proof" that people were concerned about this.

Bull... shit. Why not the National Enquirer while you're at it? If there were something about this on CBS News' website, or the website for fot The New York Times then that would be proof. I'd even give this a second thought if it came up in BBC News. But not in websites like that.

[Roy Karrde]

By the way, Blade, you posted links to PressTV, The Right Perspective, Land Destroyer Report, Before Its News, and Poitics.ie as "proof" that people were concerned about this.

Bull... shit. Why not the National Enquirer while you're at it? If there were something about this on CBS News' website, or the website for fot The New York Times then that would be proof. I'd even give this a second thought if it came up in BBC News. But not in websites like that.

The Daily Mail did post a story about it but has since deleted it. If you Google "Britam Email Daily Mail" the page still shows up in the search engine. That being said I am curious as to why Britam has not disavowed the emails completely, or have said they are fake.

[Dark Sage]

Probably for the same reason no-one in the Republican party condemns Orly Taitz's actions. Doing so would be a complete waste of time, because it's beneath them.

[Blademaster]

By the way, Blade, you posted links to PressTV, The Right Perspective, Land Destroyer Report, Before Its News, and Poitics.ie as "proof" that people were concerned about this.

Bull... shit. Why not the National Enquirer while you're at it? If there were something about this on CBS News' website, or the website for fot The New York Times then that would be proof. I'd even give this a second thought if it came up in BBC News. But not in websites like that.

see

Now, before you claim that none of these are reputable sources... don't. That was not the argument you claimed. The argument you claimed was essentially "Because Fox News isn't discussing this, it isn't worth discussing." That's a logical fallacy, just FYI.

I'm starting to think you just skim my responses without actually reading them in their entirety.

[Dark Sage]

Blade, when I said, quote, "not even Fox News considers this worthy of reporting", unquote, I meant that "a news outlet that pretty much makes its money off trying to pass off slander as real news realizes that no-one will believe this".

Fox would have run this story if they were dumb enough to think people were that gullible. But even they know that there are limits to what people will believe. You can convince a lot of folk who don't like Mr. Obama in the first place that Bengazi was worse than Watergate, but not this.

Those websites you linked to, on the other hand, they are run by people with much less common sense than even Fox.