Haha... I can't believe you all believe the "official" story about how the events of 2/22! It was clearly masterminded by Halx as a way to get support for his "War on Error"...
Below you will find conclusive evidence that the downfall of Catfish would have been NOTHING but a cleverly concealed conspiracy. I can't believe you guys didn't see this yourselves.
The "official" story tells us that Catfish experienced a catastrophic hard drive failure on 2/21 or 2/22 and the resultant data integrity issues were enough to take down our forums and warrant completely replacing the server. But does that really make sense?
*** There were "practice" server failures going on that day
By sheer "coincidence", data center operators were performing drills about what to do in the event that a machine in the server room experienced a catastrophic failure. Is it really coincidence? Check out this AIM log recently leaked from the data center itself. Note that Dajeeb Seetharam is the data center Administrator and Edward Platt is a tech responsible for server room heat management.
Quote:
edward.platt: Hey.. this is Edward. I think we have a problem. I think the heat might be getting a little high in the server room, and it looks like this machine "Catfish" is about to overhead. Can you come take a look?
dajeeb.seetharam: Is this real-world or exercise?
edward.platt: No, this is not an exercise, NOT a test. I need your help down here right now!
|
On the day Catfish failed there were multiple server failure exercises and emergency drills being conducted with some of them having an eerie similarity to what actually happened. These drills took Dajeeb out of his cubicle and even caused confusion for him, switching from an "exercise" to a "real-world" scenario. Imagine being ordered to practice for a random server failiing and then finding out that it was really happening. Nothing like it had ever happened before - what are the chances?
What if I told you that a key player on the day of the attacks on Catfish and afterwards was on a committee that considered using hard-drive failure as a way to cover up destruction of servers? What if I told you that person was Dajeeb Seetharam? Would you believe me?
*** Catfish crashed way too fast, like a controlled demolition; It took only 18 seconds (if you count the time before power was cut completely).
If you look at the server logs on the day of the attacks, it becomes very clear that the server shut off and "died" way too quickly for an average computer failure. We all know how long it takes for a computer to actually die in the hard drive begins to overheat or seize, and Catfish's failure took 1/10th of that time. ALL experts consulted on the MTTC (Mean Time to Crash) after a hard drive failure agree that Catfish's failure was
conveniently fast. It looks like a CLASSIC, A CLASSIC, controlled demolition.
When I asked an expert on computer failure about destroying PCs, he had the following to say
Quote:
|
I really think Catfish failed too fast. I've personally witnessed the destruction of hundreds of PCs by controlled demolition (Unplugging it and hitting it with a sledgehammer) and I can say that Catfish's failure exhibits characteristics IDENTICAL to controlled demolition. We can say conclusively that Catfish did not fail as the result of a simple hard drive failure.
|
*** The steel was not hot enough to crash the server
We all know that most servers are NOT made out of aluminum, like some high-performance desktop computers, but steel. Their entire chassis, to which the power supply (and conveniently, the hard drives) is made of STEEL. We know the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees Fahrenheit, and there's no way that the steel could've gotten that hot in an air-conditioned data center. So how did the hard drives "fail", causing a sudden collapse of the Forums? I think we know the answer there. Either there was an external fuel source (planted obviously by people who wanted Catfish to fail) or the "steel melting" story just isn't true. Perhaps it's been developed to draw interest away from the other damning evidence for a controlled demolition?
*** Other servers crashed too, with little explanation
We know that on the day Catfish crashed, adjacent servers also crashed. A few prominent websites were hosted on those machines, with content very similar to that hosted on the TFP forums. Is it sheer concidence that the "debris" from Catfish's failure caused other prominent websites to fail? I think not. If you've ever witnessed a computer's hard drive failing, you know that there is a lot of grinding noise followed by a sudden seizing of the head (on the armature) to the disks within. This doesn't cause ANY debris castoff, yet somehow they claim that the debris from Catfish's destruction caused other adjacent servers to fail?
Shown here is a typical rackmount setup, like the one Catfish was placed in. Do you really believe that one of these machines failing could cast off enough debris to destroy others nearby? What about "Server 7", the rackmount at the bottom? Obviously there are more questions than answers here, and someone is trying to mislead us.
*** Halx was heard saying "pull it" shortly before the collapse
Yet another coincidence; on the day that Catfish was failing, he was alerted by server techs (Edward Platt and others) that the server seemed to be experiencing hardware failure and might not be recoverable. His response? "Pull it." It's an interesting choice of terms, and another expert I consulted about computer demolition claimed that
Quote:
|
"Pull it" is a well known computer term. When you say "pull it", you're telling other techs nearby that they should disconnect the power cord from the power supply.
|
Why would they authorize such an operation? Why would you want to disconnect the power to a machine which could be potentially saved? I think the answer is obvious. They didn't want the evidence of destruction to be available. By pulling the power, they immediately disconnected the server from the internet (and other means of communication), so no one but the men in the server room could ever know what TRULY happened to Catfish.
*** There was evidence that the attacks were known ahead of time
There is even evidence that Halx knew ahead of time that the servers would crash. On the day of the crash, I was able to see PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE information embedded in the source code of the website. I've shown it elsewhere, but I'll show it here too.
PHP Code:
<div class="sidebarcontent">
<h2>Latest Posts</h2>
<ul id="latestposts">
<li><a href="#">There are none</a></li>
<li><a href="#">because</a></li>
<li><a href="#">the web server</a></li>
<li><a href="#">died last night</a></li>
</ul>
An interesting thing to note is that this was presented LONG before the public was made aware of the failure of Catfish. We all thought that there was some sort of DNS hiccup, or that something non-catastrophic had happend to the server. Yet somehow the developer of this page ALREADY knew that the server had "died"? How did he know this long before anyone else? Perhaps he was part of the plan?
*** They threw the server away before anyone could inspect it
It is customary in "hosting" arrangements to return a failed server to the owner, as it obviously can't be hosted in the data center anymore. Oddly enough, though, Catfish was never returned. Immediately after the "failure" of Catfish happened, system administrators began immediately boxing up the remaining parts of the server. They didn't let anyone else see them, and the server room itself was locked to all unauthorized personnel until the cleanup had finished. They shipped the parts off in a box to some warehouse in China, but no one is willing to provide details about where they ACTUALLY went. If Catfish really suffered a hard drive failure and NOT a controlled demolition, why wouldn't system administrators want people seeing the parts? Maybe because they knew that anyone who saw the parts could clearly deduce that more was wrong with Catfish than a bad hard drive?
*** Data-center operators clearly heard two BOOMs, not the silent failure of a hard drive
Linda Georgette, another tech on duty the night that Catfish failed, remarked:
Quote:
|
Yea.. [...] right about when that Catfish thing failed, I heard an explosion. What was wierd.. though.. was that I, ummm.. I heard a second boom right afterwards..
|
What kind of server "BOOMS" when the hard drive fails? I don't know about you, but a hard drive failure is normally signified by a grinding and a hissing, not a big BOOM, like an explosion. What sounds like an explosion? Oh yea, a controlled demolition.
I think you should see now that we clearly aren't being told the true story about the events that lead to the collapse of Catfish, and someone has a very good reason for wanting it kept secret. If you want to join the Catfish Truth Movement and show your support for the REAL truth about our server's destruction, send your $25 enrollment fee to halxtfp@gmail.com.
Also: Mods, can we move this to Politics? I think its clear from the evidence that this isn't just Paranoia.