[HN Gopher] Apocalypse Proof: 33 Thomas Street in New York City
___________________________________________________________________
Apocalypse Proof: 33 Thomas Street in New York City
Author : klelatti
Score : 81 points
Date : 2023-09-15 15:11 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (placesjournal.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (placesjournal.org)
| lr1970 wrote:
| Intercept was the first to claim back in 2016 that this building
| has had a deep NSA connection [1]. Fascinating story...
|
| [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-
| new-...
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| More inside/outside pics
|
| https://atlasofplaces.com/architecture/long-lines-building/
| localplume wrote:
| [dead]
| kouru225 wrote:
| I walk by this all the time. There's a big glass entrance on one
| side with a doorman and everything so it's not exactly one giant
| slab on concrete.
| [deleted]
| bombcar wrote:
| I feel this building would be a much better conspiracy target if
| they had done then normal thing of making it _look_ like a
| building; one with fake windows that nobody ever goes in - or
| comes out.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Conspiracy theorists don't think that way. They want things
| that validate their paranoia, so they look for symbols that are
| obvious to _them_ , but discarded by others because they're too
| obvious and stupid. They want buildings that look like
| Hollywood evil lairs. They want barcodes and IC cards that
| spell out 666[0] if you squint at them funny. They see Linux
| error screens with the words "kill process or sacrifice child"
| in them and think their Fire Stick is extracting adrenochrome
| at the basement of Comet Ping-Pong[1].
|
| They aren't entirely insane, they are onto _something_. But,
| ironically, they have been programmed by business interests to
| ignore their own malfeasance. So the story can 't just be "the
| government suspended monopoly laws and let everyone buy
| everyone and that's why everything sucks now, join a union".
| After all, a lot of these people were born and raised to oppose
| regulation and unions. So they instead have to construct a new
| framework for opposing business to get rid of that cognitive
| dissonance, and it invariably becomes this over-dramatized
| nonsense.
|
| [0] A codeword referring to Nero, a politically unpopular Roman
| emperor that has been dead for _over a thousand years_
|
| [1] A pizza place that does not have a basement, but that
| hasn't stopped conspiracy theorists from shooting them up and
| holding them hostage anyway
| RetroTechie wrote:
| Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean there's no
| conspiracy. ;-)
|
| (with "you" I'm not referring to any poster here. Just
| generic paranoid person)
| bleuchase wrote:
| And what about all of the "conspiracy theories" that have
| turned out to be partially or totally true? Were those just
| lucky guesses?
| cynicalkane wrote:
| In my experience, conspiracy theorists don't have a lot of
| interest in these. Unprovable conspiracy theories are more
| interesting because it affirms their sense of paranoia,
| identity, feeling special, entitlement to the truth.
|
| Conspiracy theorists might go on and on about JFK or 9/11
| or Pizzagate, but how often do you hear the conspiracy type
| obsess about Jan. 6, an actual proven conspiracy to
| overthrow the government of the United States? The "proven"
| conspiracy theories they do care about, like MKUltra, are
| generally cast as far more consequential than most people
| would say they actually are.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > but how often do you hear the conspiracy type obsess
| about Jan. 6, an actual proven conspiracy to overthrow
| the government of the United States?
|
| Actually, they do. There are a lot of claims online
| saying it an FBI false flag operation, going so far as to
| name a specific person as an FBI plant.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| A conspiracy theory proven true is no longer a conspiracy
| theory, it is a boring fact. Conspiracy theorists aren't
| going out on the streets protesting the gradual erosion of
| civil liberties. They're calling that a limited hangout and
| demanding the real juicy shit, even if it doesn't exist.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| I can't fathom how you could read the Church Committee
| report and describe the facts in it as "boring".
|
| The definition of "conspiracy theorist" seems either
| pejorative or not, depending on who you ask. Why do you
| prefer to use it as a pejorative?
| Retric wrote:
| Abuses of government power are generally boring facts,
| like civil asset forfeiture. "A conspiracy theory is an
| explanation for an event or situation that asserts the
| existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister
| groups, often political in motivation, _when other
| explanations are more probable."_
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
|
| So, when cops rob an armored car via civil asset
| forfeiture it's just something that happened no
| conspiracy theory required because there isn't some other
| example that fits. But, the moon landing was fake fits
| _because there's another explanation._
|
| Occasionally what once was a conspiracy theory is now
| considered factual, but at that moment it stops being a
| conspiracy theory because it's no longer fringe. As such
| this isn't a pejorative definition as it doesn't directly
| imply such theories are incorrect.
| bleuchase wrote:
| > Conspiracy theorists aren't going out on the streets
| protesting the gradual erosion of civil liberties.
|
| I love a good No true Scotsman mixed with a twist of ad
| hominem.
| suction wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| staplung wrote:
| Apocalypse proof? We need something like an IPX scale. Maybe this
| is like AP5: able to withstand small-arms fire, molotov cocktails
| and, I dunno, zombie mandibles? But not cruise missiles, direct
| artillery fire, or giant transforming robots.
|
| Making something "nuclear hardened" is evidently not as high a
| bar as one might suppose. Setting aside that I don't know of any
| actual standards it appears that what's required is an ability to
| withstand a certain overpressure and provide some amount of
| radiation shielding. A windowless, reinforced concrete building
| would do pretty nicely without even trying for extra credit. I
| guess the idea being that nuclear-proof is impossible for normal,
| baryonic matter: a near enough blast from a big enough bomb will
| vaporize _anything_.
| appplication wrote:
| I have worked in a number of nuclear hardened facilities. Some
| more than others. There certainly are robust standards for
| this, as I recall quite a bit of fuss around even the small
| details. Typically what you see is everything is electrically
| isolated. On-site power, EMP hardened with shielding
| everywhere. All mechanical and electrical equipment suspended.
| Several feet of concrete on all sides. They told us it was
| intended to withstand near impact and I believed that it could.
| At least structurally. I'm not sure the people inside would
| fare the same.
|
| I also spent some time inside Cheyenne mountain. That is next
| level hardening. I have no doubt you could hit it with 50 nukes
| and the people inside would hardly notice. Of course, other
| than it specifically being their job to know that we're being
| nuked.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| This thing probably has extensive underground levels as well.
| Arcanum-XIII wrote:
| You have to be honest: that's the perfect architecture to create
| paranoia. As usual, it doesn't mean it's Evil. But it's perfect
| to create story since it's "mysterious"!
| guilhas wrote:
| Not Mr Robot proof
| [deleted]
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| _" In an eighteen-month period in 1971 and '72, the FBI counted
| an astounding (and almost entirely forgotten) 2,500 domestic
| bombings: roughly five a day."_
|
| SF author John Brunner had a contemporaneous story, reflecting
| that, titled The Inception of the Epoch of Mrs. Bedonebyasyoudid
| (https://isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?66700 ). The name seems to
| come from an 1863 English book
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water-Babies,_A_Fairy_Tale...
| )
| motohagiography wrote:
| The history of this building in the 70s and 80s puts the official
| paranoia behind phreaking and hacking in more context. When you
| see that this building is as much a key symbol that represents
| power as it is a single fully functional and modular switching
| machine - and where it stands in the middle of the center of the
| world economy and american supremacy - to hack what this
| indestructable concrete obelisk represented was a real threat to
| the projection of power.
|
| If _The Phone Company_ was vulnerable to some rogue geniuses,
| everything else was up for grabs.
| euroderf wrote:
| TPC: The President's Analyst, 1967
| didsomeonesay wrote:
| This building inspired the "Oldest House" in the game Control:
|
| https://www.gamedeveloper.com/art/the-real-buildings-that-in...
| klipklop wrote:
| Control was a fantastic game. A must play.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Do floods count as apocalypse? How well does the building work
| submerged?
| rvba wrote:
| How do those microwave transmitter lines work? Do they need to be
| empty from station to station? Does a bird flying break the
| connection? Would a drone block it?
|
| I read the high frequency trading firms use own towers to
| transmit messages. Could a rogue competitor fly a drone/kite to
| "block the view" and break the connections?
| shrubble wrote:
| In the 1960s the riots in cities led to the requirement of 'no
| windows' and datacenters were not to share walls with the
| exterior walls, so that breaching a datacenter required going
| through 2 walls. These requirements no doubt play a large factor
| in the building's design.
| baz00 wrote:
| Definitely not apocalypse proof. Apocalypse resistant!
|
| It's on my bucket list seeing that though.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Why not, not getting it? (e.g. bulletproof also doesn't mean
| can withstand any bullet?)
| hermitdev wrote:
| Apocalypses are like idiots. As soon as you make something
| idiot proof, the world tosses a bigger idiot at it.
| dkasper wrote:
| Reminds me of 611 Folsom in sf
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/611_Folsom_Street
| smath wrote:
| Ha, I used to work inside this building in 2010.
| cscheid wrote:
| Hey, same! (From ~2012 to 2014), but yeah.
| iworshipfaangs2 wrote:
| Did you like working there?
| cscheid wrote:
| (Not parent, but also worked there for about 2 years) The no-
| window thing is real and freaks people out, but each floor is
| very tall and the interior was open enough that it didn't
| feel claustrophobic. You're also in a zipcode that is in
| contention for "best in the world for whatever-you-might-
| want-to-do". If you ever got claustrophobic, a walk around
| tribeca usually would cure you of that real quick-like.
| tiku wrote:
| Usually this is followed by some cool stories.....
| qingcharles wrote:
| And that's the story of how nobody heard from smath ever
| again.
| baz00 wrote:
| Or silence.
| micah94 wrote:
| cool silence?
| [deleted]
| realo wrote:
| Surely you have a nice proof but it is too large to write in
| the margin ... :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-17 23:00 UTC)