unforum

[AnthraX101]

[UPDATE] New Incidentlog files

[aegir]

looks like a guy in a swimming pool to me... <grin>

aegir

[yanka]

Re: New Incedentlog files

[yanka]

At 10:25:02 the system was sending/receiving "systemsecure". Yet the frame from D031 shows water flowing in. I think "D031" identifies the security camera.

The next 3 shots are from D033 (or D-33). The times at which they are taken are within the 1-minute interval that is missing from the logs. Somebody (the guy in the pic?) was trying to do "manual override". He wanted to open door "A" to get into the guest module(s) because the walkway was getting flooded. But "they" wouldn't let him get out; and it can't be because they didn't want to flood the guest module. Because at 10:25:02 the water is still just dripping in from the ceiling. The guy must have begun trying to get out right away; 30 seconds later is what we see as the first manual override attempt. The walkway appears to be completely flooded only a minute later.

So why wouldn't they let him get out while he still could? And what are the weird reflections on the glass?

[Mooni]

Can anyone make any sense of this attachment? It's an enhanced closeup of the writing on the guy's jacket.

Maybe it's his name, or the name of the company he works for?

EDIT: I see 'Fada' ... there's definitely an F at the start, but the rest is very cursive.

[yanka]

[Mooni]

Has anyone tried enhancing the reflections in these photos? I gave it a go but didn't have much luck.

There's definitely two rows of lights in there, similar to the ones you'd see in an office. And some of the darker areas look like cubicle walls.

Also, the proportions of what's being reflected don't seem to match what we're seeing in the photo. The reflections imply a large, well-lit room or corridor, so I assume they've been overlaid the original image.

[aegir]

[DonkeyOatey]

My opinions/summary on the purpose of the incident logs:

The first set from 10/08 show us how the autosystem is supposed to work handling an emergency breach (read: leak): Sensors see the leak and respond with alarms and appropriate bulkhead closings. In the event that a bulkhead can't close (obstruction, bad wires, etc.), someone can always override it manually (assumably from the actual door location, but possibly remotely). I'd paint it a successful "test run" of the system with the possible exceptions of:
1) what caused the leak?
2) why was manual override necessary?
However, these things happen, and it pretty much justifies the design of the autosystem/manual override/etc. So, not much happened here beyond a typical SNAFU, but without this we wouldn't really know what happens when:

The second set from 10/21 reflects things going horribly wrong. One of the things we learn (spec'ed) from this set is that lettered bulkheads ("A") likely reflect "important", main, and likely "large" doors like the one connecting the delta and gamma modules. Numbered doors ("1-15") are likely smaller doors, perhaps separating compartments interior to modules. Since these doors probably take less time to close, the auto system starts closing the big doors first. So the sensors detect the leak and all the doors start closing. Someone inside makes it out as far to the main "A" door, but finds it closed. However, this time his attempts to manually actuate the door are denied (note: the photos do NOT occur during "unlogged" minutes. Rather, they coincide with the manual override attempts), ultimately resulting in his drowning.

All this begs the question: Why didn't the manual override work this time. Consider two (of many) possibilities.

1) During a leak, an autosystem would be programmed to much more readily allow a bulkhead CLOSING and less anxious to allow an OPENING (to keep flooding localized).

2) Someone changed the control system to (at least temporarily) ignore manual overrides.

1 reflects the simplest reasoning, but it's a bit flawed. Sure, it's best from a property perspective, but (as we can see) not the most life-savvy design choice. For that reason, I lean towards 2. Especially considering the other difference between the two incidents: the "Control Access". On 10/08 the attempt to control the system remotely is denied due to it coming from an unauthenticated IP. On 10/21, the control access is enabled and the IP of where it (looks) to be coming from turns out to be metacortechs.com. So my wild mind ultimately paints the following wild spec:

The first attempt reflects someone's unsuccessful attempt at sabotage (maybe even responsible for creating the leak). But (s)he learned that (s)he has to be accessing the remote control from an authenticated IP. So someone sitting at a Metacortechs computer (or someone who can look like they are) sabotaged the system and killed that guy. Of course this line of spec begs alot of questions. Who did it? An Metacortech's employee or hackers? Did they intend to kill that guy or just sabotage Aquapolis?

Etc...

P.S. It's looks like a FUBU (For Us By Us) sweatsuit

[yanka]

[MatrixofReality]

not totally off subject but i think i can clear something up....

[AcidTWister]

the reflections, to me.... look like lights in an office building or school room. basically just a series of flourescent lights...

[aqualung1105]

DonkeyOatey - nice beakdown of events, thanX - I´m with you on the course of events as you desribe them, although we can´t as of yet be sure this is sabotage - it could just be the AP hull which is faulty and the contactors or someone else trying to cover it up (this has been known to happen at large, prestigious developments).

I´ve touched on this before, and now I mention it again: - how is it that we get access to these logs and pics? That would seem to be the doing of someone on the inside wanting "the world" to know AP is not as fantastic as it´s made up to be. Certainly those photos of the drowning guy would be highly classified, or they are unauthorized and unknown to the people in charge.
I don´t think the /incidentlogs is an offical site or part of the AP network, or intended to be (if it were it would be password protected at the very least), I think someone created it for the benefit of getting the truth out. Who?

[xnbomb]

Flooding and sealing compartments & who put the files th

[Marauder]

I may be over-simplifying this, but here's what the reflected lights tell me. The security camera images aren't direct screen captures. It's as if someone took a picture of the security console with a camera, then uploaded those pics. Its not that big of a leap to assume that the other incidentlog files are the same way. This would support the flashing-light theories...