Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Cheerful Spring

There latest threat talked about here
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yw79k5/hacker-group-threatens-dump-911-insurance-files-dark-overlord?utm_source=reddit.com


The group seems to be legit. https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/report/weekly-threat-report-3rd-november-2017
A cyber crime group called ‘The Dark Overlord’ has claimed responsibility for conducting cyber-enabled extortion campaigns in recent weeks. Victims include a London-based plastic surgery clinic and a Hollywood production studio, both of which are believed to have a number of high-profile clients. The group has a history of hacking organisations to obtain sensitive information before demanding money in exchange for not leaking it into the public domain. They leak snippets of data to the media to encourage them to report on their activity. This is aimed at “proving” that a breach has taken place, and increases the pressure on the victim to pay the ransom. ‘The Dark Overlord’ has been responsible for indiscriminately targeting health institutions, schools and media production companies over the last year.






They claim is its bigger than the Edward Snowden hack.

https://twitter.com/tdo_h4ck3rs

Cheerful Spring

This hacker group answered some questions on 4chan.

Q: So given your financial motivation, is it safe to assume you’re “group” is more anarchy than order?
That is to say, are you looking to shift power,take power, or destroy power?
A: We're not interested in power, only internet money.

Q: Their answer here will actually clue in their degree of technical competency. I'd add - justify why it will reach this price.
A: We haven't shared a price, at all. Depending on what a buyer would like, we adjust our offer.

Q: Iron Mountain is a military base. Why is a WTC Insurer shredding documents on it?
A: Great question. We'll direct you to ur official PR which details it. We'll quote the issue for you below:

"When major incidents like the WTC 911 incident happen, part of the litigation must involve SSI (Sensitive Security Information) and SCI (Special Compartment Information) from the likes of the FBI, CIA, TSA, FAA, DOD, and others being introduced into evidence, but of course this can't become public, for fear of compromising a nation's security, so they temporarily release these materials to the solicitor firms involved in the litigation with the strict demand they're destroyed after their use and that remain highly protected and confidential to only be used behind closed doors. However, humans aren't perfect and many of these documents don't become destroyed, and when thedarkoverlord comes along hacking all these solicitor firms, investment banks, and global insurers, we stumble upon the juiciest secrets a government has to offer."

Cheerful Spring

Some files have leaked out in the last day or so but nothing earth-shattering yet. It hard to keep track of what leaking because the US government is chasing them across the internet. The popped up on twitter and reddit and then got banned. The deep state trying to keep the info from spreading.

The group claims they have 5 layers of information for sale. Only layer 1 which modest information they claim is leaking right now. Layer 4 and 5 is supposedly the smoking gun for conspiracy theorists?

This file is a layer 1 document really interesting though confirmation Omar Bayoumi was involved in aviation. What new and unknown to me he was assistant to the director of a finance company with aviation ties. He was the guy who was meeting two pentagon hijackers in the United States.

The file cuts off at the end. Says Baraka Bank was providing funds to Osama bin Laden. It unclear what they mean was the bank involved in financing terrorist activities? Or money deposited in this bank-funded Osama?

Cheerful Spring

I don't know if this will turn to be dud and there nothing there. Just to let you know they also claim to have UFO files but are not ready to release them until they're done with 9/11 stuff.

RT is reporting on it mainstream silent.

https://www.rt.com/usa/448058-dark-overlord-leaks-11-september/

Cheerful Spring

Another document still layer 1. It seems authorities were told in a Pheonix memo in early 2001 that Muslim men were training on planes to carry out terrorist attacks and nothing was done about it. Intelligence failure or deliberate?

Cheerful Spring

jeremyj1968

That's James Woods story has been known for a long time. He told the story to Bill O'Reilly on Fox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0lzZvCNkJw

I've heard that a lot of the leak is just screen captures of emails and the like. Have you come across anything significant yet?

Cheerful Spring

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

That's James Woods story has been known for a long time. He told the story to Bill O'Reilly on Fox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0lzZvCNkJw

I've heard that a lot of the leak is just screen captures of emails and the like. Have you come across anything significant yet?

There lot more than that in the layer 1 leak. You find court testimony from Moussaoui 'closed to the public trial' he was alleged to be a 20th hijacker but got caught trying to enter the United States through Canada. There also testimony in there of people working security at the airport, ticket desk Etc on 9/11. It take weeks to go through it all.

I have not downloaded these files myself, i just posted some of the files scanned online. Remember these guys are not doing this, to tell the truth, they are cybercriminal hacking group, the main purpose is to make money from leaks.

There is a document that states the military intervened over Pennsylvania (flight 93) it just one line in four line paragraph. There not enough information there to claim flight 93 was shot down, we need more info on this!

Remember this only layer 1 info released so far, there 5 layers of info. This group claims layer 1 is modest info. Layer 2 and 3 is incriminating info. Layer 4 and 5 show cover-ups and conspiracy? Who can say if they honest about this? If the deep state pays the ransom we may never see info beyond layer 1

jeremyj1968

I didn't hear that about the different layers. Hmmm. We'll have to wait and see what else comes out. The thing I find most disappointing is that I don't think there is anything that could be released that would make most people ask questions about 9/11. I think this is a combination of a) people being too invested in the world with their kids and their lives to want to acknowledge the possibility that 9/11 could be a lie and what that would mean for their belief system, and b) the mainstream media will always be consistent in reporting and brainwashing people in to believing the official story.

I shall await Layer 2.

Dohnjoe

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

I didn't hear that about the different layers. Hmmm. We'll have to wait and see what else comes out. The thing I find most disappointing is that I don't think there is anything that could be released that would make most people ask questions about 9/11. I think this is a combination of a) people being too invested in the world with their kids and their lives to want to acknowledge the possibility that 9/11 could be a lie and what that would mean for their belief system, and b) the mainstream media will always be consistent in reporting and brainwashing people in to believing the official story.

I shall await Layer 2.

Send them Bitcoin then, you have to pay for this

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Smoking gun right here

Franz Von Peppercorn

Nothing interesting there.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

RT is reporting on it mainstream silent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/01/02/hacking-group-the-dark-overlord-threatens-to-leak-sensitive-911-documents/#7645a9ac4313
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article223915255.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/9-11-documents-hacked-from-insurers-and-lawyers-1.3746336

They are a bunch of hackers who have previously held sensitive information from e.g. schools and hospitals to ransom

They've appear to have stolen a trove of litigation files (there were countless court cases after 911 to sort out liability) and are hoping that truthers (and possibly affected families, law firms) will pay up to not to release the data

Cheerful Spring

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

I didn't hear that about the different layers. Hmmm. We'll have to wait and see what else comes out. The thing I find most disappointing is that I don't think there is anything that could be released that would make most people ask questions about 9/11. I think this is a combination of a) people being too invested in the world with their kids and their lives to want to acknowledge the possibility that 9/11 could be a lie and what that would mean for their belief system, and b) the mainstream media will always be consistent in reporting and brainwashing people in to believing the official story.

I shall await Layer 2.

Layer 2 is released just over half hour ago according to people online. I don't know what in the files yet though.

Layer 1 files have shown though the US authorities were aware of Muslim men training at flight schools to carry out terrorist attacks in early summer 2001. That phoenix memo was sent to FBI headquarters in the summer and was not acted upon and ignored. Evidence of allowing the attacks to happen or break down of intelligence, we can only guess at.

One file involving the airlines claimed the US military intervened over Pennsylvania (flight 93). If this turns out to be correct then the official narrative was a lie. According to official narrative passengers took over flight 93 and the terrorists then crashed the plane in a field. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have claimed the plane was shot down because of lack of plane wreckage and some of the plane items found 8 miles away from the crash zone. We have to wait and see if more files talk more about this?

Cheerful Spring

This is their message

This is the thedarkoverlord here to deliver a message.

This is a message for the nation-state of the United States of America and the greater deep-state.

We're going to continue to bend you over a barrel and **** you if our demands are not met. You know the score. Your censorship and fake news coverups won't silence this organisation or its public support. You were warned. To all the other parties involved (airlines, litigation firms, investigation firms, FBI, TSA, FAA, banks, security companies and more), we're going to burn you down unless you begin to 'play ball'. This entire situation will soon become far more tragic to your survival. Make the right choice.

We're peeling these layers back like an onion. No one can save you except for us. Pay the **** up.

Cheerful Spring

Hello, world. As you're well-aware, we designed a compensation plan that would allow for the public crowd-funding of our organisation in order to permit the public disclosure of our "9/11 Papers" in the interest of the public. Part of this plan was to create a tiered escalation plan that would result in multiple layers and milestones (which we're calling checkpoints) to ensure the powers at be are being properly bent over a barrel. We've said it before, and we'll say it again: we're financially motivated, and you (the public) has spoken to us in our language (internet money, specifically Bitcoin). Remember, continuing to fund our wallet will continue to keep us motivated to help break the truth to the world by open-sourcing what we're calling the "9/11 Papers".

Cheerful Spring

There are thousands of files to go through, but this file is very interesting.

This 9/11 Commission file. I always wondered why the security tape at Dulles airport had no timestamp and date.

Now we find this in a file.


The first problem why would the hijackers be turning up at the airport on Sep 10. That makes no sense.

Is the 9/11 Dulles airport tape really taken on Sep 11 2001? Do you have to ask knowing this information? Why did the US government remove the date and timestamp?

Cheerful Spring

If anyone thinks these documents are not legitimate check this out. The US authorities have gone after them and penetrated the dark web hidden sites. Kickass was their site on the hidden web.

Cheerful Spring

This document blows my mind.

It claims there is a video of hijacker seated in the cockpit seat. Also claims there no video of Atta at the checkpoint at Logan. Also claims two of the hijackers were on the CIA list, but they were not on Flight 11 or Flight 175 hijackers

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe

Where's the parts about the blowing up of the buildings? the guys planting explosives? the ordering of the explosives? the receipts for the detonator cord? ..

In these types of "leaks" there's always just enough random information for truthers to take out of context and speculate on, but never a single thing supporting the actual conspiracy e.g. the buildings being blown up

I want a real document, just one, which references blowing up the buildings, it's a massive plan involving god knows how many people, just something tangible, anything

Nope, it's always just **** we either knew or stuff that largely corroborates what we already knew

Ipso

They sound like a binch of 12 years olds.
Here’s my pre-emptive told you so.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Where's the parts about the blowing up of the buildings? the guys planting explosives? the ordering of the explosives? the receipts for the detonator cord? ..

In these types of "leaks" there's always just enough random information for truthers to take out of context and speculate on, but never a single thing supporting the actual conspiracy e.g. the buildings being blown up

I want a real document, just one, which references blowing up the buildings, it's a massive plan involving god knows how many people, just something tangible, anything

Nope, it's always just **** we either knew or stuff that largely corroborates what we already knew

The 9/11 conspiracy involves more than just blowing up buildings. We are looking for info about an inside job. All we have to prove is the US government story about the attacks is incorrect and lie.

We are only at layer 2 info so far and for me, we have got information that very interesting.

It can no longer be denied now that the FBI has a video of hijackers at Dulles airport, the day before the 9/11 attacks. They've never released this video and why not? Is important as the Dulles airport video has no time and date stamp. Should we just trust them this the flight 77 hijackers at the security gate on 9/11? We could be looking at security tape from 10th of Sep or before if all we know?

There a file that talks about the military intervening over Pennsylvania (official narrative there no mention of military involvement to take down flight 93) There supposedly a video of a hijacker in the plane cockpit seat, where is this video? We have files that question the passenger lists, reports of a gun on flight 11. We have depositions of employees who worked the ticket and security desks, strange none of them saw the terrorists when asked. We already have enough information to confirm the authorities were notified ahead of time an attack was coming and that info was ignored.

Will Layer 3, 4, 5 contain evidence of who planted the explosives probably not but we are getting the info that exposes the official narrative to be untrue.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The 9/11 conspiracy involves more than just blowing up buildings. We are looking for info about an inside job. All we have to prove is the US government story about the attacks is incorrect and lie.

Nah. Sandy Hook truthers "prove" to themselves that the story of the attack is incorrect and a lie. Boston bombing truthers do the same, Charlie Hebdo, Aurora Shooting, Paris attack theorists, London attacks, you name it. All you need is a group of like-minded paranoid people who already believe something is a conspiracy to comb through every single detail of it finding any perceived discrepancy or anomaly or "something weird" that throws enough doubt (in their minds) on the event - and that's it, job done, magically they've conjured up a conspiracy without having to support the thing

Same with this 911 truther circus

If the buildings were "blown up" it absolutely needs to be shown they were blown up. And all these leaks and tantalising redacted info and inside emails - never point to the buildings being blown up.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Will Layer 3, 4, 5 contain evidence of who planted the explosives probably not but we are getting the info that exposes the official narrative to be untrue.

Guess people will have to support them of Patreon to find out...
:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nah. Sandy Hook truthers "prove" to themselves that the story of the attack is incorrect and a lie. Boston bombing truthers do the same, Charlie Hebdo, Aurora Shooting, Paris attack theorists, London attacks, you name it. All you need is a group of like-minded paranoid people who already believe something is a conspiracy to comb through every single detail of it finding any perceived discrepancy or anomaly or "something weird" that throws enough doubt (in their minds) on the event - and that's it, job done, magically they've conjured up a conspiracy without having to support the thing

Same with this 911 truther circus

If the buildings were "blown up" it absolutely needs to be shown they were blown up. And all these leaks and tantalising redacted info and inside emails - never point to the buildings being blown up.

False and very inaccurate post. When have I personally claimed these events involved government conspiracy?

I only claimed 9/11 was a government conspiracy on your list, so you just posting random nonsense of make-believe. I can't stop people posting about Sandy Hook or the Boston bombers or Q or flat earth or whatever they choose to follow or believe to be true online.

Are you expecting the insurance companies to be handed info about the plot to blow up buildings, be real?

I expect further info about the hijacking and hijackers role, Saudi role in it? What happened on the planes, phone calls stuff kept back and not released. Security lapses, maybe further clues to what happened to flight 93, what the investigations show and were classified. Important things to figuring out if this was an inside job.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

False and very inaccurate post. When have I personally claimed these events involved government conspiracy?

Where do I mention anywhere in my post that you personally claimed those events involved government conspiracy?

Where are the details about the buildings being blown up? Why do you avoid that giant elephant in the room despite it being one of your core beliefs?

It's like debating with someone who believes in ghosts, knows it's bull****, but just keeps it going because they have a passion for.. believing in ghosts

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Where do I mention anywhere in my post that you personally claimed those events involved government conspiracy?

Where are the details about the buildings being blown up? Why do you avoid that giant elephant in the room despite it being one of your core beliefs?

It's like debating with someone who believes in ghosts, knows it's bull****, but just keeps it going because they have a passion for.. believing in ghosts

Stop pretending, you always list other conspiracies as a way of discrediting 9/11 conspiracy. You don't see your own bias about this.

NIST was hired to investigate the collapse and they manipulated the true facts of what took place NIST even denied freefall as a possibility in the final draft of the report in 2008 and that astounding error on their part. This cannot be denied because we have video of them ruling out freefall occurring during the final collapse stage.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are you expecting the insurance companies to be handed info about the plot to blow up buildings, be real?

You argued that Larry Silverstien did exactly that on the day of the event.
You also argued that he admitted to doing so on camera.:rolleyes:

You do realise that everyone reading this is doing so simply to see what ridiculous nonsense you come out with, right?

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Stop pretending, you always list other conspiracies as a way of discrediting 9/11 conspiracy. You don't see your own bias about this.
.

There is no difference. You use the exact same tactics and twisted thinking.
The crap you come out with about 9/11 is far, far more ridiculous and idiotic and ignorant than any of the stuff about the fake school shootings.

I guarantee that if we showed you videos about them, you'd be gullible enough to believe them.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

False and very inaccurate post. When have I personally claimed these events involved government conspiracy?

Where in that post do I claim you believe those specific events are government conspiracies?

If you made a mistake reading it, fine. But if you literally see words that aren't there, then I don't know what to say.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You argued that Larry Silverstien did exactly that on the day of the event.
You also argued that he admitted to doing so on camera.:rolleyes:

You do realise that everyone reading this is doing so simply to see what ridiculous nonsense you come out with, right?

Well, he did but you, of course, ignore the evidence. You guys claimed he was not referring to controlled demolition. Then I found evidence he was ringing his insurance companies on the day to see if they would pay out if the building was controlled demolition. Again stuff like is ignored by people like you.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well, he did but you, of course, ignore the evidence. You guys claimed he was not referring to controlled demolition. Then I found evidence he was ringing his insurance companies on the day to see if they would pay out if the building was controlled demolition. Again stuff like is ignored by people like you.

No it's not. It's you taking stuff out of context to support some VAGUE subjective conspiracy that whimsical incorporates Larry Silverstein (or not)

Yet when someone delves further - was he involved, you immediately retreat behind some bull****

Example:

1. Was Larry Silverstein involved in the controlled demolition of WTC 7, yes or no?

No waffle, direct answer. Then we will see the rationale behind (coupled with your existing theory)

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well, he did but you, of course, ignore the evidence. You guys claimed he was not referring to controlled demolition. Then I found evidence he was ringing his insurance companies on the day to see if they would pay out if the building was controlled demolition. Again stuff like is ignored by people like you.

Are you expecting the insurance companies to be handed info about the plot to blow up buildings, be real?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Are you expecting the insurance companies to be handed info about the plot to blow up buildings, be real?

If the insurance company would pay out if there was a secret controlled demolition. Mother of god.

"Hey insurance company, Larry here, let's say if I deliberately blow up one of my buildings that you guys are covering, wouuulld youu pay me the insurance? Yeah, if I pack it full of explosives and destroy it, no? ah but what if there just so happens to be a massive plot with airliners flying into buildings and it's blown up, definitely not me, but with like silent explosives and trust me the investigators will never know, if that happens are we cool, can I get the dosh?"

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No it's not. It's you taking stuff out of context to support some VAGUE subjective conspiracy that whimsical incorporates Larry Silverstein (or not)

Yet when someone delves further - was he involved, you immediately retreat behind some bull****

Example:

1. Was Larry Silverstein involved in the controlled demolition of WTC 7, yes or no?

No waffle, direct answer. Then we will see the rationale behind (coupled with your existing theory)

Silverstein spokesperson claimed he was referring to pulling New York firefighters out of the building, not a controlled demolition. That a lie because it well known no firefighters entered that building to battle any fire after 12 pm American time. So why did they lie?

Then we find out on the day, he was ringing his insurance company to find out if they controlled demolitioned the building will they pay up.

Did he have pre-knowledge building 7 was going to be controlled demolition, yes I believe that.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Then we find out on the day, he was ringing his insurance company to find out if they controlled demolitioned the building will they pay up.

So he was telling them directly that they were going to blow up the buildings.
He was handing them information about the plot.

You said that this would be silly. You are contradicting yourself because you haven't thought about the nonsense you regurgitate.
You just copy and paste to pretend you know more than you do.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Silverstein spokesperson claimed he was referring to pulling New York firefighters out of the building, not a controlled demolition. That a lie because it well known no firefighters entered that building to battle any fire after 12 pm American time. So why did they lie?

Then we find out on the day, he was ringing his insurance company to find out if they controlled demolitioned the building will they pay up.

Did he have pre-knowledge building 7 was going to be controlled demolition, yes I believe that.

So now Larry Silverstein is officially in on the plot, correct?

Can we have an updated list of all the conspiracy components please

1. Larry Silverstein
2. The Saudis?
3. Rumsfeld (you've mentioned before)
4. Bush?
5. CIA?
6. NSA?
7. Silverstein's Insurance company

Who else. Please try and be concrete about this.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So now Larry Silverstein is officially in on the plot, correct?

Can we have an updated list of all the conspiracy components please

1. Larry Silverstein
2. The Saudis?
3. Rumsfeld (you've mentioned before)
4. Bush?
5. CIA?
6. NSA?

Who else. Please try and be concrete about this.

The Insurance company also apparently as the conspirators handed them info about the plot.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

So he was telling them directly that they were going to blow up the buildings.
He was handing them information about the plot.

You said that this would be silly. You are contradicting yourself because you haven't thought about the nonsense you regurgitate.
You just copy and paste to pretend you know more than you do.

Larry's building was on fire, it's a safe to assume that if he called his insurance company it was related to finding out whether the building would be covered if the firefighters had to pull it down (with wires/pulleys like other WTC buildings)

To go from that to speculating that he "blew up" his own building, called his insurance company about it, then admitted it on live TV is so ****ing stupid until I remember I'm in a 911 thread

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Larry's building was on fire, it's a safe to assume that if he called his insurance company it was related to finding out whether the building would be covered if the firefighters had to pull it down (with wires/pulleys like other WTC buildings)

I think, from the actual reported events, assuming everyone is telling it accurately the real explanation is that he called them to check if he was still covered if the firefighters allowed the fires to burn rather than fighting them.
This would probably be a factor in his deciding whether or not to push for them to try and save the building.

But to some the alternate explanation is that he was asking if he was still covered if the buildings were demolished. Then he pretended that it wasn't and the company somehow didn't put it together. Somehow then didn't figure out what ignorant ill educated conspiracy theorists who can't even do basic math could. And then for some reason didn't bring up the fact he did this, then admitted to demolishing the building on camera during the lengthy legal fight they had with him.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To go from that to speculating that he "blew up" his own building, called his insurance company about it, then admitted it on live TV is so ****ing stupid until I remember I'm in a 911 thread

And remember, that even Cheerful knows that the conspirators telling the insurance company was a silly thing to do. He however forgot his previous claims.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So he was telling them directly that they were going to blow up the buildings.
He was handing them information about the plot.

You said that this would be silly. You are contradicting yourself because you haven't thought about the nonsense you regurgitate.
You just copy and paste to pretend you know more than you do.

It was a confidential call overheard by people. He was not spreading the news about this enquiry at all. He excuses for why he said pull it does not add up and are wrong. The only explantation i can see for his lie. He thought someone pulled the building down on the day, by the way, it fell or he told them to go ahead and pull it? When he learned the US government said the collapse was caused by fires, I better not talk about controlled demolition anymore and his spokesperson said know he meant to pull it was for firefighters, a lie and there no debate to be had on that.

Did he have preknowledge, it's possible I don't rule it out. The only person lying is Silverstein, not the conspiracy theorists.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was a confidential call overheard by people. He was not spreading the news about this enquiry at all. He excuses for why he said pull it does not add up and are wrong. The only explantation i can see for his lie. He thought someone pulled the building down on the day, by the way, it fell or he told them to go ahead and pull it? When he learned the US government said the collapse was caused by fires, I better not talk about controlled demolition anymore and his spokesperson said know he meant to pull it was for firefighters, a lie and there no debate to be had on that.

This is borderline unintelligible

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was a confidential call overheard by people. He was not spreading the news about this enquiry at all. .

He was telling the insurance company.
He was handing them information about the plot.

You are now also contradicting yourself again, as you've realised how embarrassing your position is once again.

Did he have pre-knowledge building 7 was going to be controlled demolition, yes I believe that.

Did he have preknowledge, it's possible I don't rule it out. The only person lying is Silverstein, not the conspiracy theorists.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is borderline unintelligible

Borderline?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

He was telling the insurance company.
He was handing them information about the plot.

You are now also contradicting yourself again, as you've realised how embarrassing your position is once again.

He phoned his insurance company to see if they pay out if he went ahead with it. He did tell them look I have wired up this building ahead of 9/11 and by any chance, if I take it down you pay, don't be stupid. All we know his excuse for pull it is a lie and frankly, I want to know why he lied? You fine with lies most people want the truth. Silverstein should be out there clarifying what he meant and then we can move on.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He phoned his insurance company to see if they pay out if he went ahead with it.

Went ahead with what?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Went ahead with what?

Controlled demolition what else

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Controlled demolition what else

Wait, so he called his insurance company, and he directly told them he had his own building rigged for a controlled demolition and ask if they would pay if he blew it up?

Is that what you are saying..

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He phoned his insurance company to see if they pay out if he went ahead with it.
He did tell them look I have wired up this building ahead of 9/11 and by any chance, if I take it down you pay, don't be stupid.

But you are saying that's exactly what he said.
He handed them information about the plot.

Or are you saying that he asked them if they would pay out after a controlled demolition, then pretended it wasn't a controlled demolition and the insurance company didn't find that call suspicious?
That's hilariously asinine and something a child would dream up.

Honestly cheerful, how old are you?
15? 12?

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wait, so he called his insurance company, and he directly told them he had his own building rigged for a controlled demolition and ask if they would pay if he blew it up?

Is that what you are saying..

I believe he's saying it's more like this:
Larry: "Hey Larry Silverstien here. Quick question. If I demolish the building, will you still pay out?"
Insurance company: "No. Why are you asking?"
Larry: "Oh. no reason.... "