Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Options
2456789

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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)


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭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?"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This is borderline unintelligible

    Borderline?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


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

    Went ahead with what?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Went ahead with what?

    Controlled demolition what else :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Controlled demolition what else :confused:

    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..


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.... "


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    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.... "

    If he's trying to commit insurance fraud, why is he calling the insurance company, on the day of the attacks, after he has irreversibly rigged his entire building with silent explosives?

    They say they do pay - the insurance company is "in" on the plot. But they are getting screwed, so what do they get out of it?

    They say they don't pay - he doesn't blow it up? leaves a giant monument of evidence that he was in on the 911 attacks killing 3,000 Americans?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    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?

    Did he how so:confused:

    WTC7 collapsed due to fires according to you guys and the US government? Silverstein revealed the plot to Insurance executives? How so by making enquires? You mind works in mysterious ways Kingmob.

    Have you evidence the Insurance companies investigated controlled demolition? NIST version was accepted as true.

    Why would they find it suspicious, it only truthers who believe this stuff as you said so often on here


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    Why are ye even entertaining this lad? He just ignores anything that goes against his opinion, constant deflection.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Did he how so:confused:

    WTC7 collapsed due to fires according to you guys and the US government? Silverstein revealed the plot to Insurance executives? How so by making enquires? You mind works in mysterious ways Kingmob.

    Have you evidence the Insurance companies investigated controlled demolition? NIST version was accepted as true.

    Why would they find it suspicious, it only truthers who believe this stuff as you said so often on here

    You aren't making any sense. He wants to blow up his own building, on that day, so he knows 911 is going to happen.

    Did Larry Silverstein plot the whole of 911 just to pull off insurance fraud?

    Before you start trying to answer this, stop. You need to backup what you claim. When you give an answer, it needs to be backed up by something.

    If you claim he didn't plot the whole of 911 - how do you know this information?
    If you claim he did plot the whole of 911 - how do you know this information?

    Making up stuff in your head and "backing it up" with other stuff you've made up in your head is not evidence to anyone else.

    If all you have is some vague info about a call to an insurance company and him using the phrase "pull it" and all this meandering narrative is entirely based on that - then you are as bad as Alex Jones, it's just playing a game of taking one piece of info out of context and creating an entire false and fabricated conspiracy story-line around it

    Creative writing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You aren't making any sense. He wants to blow up his own building, on that day, so he knows 911 is going to happen.

    Did Larry Silverstein plot the whole of 911 just to pull off insurance fraud?

    Before you start trying to answer this, stop. You need to backup what you claim. When you give an answer, it needs to be backed up by something.

    If you claim he didn't plot the whole of 911 - how do you know this information?
    If you claim he did plot the whole of 911 - how do you know this information?

    Making up stuff in your head and "backing it up" with other stuff you've made up in your head is not evidence to anyone else.

    If all you have is some vague info about a call to an insurance company and him using the phrase "pull it" and all this meandering narrative is entirely based on that - then you are as bad as Alex Jones, it's just playing a game of taking one piece of info out of context and creating an entire false and fabricated conspiracy story-line around it

    Creative writing.

    Do you believe Silverstein story it was about firefighters? If you do. Then it up to you to provide proof Firefighters were in building 7 fighting multiples fires between 3 pm and 5 pm. You can't push this one on me. If you believe Silverstein show evidence for why you believe he was correct. Otherwise you ramblings are waste of time and effort.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Do you believe Silverstein story it was about firefighters? If you do. Then it up to you to provide proof Firefighters were in building 7 fighting multiples fires between 3 pm and 5 pm. You can't push this one on me. If you believe Silverstein show evidence for why you believe he was correct. Otherwise you ramblings are waste of time and effort.

    Diversion and deflection tactics

    You are claiming Silverstein had his own building blown up secretly with silent explosives on 911.

    Either you have incredible inside information that no one else in the world has

    Or

    You are completely making it up from thin info and your bizarre interpretation of that info

    Why aren't you contacting the newspapers? his insurance company? or is it something that you've literally just "made up" in your head in the last few pages of this and it's as changeable as the wind


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Diversion and deflection tactics

    You are claiming Silverstein had his own building blown up secretly with silent explosives on 911.

    Either you have incredible inside information that no one else in the world has

    Or

    You are completely making it up from thin info and your bizarre interpretation of that info

    Why aren't you contacting the newspapers? his insurance company? or is it something that you've literally just "made up" in your head in the last few pages of this and it's as changeable as the wind

    So you find no evidence of firefighters was in building 7? Why do you think he lied? Any explanation or just going to ignore the question like you normally do?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    So you find no evidence of firefighters was in building 7. Why do you think he lied? Any explanation or just going to ignore the question like you normally do?

    More deflection

    According to you Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 secretly blown up. I've asked you before who you thought did it and you gave a different answer - so it appears you've literally just made this up in the last few pages

    Why did you change your mind?

    The insurers have access to the same TV interview you saw, and they know exactly what was said in the phone call, how can an entire insurance company not see something that you have extrapolated from just those two pieces of info?

    They are the one's paying out for this fraud, how do you know "more" than them?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    More deflection

    According to you Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 secretly blown up. I've asked you before who you thought did it and you gave a different answer - so it appears you've literally just made this up in the last few pages

    Why did you change your mind?

    The insurers have access to the same TV interview you saw, and they know exactly what was said in the phone call, how can an entire insurance company not see something that you have extrapolated from just those two pieces of info?

    They are the one's paying out for this fraud, how do you know "more" than them?

    It not a deflection at all. You want me to believe Silverstein had no pre-knowledge, don't you? I open to be persuaded to think differently.

    Now explain why he lied about pulling the firefighters from the building? Any reason at all?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It not a deflection at all. You want to believe Silverstein had no pre-knowledge, don't you? I open to be persuaded to think differently.

    Repeatedly deflecting from basic questions

    You are making the extraordinary claim that Larry Silverstein had his own building secretly blown up (no details how he did that, no physical evidence, no witnesses, no leaks, nothing) on 911 based on one TV interview (which you've taken out of context) and an alleged phone call (which I don't believe you have the transcript for)

    How do you know this?

    How does the insurance company not know this?

    Why do your 911 theories change so much?


Advertisement