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
1356789

Comments

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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    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?

    There were 120,000 people working on the Manhattan project for 4 years and was kept secret and no info leaked. I don't buy no leaks equals no evidence there is a conspiracy. By the way, many whistleblowers have come forward about 9/11. An example is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger

    No Physical evidence is also wrong. There evidence of controlled demolition and was discussed in another thread, ignored by you.

    How many people would need to be involved to bring down buildings pre 9/11 5 10 20 people at most if was done over time?

    Why did Silverstein lie, response no yes


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,943 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    By the way, many whistleblowers have come forward about 9/11.

    List them. And each one has to corroborate your theory.
    No Physical evidence is also wrong. There evidence of controlled demolition and was discussed in another thread, ignored by you.

    There's no credible evidence. Just pseudo-scientific junk, speculation, waffle and about a dozen different far-fetched contradictory theories.
    How many people would need to be involved to bring down buildings pre 9/11 5 10 20 people at most if was done over time?

    Your random speculation, imagination, guesswork. It means nothing.

    Where's the evidence/information backing this up? leaked documents detailing who planted the explosives? the teams used? witnesses? people who were on the team?

    Where is this info?
    Why did Silverstein lie, response no yes

    You have avoided the questions again. To repeat (and bold them)

    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?
    Yes.
    If he was suddenly asking about whether or not the building was covered if it was demolished, then they would be suspicious of such questions.
    They would be doubly so if the whole thing was so obviously a controlled demolition like you think it is.
    If you, someone who doesn't understand basic science and can't do a simple physics calculation can see it's a controlled demolition, then the insurance company could see that too.

    He was handing them information about the plot. You are trying to twist out of that claim because you've contradicted yourself and you can't admit to being wrong.

    So I think you're more like 10 or 11.
    That's the only explanation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Why are ye even entertaining this lad? He just ignores anything that goes against his opinion, constant deflection.
    Because it's really funny when he gets caught out, freaks out and throws a tantrum.
    It's also fascinating to watch how his beliefs and grasp on reality shift and loosen when faced with the silliness of his own theory.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes.
    If he was suddenly asking about whether or not the building was covered if it was demolished, then they would be suspicious of such questions.
    They would be doubly so if the whole thing was so obviously a controlled demolition like you think it is.
    If you, someone who doesn't understand basic science and can't do a simple physics calculation can see it's a controlled demolition, then the insurance company could see that too.

    He was handing them information about the plot. You are trying to twist out of that claim because you've contradicted yourself and you can't admit to being wrong.

    So I think you're more like 10 or 11.
    That's the only explanation.

    We know from one of FEMA reports there was no FDNY in WTC7 fighting fires between 3 pm and 5 pm. Building 7 collapsed at 5.20pm

    So why did Silverstein spokesperson lie that the pull it quote meant pull firefighters out?

    The excuse is WTC7 collapsed due to fires and lack of water and no firefighting effort. Silverstein is obviously lying so the question is why?

    And we know he phoned the insurance to ask would they pay if WTC7 was controlled demolition.

    Silverstein, and his son and daughter work at WTC complex and his family all show-up for work at 8 pm. On 9/11 the routine changed. Silverstein and his son and daughter all missed work for 8 pm. Silverstein, son and daughter were missing from work on 9/11 is evidence Silverstein had preknowledge the attack was going to happen that day. Silverstein claims his wife made an appointment with a dermatologist on the morning of 9/11 if you say so. He could easily have made an appointment for the weekend, his rich enough. When a person has preknowledge the first thing they do is protect the family. Son and Daughter worked on 88th floor, north tower they would have got killed on 9/11 if they showed up.

    We also know Silverstein leased the building in July 2001 from the Port Authority and made sure Terrorism was included in the policy. After 9/11 he sued the insurance company and looked for double the buildings were worth.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Copy pasta verbal diarrhea...

    And we know he phoned the insurance to ask would they pay if WTC7 was controlled demolition.
    So he handed them information about the plot.
    You said that's a silly notion. You just forgot your previous argument as you just copy paste them without thinking.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    So he handed them information about the plot.
    You said that's a silly notion. You just forgot your previous argument as you just copy paste them without thinking.

    What plot details did he give them:confused:

    He made an enquiry about the controlled demolition of WTC7 after a well publicised terrorist attack on 9/11. He likely said to them the building is now unstable. Will you guys pay me if we brought it down later?

    Why would the insurance company be suspicious of Silverstein? The US government claimed on 9/11 fires brought the building down, they had no reason to suspect foul play. You guys believe the US government version of events so why would an Insurance company be any different. It would be suicide for the insurance company to come out and side with truthers.


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


    Quoting a poster on International Skeptics.

    An interesting exchange between a lawyer and one of the security guys working the gate for flight 175 on 9-11. He states two knives were taken that day and one of them from a woman that had a scarf around her head. he apparently logged her name in a log book. Has anyone ever heard or seen this logbook in any evidence out there?

    Unknown women named logged, apparently Muslim had a knife boarding flight 175. What is the probability an innocent Muslim woman was carrying a knife to board a plane that got hijacked on 175?

    To read the deposition you find here.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12560934#post12560934


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


    Video breaking down some of the layer 2 info. Skip the James Woods info and go straight to the 9-minute info, more interesting and further proof of a 9/11 cover-up. You see a confidential secret lawyer document.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,943 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    So why did Silverstein spokesperson lie that the pull it quote meant pull firefighters out?

    You believe Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 secretly blown up (a theory you've hilariously adopted in only the past few days after claiming it was someone else)

    Because he "admitted" it on a national live TV broadcast and because he called his insurance company on the day

    So why hasn't the insurance company caught him then?

    I mean if that evidence is strong enough for you, why isn't is strong enough for them?

    These entire company, which is literally designed from the ground up to detect fraud, and here you are, you only need a few pieces of information

    Why aren't you contacting his insurance company with this incredible information??

    !!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,943 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    This entire thread is like an advertisement of why most sane people either dismiss truthers or ignore them entirely


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    if the firefighters had to pull it down (with wires/pulleys like other WTC buildings)


    WUT ?:confused:


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You believe Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 secretly blown up (a theory you've hilariously adopted in only the past few days after claiming it was someone else)

    Because he "admitted" it on a national live TV broadcast and because he called his insurance company on the day

    So why hasn't the insurance company caught him then?

    I mean if that evidence is strong enough for you, why isn't is strong enough for them?

    These entire company, which is literally designed from the ground up to detect fraud, and here you are, you only need a few pieces of information

    Why aren't you contacting his insurance company with this incredible information??

    !!

    You believe random fires on a few floors collapsed a 47 story building on 9/11.

    I believe the building came down by controlled demolition

    Opposite views. So obviously you not looking to find out did this and why?

    Someone had to send people there to do this pre 9/11.

    In truther world, Silverstein is a suspect and listed the reasons why he is.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This entire thread is like an advertisement of why most sane people either dismiss truthers or ignore them entirely

    This thread is for Darklord leaks. It now about Silverstein.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,943 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    WUT ?:confused:

    Several other damaged WTC buildings were pulled down with wires after 911

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmhPu0Ly4vA


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,943 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You believe random fires on a few floors collapsed a 47 story building on 9/11.

    Multiple investigations concluded that is what happened, which is supported by the consensus of engineering/architectural organisations and experts around the world.

    It's widely accepted, it's in print, everywhere. It's not like a 50/50 thing. It's not disputed except by a few truthers and isolated "experts"
    I believe the building came down by controlled demolition

    And people believe the world is flat. You personally might be convinced of it, but you don't present any reasonable argument or credible evidence. It appears it takes practically nothing for you to believe the most far-fetched implausible theory, but the entire scientific world couldn't convince you a building fell due to fire. Likewise the entire historical world couldn't convince you what happened in history.

    You have your own personal and psychological reasons for these bizarre beliefs


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Multiple investigations concluded that is what happened, which is supported by the consensus of engineering/architectural organisations and experts around the world.

    It's widely accepted, it's in print, everywhere. It's not like a 50/50 thing. It's not disputed except by a few truthers and isolated "experts"



    And people believe the world is flat. You personally might be convinced of it, but you don't present any reasonable argument or credible evidence. It appears it takes practically nothing for you to believe the most far-fetched implausible theory, but the entire scientific world couldn't convince you a building fell due to fire. Likewise the entire historical world couldn't convince you what happened in history.

    You have your own personal and psychological reasons for these bizarre beliefs

    Why do you keep posting false info?

    Researchers Ian Thomas and David Proe of Victoria University in Australia commented on NIST’s analysis of WTC 7. They conducted several standard fire tests on composite beams and found several major items in the analysis to be conflicting with their observations. They
    disagree with NIST’s final report.
    https://uwaterloo911.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/david-proe-and-ianthomas-wtc7-comments.pdf

    The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats also disagreed with NIST conclusions. It's an international body in the field of tall buildings and sustainable urban design.

    NIST claims the collapse started and initiated at column 79.. If there no collapse at column 79 the NIST study is worthless.
    470400.png

    http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf

    There more groups like this, but of course you have not read this info have you?


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


    From 9/11 site. Factual and true. This why the 9/11 truthers have been calling out NIST for 16 years.

    In their June 2004 report (and in the actual shop drawings*), NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders.

    Why would they do this? To know the answer, you need to understand NIST's collapse theory. This is how it goes:

    1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall fails at floor 13.
    2. Its failure causes the collapse of floors 13 through 6.
    3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckles and brings down the entire building.

    This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs.

    This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud


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


    August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
    At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yea, but you believe that Silverstein just handed over information about the plot.
    This was a notion you admitted was ridiculous when you forgot that you had previously made that argument.

    Spewing out more copy pasted factoids that you don't actually understand doesn't make you any less of a joke.
    It's the opposite in fact.

    So please go support these hackers
    Send them money.
    They might have a bridge to sell you.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yea, but you believe that Silverstein just handed over information about the plot.
    This was a notion you admitted was ridiculous when you forgot that you had previously made that argument.

    Spewing out more copy pasted factoids that you don't actually understand doesn't make you any less of a joke.
    It's the opposite in fact.

    So please go support these hackers
    Send them money.
    They might have a bridge to sell you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    That truth being that Larry Silverstein told his insurance company that hr planned to do a secret demolition, then admitted he did it on camera then the insurance company never once pointed out these things during the legal battle and didn't notice the "facts" you did despite you being completely ignorant of science, math and engineering?

    That about right?


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    That truth being that Larry Silverstein told his insurance company that hr planned to do a secret demolition, then admitted he did it on camera then the insurance company never once pointed out these things during the legal battle and didn't notice the "facts" you did despite you being completely ignorant of science, math and engineering?

    That about right?

    The way you make stuff up is hilarious.

    He made an enquiry about the controlled demolition of WTC7 on 9/11. That all we know. Are you claiming he told the insurance company about a secret plot?

    Yep, he lied about the pull it quote. I can provide proof, can you? I asked Dohnjoe for evidence firefighters were inside WTC7 battling fires. He ran away and accused me of deflection. If you believe Silverstein provide evidence?

    Silverstein, his Son and Daughter all decided to not show up for work at 8 am on 9/11. Even though every day it was an established routine to appear at work for 8 am. One family member missing from work is ok, all three missing from work on the day of the attacks, is suspicious.

    How would his insurance company prove the allegation? Darklord is leaking insurance documents maybe they did discuss, we have to wait and see.


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


    We know from Indigo leak that someone had preknowledge the attacks were coming.

    Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

    Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

    "I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender.

    Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya. It was sent to Israeli employees working in WTC towers.

    I not saying Israel was involved in 9/11, but would not surprise me if they knew the attack was coming.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5410231


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Oh ok. Got it now.

    He called to ask if he'd be covered on the day of the event. He couldn't do it before hand for some reason.
    And he didn't tell them, he just asked if hypothetically if the building was secretly demolished, if he'd be covered.
    And the insurance company just weren't as clever as you and didn't find that suspicious.
    Then Larry admitted it all on camera and the insurance company just missed that too.
    That makes much more sense and isn't like a plot hole in a child's fairy tale.

    Gosh you should point those things out to them. You might save them some money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Several other damaged WTC buildings were pulled down with wires after 911

    As in a regular demolition project of several weeks duration and with the normal safety and design approaches that would be used in any commercial arrangement ?

    I don't think that its possible that anyone (even the most experienced structural and demolition engineers) could have speculated as to the mechanism of demolition and removal of a building that was still sustaining ongoing fire damage on the day of the attack. No Crystal ball would be good enough directly the instruction "Pull it" on 9/11 into the subsequent project of pulling the building down with cables weeks later.

    There is enough scientific evidence to support the official line, and not really enough to rule out a few of the CTs.

    My own feelings on the whole situation is that there are too many blurred lines between the administration at the time (Bush Dynasty) and the house of Saud and too many conveniences and co-incidences for there not to have been some level of prior knowledge.

    Whether that was merely scenario and contingency planning that resulted in some sort of action plan in the event of a terrorist attack, (Saudi evacuation, etc)
    or
    Whether the whole thing had been set out as a co-ordinated action in order to create enough chaos for hundreds billions of dollars to be shifted around and allow emergency provisions to stop panic trading as a result of these movements

    Its all speculation at the end of the day. Blindly accepting the official line and arguing against peoples theories is just as putrid as the CT agression that goes on.

    Just be nice to everyone.:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    its all speculation at the end of the day. Blindly accepting the official line and arguing against peoples theories is just as putrid as the CT agression that goes on.

    Just be nice to everyone.:rolleyes:
    So do you argue with Cheerful when he claims that Larry Silverstein called his insurance company on the day to ask about his coverage while being involved in the plot, then later admitted to being involved in the plot on camera?

    If so, could you please explain how you make sense of that?
    If not, then maybe it's not productive to pretend that conspiracy theorists are proposing rational alternatives when they absolutely are not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    King Mob wrote: »
    So do you argue with Cheerful when he claims that Larry Silverstein called his insurance company on the day to ask about his coverage while being involved in the plot, then later admitted to being involved in the plot on camera?

    I agree with cheerful that its possible.

    I agree with you that its improbable.

    I'm 100% certain that Larry Silverstein is as shady as a snooker game on a black and white tv and is well enough connected to several equally shady parties to have had done things that he later had to cover up or deny.
    Follow the money. He has not ended up out of pocket one red cent from the events. If anything, he has gone on to make more profit from it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I agree with cheerful that its possible.

    I agree with you that its improbable.
    .
    Ok.
    So why would he call his insurance company the day of the plot to check if his ploy would work?

    Why would he then admit it on camera?
    Follow the money. He has not ended up out of pocket one red cent from the events. If anything, he has gone on to make more profit from it.
    But that's not true though.

    But that aside, why do you think the insurance company didn't point yo his apparent confession and suspicious phone call during the very lengthy court battle?

    You see you are pretending this theory is a reasonable thing to believe. But I guarantee you won't be able to supply sane answers to these very simple questions.
    And if you can't answer these basic questions about the theory, Why do you think it makes sense?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok.
    So why would he call his insurance company the day of the plot to check if his ploy would work?

    Why would he then admit it on camera?

    Arrogance, Ignorance, Fatigue, Inattention, Satisfaction, Sh1ts and giggles. Any or all of the above. Maybe just to make it look unlikely as if thats what he was doing, he already knew the answer.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not true though.
    Isn't it ?https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2018/06/21/real-estate-titan-larry-silverstein-on-the-opening-of-3-world-trade/#48a8b369130f

    King Mob wrote: »
    But that aside, why do you think the insurance company didn't point to his apparent confession and suspicious phone call during the very lengthy court battle?
    for the same reason that I'm ignoring it. It's hearsay, conjecture, inconclusive and not valid in a court of law. It only serves to create more doubts and questions as you have clearly demonstrated. Without all the information its conjecture.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You see you are pretending this theory is a reasonable thing to believe. But I guarantee you won't be able to supply sane answers to these very simple questions.

    Its not unreasonable. There is nothing to conclusively disprove it. There are sufficient doubts about the mode of failure for the entire report to be a cover up. Particularly as the company responsible for construction of WTC7 the first time, conveniently winning the contracts for the rebuild (Now owned by Aecom)
    King Mob wrote: »
    And if you can't answer these basic questions about the theory, Why do you think it makes sense?


    It seems to me that you have this soft trust approach when it comes to the establishments and institutions that run countries. I think its a bit naive.


    The theory that makes sense is that there is a relatively small cabal at the top of the food chain here that will do as they please with other peoples money (taxpayers, investors etc.) and every time it becomes clear that the books are cooked as fook, there will be some convenient conflict, terrorist attack or major fear campaign that will divert attention for long enough to patch it up pay off the "independent" auditors and monitors and create a new opportunity market to suck in more suckers to feed the machine.

    Some people think that the likes of GW Bush and Trump are the big bad wolves in these situations, but they are literally the rodeo clowns and court jesters. The real action is the Kushners, Cheneys, Rumsfelds, DeVos and it is entirely conceivable (and probable) that they co-operate, co-ordinate and conspire to manipulate all manner of "government" departments to their benefit.


Advertisement