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
1234579

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Not a true at all. NIST hadn't got the time to fix and change their computer simulation of progressive collapse and you can see clearly the errors are still there in their model and have not been fixed even after the updated revision. Kingmob does not understand this. If you look at their model the Northwest wall the column supports and floors are still there supporting in stage 2 of collapse. They did a sleight of hand and just wrote a bunch of words claiming freefall was consistent with our earlier findings.

    The slow buckling failures from east to west were pulling in the walls and crushing the structure and walls when it fell. NIST theory about the collapse is junk even their own model does not support it. Never mind we know they modelled the failure without the proper connections and they wanted it to fail.

    They also didn’t have infinite time to release their study and the FEA was only one part of it. Yeah, the model is inaccurate. Doesn’t mean they’re wrong about the root cause of failure. Like your Dr. Hulsey alleged, they modeled the walls as fixed/rigid - hence why they look so weird and contorted in the model, they had no give to locally buckle etc.

    None of this relates to insurance files however.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    What does what you’re referring to have to do with the Darklord group? They hacked insurance files, right, reportedly 10 gigabytes of insurance documents. What is going to possibly be in the insurance documents that would support the theory that the attacks were an inside job?

    James Wood leak when completely over your heads again.

    He identified 4 men together on flight 11 August 2001. From the info, he got only two are known 9/11 hijackers. The other two men are not on the list of the 19 released by the FBI in 2001. Who are they then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,650 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    So no evidence and another thread derailed by the resident truther into a smearing of NIST and the official story.

    FFS CS, every single time!
    If there is such an undercurrent of truther support for the conspiracy.
    I find it hard to believe that a fund raising exercise amongst you all couldn't raise enough to pique this Hacker groups interest?
    $2million in BTC is a lot, but surely experts in pulling apart evidence such as the "truther" movement could surely dig up either some leverage on this group to lower the price?
    Or better yet a truther with negotiating experience?

    But in the grand scheme of things, another way to look at this is...
    According to you "Evidence" exists in the files!
    Yet despite the urgent need to prove the "truther" stance correct and the official narrative a cover up...
    No truther group has made any concerted effort to ensure the release of the documents?
    Why not?

    Could it be that there is more money to made by those peddling the lie, if ambiguity and uncertainty are left out there as a maybe?
    Rather than finding the holy grail backs up the official narrative?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    James Wood leak when completely over your heads again.

    He identified 4 men together on flight 11 August 2001. From the info, he got only two are known 9/11 hijackers. The other two men are not on the list of the 19 released by the FBI in 2001. Who are they then?

    You tell us.
    It's your theory.
    Who are they and/or how does their existence indicate that your theory is true.

    You need to outline this before anyone will take the claim seriously.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    James Wood leak when completely over your heads again.

    He identified 4 men together on flight 11 August 2001. From the info, he got only two are known 9/11 hijackers. The other two men are not on the list of the 19 released by the FBI in 2001. Who are they then?
    Unless their names are on the insurance documents obtained by the Darklord group what relevancy is it to this thread?


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    They also didn’t have infinite time to release their study and the FEA was only one part of it. Yeah, the model is inaccurate. Doesn’t mean they’re wrong about the root cause of failure. Like your Dr. Hulsey alleged, they modeled the walls as fixed/rigid - hence why they look so weird and contorted in the model, they had no give to locally buckle etc.

    None of this relates to insurance files however.

    Root cause is column 79. A girder slipping off its seat by thermal expansion.

    NIST claims the girder was fully unsupported (proven lie) and fire expanded the beam to the east. With stiffness, web plate and shear studs that not going to happen and moving off its seat would require enormous force with its support attached. The girder is braced up against a steel beam there not a lot of space to move to the east and slid off. They also showed no evidence this even realistic and there no studies that show this can be done. I showed you the Carrington Tests and beam just began to sag unsupported and did not fall down and temps were about 400c higher.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Pretty obvious why you need patsies. The buildings came down by controlled demolition. Look strange if they just collapsed on their own and there no terrorists :)

    You're avoiding answering the questions or outlining your own theory

    I'll number the questions so you can reply to each directly (just use the numbers to reply)

    1. You claim that a group of terrorists were funded by the CIA, Saudis and Pakistanis, who were they?

    2. What did they do?

    3. Why did they do it?

    4. You claim another group of terrorists were "patsies", who were they?

    5. What did that group do?

    6. Why did they do it?

    I'm not even asking for evidence here, just basic questions about your own theory because it seems to be purposefully vague


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Unless their names are on the insurance documents obtained by the Darklord group what relevancy is it to this thread?

    They are not 9/11 hijackers and they free and still out there or the names listed by the FBI are wrong. Who are they then?

    They were middle eastern men they fit the description.

    This leak also reveals something new. The FBI claimed the men never met up or interacted with each other, the 9/11 cells kept apart till 9/11.

    This is false. One of the guys is a hijacker for flight 175 the other Flight 77.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Root cause is column 79. A girder slipping off its seat by thermal expansion.

    NIST claims the girder was fully unsupported (proven lie) and fire expanded the beam to the east. With stiffness, web plate and shear studs that not going to happen and moving off its seat would require enormous force with its support attached. The girder is braced up against a steel beam there not a lot of space to move to the east and slid off. They also showed no evidence this even realistic and there no studies that show this can be done. I showed you the Carrington Tests and beam just began to sag unsupported and did not fall down and temps were about 400c higher.

    This has nothing to do with the Darklord Hacker group or the insurance documents they claim to have obtained.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    They are not 9/11 hijackers and they free and still out there or the names listed by the FBI are wrong. Who are they then?

    They were middle eastern men they fit the description.

    This leak also reveals something new. The FBI claimed the men never met up or interacted with each other, the 9/11 cells kept apart till 9/11.

    This is false. One of the guys is a hijacker for flight 175 the other Flight 77.

    This has nothing to do with the Darklord Hacker group or the insurance documents they claim to have obtained.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    This has nothing to do with the Darklord Hacker group or the insurance documents they claim to have obtained.

    Not True. The James woods confidential testimony was never seen until the leaks. You get all the backstory and questions by lawyers. This information was not known before.

    The leaks also helped us get a better understanding of who this guy is.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bayoumi He worked for Saudi civil aviation company. Planes and travel was his business. FBI believes he is a Saudi spy.

    There could be a link there to the hijackers training ie planes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Not True. The James woods confidential testimony was never seen until the leaks. You get all the backstory and questions by lawyers. This information was not known before.

    The leaks also helped us get a better understanding of who this guy is.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bayoumi He worked for Saudi civil aviation company. Planes and travel was his business. FBI believes he is a Saudi spy.

    There could be a link there to the hijackers training ie planes.

    How would that be in the insurance documents?

    This James Woods testimony was in the Darklord material?


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    How would that be in the insurance documents? Quite a reach.

    There were insurance claims against the airlines and other entities. The lawyers will want to find out what security warnings they were given pre 9/11, employee failures on 9/11, were machines working correctly on 9/11 to scan for guns and knives, did the hijackers have inside help, there lot you investigate and try to find out if money and paid outs are involved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    There were insurance claims against the airlines and other entities. The lawyers will want to find out what security warnings they were given pre 9/11, employee failures on 9/11, were machines working correctly on 9/11 to scan for guns and knives, did the hijackers have inside help, there lot you investigate and try to find out if money and paid outs are involved.

    They used boxcutters, though. Security was a completely different dog and pony show before 9/11.

    I just find it really hard to believe that now we're expanding the conspiracy to insurance companies, and nobody would reveal information that proves 9/11 is an inside job? What is the count now, a couple hundred thousand conspirators?


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    This James Woods testimony was in the Darklord material?

    Yep, lawyers questioning him about his incident in August 2001.

    We only had this short brief video description of his experience before this leak.



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


    Overheal wrote: »
    They used boxcutters, though. Security was a completely different dog and pony show before 9/11.

    I just find it really hard to believe that now we're expanding the conspiracy to insurance companies, and nobody would reveal information that proves 9/11 is an inside job? What is the count now, a couple hundred thousand conspirators?

    Few hundred why so?

    Neocons - could be a low number around 5 to 10 powerful influential persons with military and business ties
    Demolition- 8 to 15 guys- plenty of time to do it pre 9/11.
    Saudis- 5 to 10 Royals and Diplomats
    Pakistan IS1- one or two generals are linked to the terrorists.
    Your Hijackers and Bin Laden. 19 alleged guys.

    Cover up later is very different. Political pressure from the White House.
    NIST lied
    False statements by 9/11 commission

    I don't disagree about airport security pre 9/11 still these are lawyers looking for classified and confidential information never seen by the public. There new information to be found.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Few hundred why so?

    Neocons - could be a low number around 5 to 10 powerful influential persons with military and business ties
    Demolition- 8 to 15 guys- plenty of time to do it pre 9/11.
    Saudis- 5 to 10 Royals and Diplomats
    Pakistan IS1- one or two generals are linked to the terrorists.
    Your Hijackers and Bin Laden. 19 alleged guys.

    Cover up later is very different. Political pressure from the White House.
    NIST lied
    False statements by 9/11 commission

    I don't disagree about airport security pre 9/11 still these are lawyers looking for classified and confidential information never seen by the public. There new information to be found.
    Well you also need all of those people's aids, the people who developed the explosionless explosives, the people who tirelessly calculated how to topple 3 buildings (but only damage WTC 5 a little bit, because reasons), all the fake eye witnesses, the fake crisis actors, the fake rubble workers, the people who were on the real planes that didn't get destroyed, the people who moved the lampposts (the previously aforementioned 'lamp'posters'), the fake hijackers, James Wood's itinerary manager (to make sure he would see the hijackers and tell people about it you see), the hijackers of course, the CIA, the FBI, all the workers at the Pentagon, United Airlines, American Airlines, the NTSB, NIST, FEMA, heck maybe even ASME ASCE and a bunch of other engineering organizations, and colleges and universities training engineers in bogus science that both gets spacecraft to Mars but doesn't let them piece together the real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, did I mention the FAA? The FAA, all the hotels and private entities that might have had CCTV footage overlooking the pentagon, but NOT any of the people in NYC who videotaped the WTC, Jon Stewart (because he saw it), I could go on. It's clearly a lot of folks and resources just to kill 3 or 4 thousand people as a pretext to go to war.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    And think of how much restraint it has taken the US Military to not use a technology so disruptive to warfare as explosionless explosives???


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,650 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Overheal wrote: »
    And think of how much restraint it has taken the US Military to not use a technology so disruptive to warfare as explosionless explosives???

    The savings it would generate in ear protection alone would be enormous!

    Not to sound facetious, but the benefits of silent/low noise explosives as weapons of war and intimidation would be huge!
    Couple that with savings in VA healthcare for the US administration and it's a sure fire winner.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    banie01 wrote: »
    The savings it would generate in ear protection alone would be enormous!

    Not to sound facetious, but the benefits of silent/low noise explosives as weapons of war and intimidation would be huge!
    Couple that with savings in VA healthcare for the US administration and it's a sure fire winner.

    You could conduct raids at night without warning, half the enemy force would still be asleep.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,650 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Overheal wrote: »
    You could conduct raids at night without warning, half the enemy force would still be asleep.

    Well you could, but they only needed for that one time use and like all other technology... ;)
    Sure when it's out of the bottle it's easy just to keep a lid on it. :P

    Not like espionage exists.

    Or indeed innovation based upon the fact that now it's a known possiblity to silently make stuff go boom
    Leading to research by others to approximate similar technology.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Well you also need all of those people's aids, the people who developed the explosionless explosives, the people who tirelessly calculated how to topple 3 buildings (but only damage WTC 5 a little bit, because reasons), all the fake eye witnesses, the fake crisis actors, the fake rubble workers, the people who were on the real planes that didn't get destroyed, the people who moved the lampposts (the previously aforementioned 'lamp'posters'), the fake hijackers, James Wood's itinerary manager (to make sure he would see the hijackers and tell people about it you see), the hijackers of course, the CIA, the FBI, all the workers at the Pentagon, United Airlines, American Airlines, the NTSB, NIST, FEMA, heck maybe even ASME ASCE and a bunch of other engineering organizations, and colleges and universities training engineers in bogus science that both gets spacecraft to Mars but doesn't let them piece together the real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, did I mention the FAA? The FAA, all the hotels and private entities that might have had CCTV footage overlooking the pentagon, but NOT any of the people in NYC who videotaped the WTC, Jon Stewart (because he saw it), I could go on. It's clearly a lot of folks and resources just to kill 3 or 4 thousand people as a pretext to go to war.

    1) Demolition teams will have the skills and devised plans to bring the buildings down.

    2) Accepted point. Still, they may have secured the explosives from a private lab and just changed the computer filing to hide it. Military hardware goes missing all the time in the black covert world and you never hear about it.

    3) Eyewitnesses can often be influenced by what they hear from other people. Truthers did a study and they found only 17 eyewitnesses reported the plane hit light poles, it's within the margin of error- when over 140 people saw a plane. They may be right I not sure I just highlighting other eyewitnesses say the plane never hit light poles. I am more positive about the buildings then I about the Pentagon attacks on 9/11

    4) Fake Rubble workers, not sure what you meant by this?

    5) Fake Crisis actors- who are you talking about?

    6) Never said there was nobody on the plane and can't be flight 77. My theory was it hit from another direction the northeast not the southwest

    7) Fake Hijackers nope just the list of names and the photographs may be a wrong big difference.

    8) Airlines involved never said this. NTSB data was released by the FBI and was not released by the airlines.

    9) why would anyone believe the CIA, knowing their history?

    10) NIST lied a fact. It just mainstream groups tend to trust institutions and don't believe they lie. We know this not true. Some people feel comfortable believing this helps them sleep at night. Anywho names the universities teaching students about the WTC7 collapse. They never released their input data for peer review and how do you assess if it's correct?. It's nicely written put together work on paper but has no practical use for students.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    And think of how much restraint it has taken the US Military to not use a technology so disruptive to warfare as explosionless explosives???

    Not sure what you mean by no noise. You hear noise and floors popping out when the towers fell. You even see the squibs from demolitions on floors beneath.

    See those air pressure blowouts they are called squibs.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Not sure what you mean by no noise. You hear noise and floors popping out when the towers fell. You even see the squibs from demolitions on floors beneath.

    See those air pressure blowouts they are called squibs.


    Those are from the pancaking of floors yes. If they were from an explosive they would be far larger and more expansive. The energy release required to demolish the buildings would generate noise far in excess of the noise heard of the structure crumbling on itself. - enough to shatter glass on neighboring buildings, etc.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Those are from the pancaking of floors yes. If they were from an explosive they would be far larger and more expansive. The energy release required to demolish the buildings would generate noise far in excess of the noise heard of the structure crumbling on itself. - enough to shatter glass on neighboring buildings, etc.

    Dust was pancaking floors? You hear clearly the demolitions going off and the building started to fall. You even see squibs on floors untouched by the collapse. That why the building kept accelerating and did not meet resistance and jolt back.

    Squib- is air pressure and debris been forced out from demolitions going off.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,650 ✭✭✭✭banie01



    See those air pressure blowouts they are called squibs.

    That is not what a squib is.
    A squib is a small explosive often used in demolition as a precursor or detonator for a larger explosion.
    It's quite often used in quarrying.

    Another common use for the word squib, is as a special effects explosive blood pack to give a gory bullet impact effect.

    Squib is not used as a descriptor for air pressure blow outs!


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    great example of an actual demolition - you can see where the camera is rocked when the explosion takes place - you can also see where the glass on neighboring buildings experiences a shockwave. Why did none of the buildings nearby WTC7 exhibit similar glass shockwaves when it fell? Why did none of the cameras that witnessed the collapse experience any short of shockwave, which we'd be able to see as a sudden vibration of the camera?

    https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/implosion-shatters-windows-in-downtown-jacksonville/907398993


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


    banie01 wrote: »
    That is not what a squib is.
    A squib is a small explosive often used in demolition as a precursor or detonator for a larger explosion.
    It's quite often used in quarrying.

    Another common use for the word squib, is as a special effects explosive blood pack to give a gory bullet impact effect.

    Squib is not used as a descriptor for air pressure blow outs!

    What causing the blowouts - if not the squibs. If you going to dismiss this have an alternative explanation handy:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Squib- is air pressure and debris been forced out from demolitions going off.

    No.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    What causing the blowouts - if not the squibs. If you going to dismiss this have an alternative explanation handy:)

    The explanation has been given: air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.


Advertisement