Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2019 9:23pm

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?

Cheerful Spring · 13-01-2019 9:32pm

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

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

RocketRaccoon · 13-01-2019 9:38pm

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

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2019 10:08pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did he how so

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.

Cheerful Spring · 13-01-2019 10:17pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2019 11:43pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 12:07am

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?

Dohnjoe · 14-01-2019 12:21am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 12:32am

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?

Dohnjoe · 14-01-2019 12:42am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 12:58am

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

Dohnjoe · 14-01-2019 1:11am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

King Mob · 14-01-2019 2:37am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did he how so

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.

King Mob · 14-01-2019 2:40am

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 5:51pm

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.

King Mob · 14-01-2019 5:55pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 6:25pm

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

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.

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 7:21pm

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

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 7:43pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 14-01-2019 10:23pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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??

!!

Dohnjoe · 14-01-2019 10:34pm

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

AngryHippie · 14-01-2019 10:43pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

WUT ?

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 10:58pm

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.

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 11:00pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 14-01-2019 11:06pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

WUT ?

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

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

Dohnjoe · 14-01-2019 11:13pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 11:34pm

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.

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?

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 11:54pm

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

Cheerful Spring · 14-01-2019 11:58pm

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.

King Mob · 15-01-2019 12:04am

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.

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 12:06am

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.

King Mob · 15-01-2019 12:16am

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?

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 12:35am

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.

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 12:48am

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

King Mob · 15-01-2019 1:01am

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.

AngryHippie · 15-01-2019 1:09am

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:

King Mob · 15-01-2019 1:17am

AngryHippie wrote: »

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.

AngryHippie · 15-01-2019 2:05am

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.

King Mob · 15-01-2019 2:17am

AngryHippie wrote: »

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?

AngryHippie wrote: »

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?

AngryHippie · 15-01-2019 3:48am

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.

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 8:37am

AngryHippie wrote: »

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

Agree 100 per cent, good post-Angry hippie.

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 8:42am

Check out the movie Vice about Dick Cheney. You get the real story about Rumsfield and Cheney.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6266538/

King Mob · 15-01-2019 11:28am

AngryHippie wrote: »

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.

Lol. Ok let's get this straight.
You are proposing that Larry Silverstien was involved with the biggest crime in American history, aided whoever did it for months, if not years...
But he only then checked with his insurance company the day of the event?
Because he was "inattentive" or "tired" or "ignorant" or he thought it would be funny.

That's silly.

Similarly, it's silly to the point of parody that you would suggest that he would be in front of the camera, then just admit to being part of the biggest crime in American history by accident.

And it's absolutely boggling that you would suggest that he admitted to the crime to steer suspicion away from him and still expect to be taken anyway seriously.

FFS. I thought you had more sense than Cheerful...

AngryHippie wrote: »

Isn't it ?

No.

AngryHippie wrote: »

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.

But it's not hearsay or conjecture according to the conspiracy theorists you are defending.
The video of him saying his "confession" is freely available and easy to find.
Allegedly he was calling them directly and asking about controlled demolition. They would have a record of that call, the testimony of the person who took it and possibly even a recording of it. On top of that, they had witnesses where Larry was, cause apparently he didn't even make the call in private all that much.

And then there's all the "evidence" it was a controlled demolition.
If someone like cheerful can crack the conspiracy there, people working in skyscraper insurance are probably smarter, more qualified and more capable who could also figure this out. They would point to all of these things while they were fighting Larry in court.
It's silly to suggest they wouldn't if they were all true.

But they aren't true.

AngryHippie wrote: »

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.

What have I posted that gives that impression?
That I dare question silly conspiracy theories? That I don't immediately believe what I'm told from youtube?

AngryHippie wrote: »

The theory that makes sense is that there is a relatively small cabal ...

That's great. But that's not the conspiracy theory that's being promoted.
We have people promoting stuff like space laser and holographic planes and literal ****ing magic all on this forum alone.

The conspiracy theorist you are leaping to the defense of is proposing that WTC7 was demolished by a team of 8 people working over a weekend using an experimental nano material explosive that can explode silently.
They did this so that they could destroy paperwork contained within WTC7. (Literal actually paper paperwork.) And when asked why they couldn't just take the paperwork while setting the networks of experimental top secret nano explosives, Cheerful states that doing so would be "Too obvious."

Among many many other claims...

Do you think that theory is true?

You seem like you can string two sentences together, so by rights you should be able to see why such a thing is ridiculous.
But if you think the above theory is "possible" or "reasonable", then you need to check those definitions...

jochenstacker · 15-01-2019 12:22pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

Regards the " jet fuel doesn't melt steel", I would be very interested in knowing who carried out the alleged "controlled demolition" of the WTC?
To bring down such a building in a controlled manner, you need an extremely experienced demolition firm.
They would need access to the blueprints. A lot of planning where to plant the explosives.
Plus they would need to know exactly where the building would be struck by the airplanes. : rolleyes:
Then the building would be gutted and structurally weakened, i.e. drilled full of holes.
Then several tonnes of explosives would have to be planted around the place and wired up with miles of det cord.
Isn't it absolutely marvelous that all this took place without disturbing a single inch of wallpaper and without the thousands of people working there seeing it hearing a single thing?
And not a single person out of the hundreds that would have to be in on this conspiracy have come forward?
In a country where they can't even keep the situation room in the bloody White House leak free?

My assessment of the theroy of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?
Dribbling, tinfoil hat, bouncing of rubber walls nonsense.

King Mob · 15-01-2019 12:30pm

jochenstacker wrote: »

Regards the " jet fuel doesn't melt steel", I would be very interested in knowing who carried out the alleged "controlled demolition" of the WTC?
To bring down such a building in a controlled manner, you need an extremely experienced demolition firm.
They would need access to the blueprints. A lot of planning where to plant the explosives.
Plus they would need to know exactly where the building would be struck by the airplanes. : rolleyes:
Then the building would be gutted and structurally weakened, i.e. drilled full of holes.
Then several tonnes of explosives would have to be planted around the place and wired up with miles of det cord.
Isn't it absolutely marvelous that all this took place without disturbing a single inch of wallpaper and without the thousands of people working there seeing it hearing a single thing?
And not a single person out of the hundreds that would have to be in on this conspiracy have come forward?
In a country where they can't even keep the situation room in the bloody White House leak free?

My assessment of the theroy of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?
Dribbling, tinfoil hat, bouncing of rubber walls nonsense.

Yet, according to our resident conspiracy theorist it only took 8 people a weekend.

Dohnjoe · 15-01-2019 12:37pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

Its all speculation at the end of the day.

It's one of the most studied and examined events of the 21st century, so it's fairly well known about. Hundreds of investigators, experts, structural engineers agreeing on the cause of an event across multiple investigations - backed by overwhelmingly consensus by their peers, adoption by building standards, incorporated into building safety, being taught in engineering departments in universities around the world, etc isn't really "speculation"

And it's certainly not the same speculation that surrounds the many far-fetched conspiracy theories that have cropped up over the years, I've counted around 2 dozen of so in the past 10 years. So far none of which have anything approaching credible evidence (most, if not all, significant Western terrorist events and major shootings in the past 20 years have their own "spin-off" conspiracy theories)

If you would like to present one, with sound evidence, I made a thread specifically for that

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 2:31pm

jochenstacker wrote: »

Regards the " jet fuel doesn't melt steel", I would be very interested in knowing who carried out the alleged "controlled demolition" of the WTC?
To bring down such a building in a controlled manner, you need an extremely experienced demolition firm.
They would need access to the blueprints. A lot of planning where to plant the explosives.
Plus they would need to know exactly where the building would be struck by the airplanes. : rolleyes:
Then the building would be gutted and structurally weakened, i.e. drilled full of holes.
Then several tonnes of explosives would have to be planted around the place and wired up with miles of det cord.
Isn't it absolutely marvelous that all this took place without disturbing a single inch of wallpaper and without the thousands of people working there seeing it hearing a single thing?
And not a single person out of the hundreds that would have to be in on this conspiracy have come forward?
In a country where they can't even keep the situation room in the bloody White House leak free?

My assessment of the theroy of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?
Dribbling, tinfoil hat, bouncing of rubber walls nonsense.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane and there was no jet fuel.
Access to blueprints no problem if it was inside job.
False, you don't need to wire the building if they used a remote detonator cord. Wireless Demolition was available in 2001.
Several tonnes of explosive false? Wrong all they need to do it break the columns that support the steel beams and girders. Once you break the columns floor support collapses.
Who claimed they did during the day? An empty building at night easily done.
Hundreds false again. 20 to 30 people at most. That number can easily be managed.
Collapsing a building in secret you don't have to be worrying about costs, safety and the environment.
Kingmob is lying. Nanothermite is not RDX or dynamite. It a revolutionary new explosive found in WTC7 dust. Scientists wrote a paper about this discovery

Dohnjoe · 15-01-2019 2:41pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

WTC7 was not hit by a plane and there was no jet fuel.
Access to blueprints no problem if it was inside job.
False, you don't need to wire the building if they used a remote detonator cord. Wireless Demolition was available in 2001.
Several tonnes of explosive false? Wrong all they need to do it break the columns that support the steel beams and girders. Once you break the columns floor support collapses.
Who claimed they did during the day? An empty building at night easily done.
Hundreds false again. 20 to 30 people at most. That number can easily be managed.
Collapsing a building in secret you don't have to be worrying about costs, safety and the environment.
Kingmob is lying. Nanothermite is not RDX or dynamite. It a revolutionary new explosive found in WTC7 dust. Scientists wrote a paper about this discovery

All personal speculation, no evidence

Can apply this to any event to reach any outcome

Dohnjoe · 15-01-2019 2:54pm

Still waiting for someone to explain (using normal objective logic) how Larry Silverstein secretly blew up his own 47 story building in the center of New York, with silent explosives, had inside knowledge of 911, was part of that gigantic plot, fooled and defrauded his insurers, fooled all the investigators and structural engineers, essentially fooled the world (including hostile governments and their intelligence agencies)

With evidence of it.

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 2:56pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

All personal speculation, no evidence

Can apply this to any event to reach any outcome

It not personal speculation. We have pictures of the nano-thermite red/grey chips found in dust after the building collapsed.

Professor Harrit discovered when he heated the chips at a low temp of 450c, the chips spiked in energy to a temp above 1500c.. Standard thermite does not spike at low temp. The red/grey chips is definitely some new explosive and had to be manufactured. What else can be if not nano-thermite?

Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Comments