Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

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?

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 3:07pm

There was a debate about the red/chips on International Skeptics forum. Between Resident 9/11 Skeptic Oystein and Jay Howard a 9/11 truther. Jay Howard won the debate, in my opinion, but I am biased.. I think he soundly proved the red/grey chips are nanothermite

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289588

Dohnjoe · 15-01-2019 3:30pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

Nope, unscientific tests, not accepted by any consensus outside of truther groups, doesn't tie Larry Silverstein to the collapse in any way

Dohnjoe · 15-01-2019 3:34pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There was a debate about the red/chips on International Skeptics forum. Between Resident 9/11 Skeptic Oystein and Jay Howard a 9/11 truther. Jay Howard won the debate, in my opinion, but I am biased.. I think he soundly proved the red/grey chips are nanothermite

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289588

You didn't answer earlier

1. According to you, who was involved in 911?

2. Why does this change all the time? (In comparison to the widely accepted version)

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 3:55pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, unscientific tests, not accepted by any consensus outside of truther groups, doesn't tie Larry Silverstein to the collapse in any way

Only a few scientists have asked to test the chips and they agreed the chips were nanothermite. You seem to think the scientific community is aware of these findings, and peer review papers exist debunking this. Universities often have government contracts so they are afraid to go near this.

Its real science. Professor Harrist is a credentialed scientist who worked at a real university in Denmark. Just because he found something you disagree with it he suddenly a flake.

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 4:10pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You didn't answer earlier

1. According to you, who was involved in 911?

2. Why does this change all the time? (In comparison to the widely accepted version)

Prince Bandar, Prince Turki and some unknown Saudi royals. Saudi intelligence and Saudi civil aviation officials also involved. The 9/11 hijackers were not Al Qaeda they were CIA mujahedeen. Selected and trained on flight simulators to fly planes on 9/11. They likely operated out of covert mercenary blackwater base when they arrived in the United States. They were seen at different locations in Florida and Las Vegas.

Rumsfield was involved probably planned it with Prince Bandar. Businessmen and military figures also involved.

Dohnjoe · 15-01-2019 4:22pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Prince Bandar, Prince Turki and some unknown Saudi royals. Saudi intelligence and Saudi civil aviation officials also involved. The 9/11 hijackers were not Al Qaeda they were CIA mujahedeen. Selected and trained on flight simulators to fly planes on 9/11. They likely operated out of covert mercenary blackwater base when they arrived in the United States. They were seen at different locations in Florida and Las Vegas.

Rumsfield was involved probably planned it with Prince Bandar. Businessmen and military figures also involved.

Thanks for the direct answer. I should add if you prefaced this as your opinion then you could speculate. But you keep prefacing it as fact

So far the list of those behind the attacks according to you is as follows

1. Saudi Royals
2. Saudi Officials
3. CIA Muhajadeen (not Al Qaeda)
4. Rumsfeld
5. Larry Silverstein (your claim)
6. The BBC (informed of the attack but covered that up, lied)
7. Bush (your claim in the past I believe)
8. US military
9. Various businessmen

And just to check, the below definitely weren't involved according to you?

1. Any firefighters or firechiefs
2. Any air traffic control staff
3. NORAD
4. Cheney
5. Mossad
6. NIST investigators
7. The airlines
8. Witnesses (often included in the conspiracy as paid witnesses)
9. Relatives of victims

Cheerful Spring · 15-01-2019 7:27pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Thanks for the direct answer. I should add if you prefaced this as your opinion then you could speculate. But you keep prefacing it as fact

So far the list of those behind the attacks according to you is as follows

1. Saudi Royals
2. Saudi Officials
3. CIA Muhajadeen (not Al Qaeda)
4. Rumsfeld
5. Larry Silverstein (your claim)
6. The BBC (informed of the attack but covered that up, lied)
7. Bush (your claim in the past I believe)
8. US military
9. Various businessmen

And just to check, the below definitely weren't involved according to you?

1. Any firefighters or firechiefs
2. Any air traffic control staff
3. NORAD
4. Cheney
5. Mossad
6. NIST investigators
7. The airlines
8. Witnesses (often included in the conspiracy as paid witnesses)
9. Relatives of victims

Check on first 5

BBC wrong never said that.

Bush, It possible he knew. I don't rule it out? Nothing concrete to prove he was involved.

US Military. Some Generals yes, enlisted men very few if any.

Various Businessmen. Yes.

Next list.
Air Traffic control- no
Norad- Yes only the decision makers, again Generals.
Cheney- Possible I don't rule it out.
Mossad- Not much evidence except for the Mossad agents caught filming the first tower when hit.

NIST investigators- Cover up yes after the 9/11 attacks.
Airline- Cover up protecting their own ass, about the extent of it.
Witnesses- Paid Eyewitnesses? Clarification needed.
Relative of Victims. Involved in what?

Dohnjoe · 15-01-2019 8:53pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Check on first 5

BBC wrong never said that.

I thought you claimed that the BBC was informed that building 7 was going to fall and then reported it and then lied about it after

US Military. Some Generals yes, enlisted men very few if any.

So you are confirmed that US generals knew, which ones?

Various Businessmen. Yes.

Okay, which businessmen?

NIST investigators- Cover up yes after the 9/11 attacks.

Okay the NIST investigation involved around 200 people, they were involved?

Cheerful Spring · 16-01-2019 1:25am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I thought you claimed that the BBC was informed that building 7 was going to fall and then reported it and then lied about it after

So you are confirmed that US generals knew, which ones?

Okay, which businessmen?

Okay the NIST investigation involved around 200 people, they were involved?

BBC reported on it yes, ahead of time. Lied about it after never said that.

Take too much time to go over this with you.

The Corbett report on Youtube lists the main suspects involved in 9/11. It better if you watch his videos. He details the many reasons they are suspects.

This is just one video to get you started.

We don't know who the 200 people are. It number that can't be looked into. NIST has stifled debate and does not allow any of these people to speak about their time working on this project... They have gotten away this for 11 years.

Cheerful Spring · 16-01-2019 1:29am

This a good video about 9/11 conspiracy in under five minutes, and fun watch.

Cheerful Spring · 16-01-2019 1:54am

9/11 Hijackers, Visas were Issued by the CIA - US Consulate in Jeddah Saudi Arabia. Red flag.

Micheal Springman a whistleblower came out and said this operation was still ongoing since the Soviet and Afghanistan war.

Springmann was "ordered by high-level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants". Springmann states that these applicants were terrorist recruits of Osama Bin Laden, who were being sent to the United States in order to obtain training from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

King Mob · 16-01-2019 2:19am

Lol given up on the hackers since they're not delivering anything?
Or just desperate to ptetend to be educated and informed?

Cheerful Spring · 16-01-2019 3:06am

King Mob wrote: »

Lol given up on the hackers since they're not delivering anything?
Or just desperate to ptetend to be educated and informed?

:cool:

Dohnjoe · 16-01-2019 11:50am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Take too much time to go over this with you.

Why do you think you have such difficulty outlining your own theory? (we haven't even got to the basic reasoning, let alone evidence to support all this yet)

Why do you think your theory changes so much?

There are hundreds of youtube videos with different combinations, only one sequence of events is correct, how are you certain yours is the right one?

jochenstacker · 17-01-2019 10:23pm

I love how nutcase theories need no proof other than "scientists say", "a government department ordered", "the CIA something something".
And never a single shred of proof.
What next? Alien lizards?

Shanotheslayer · 08-03-2019 8:22am

So did the next layer get revealed yet?...

I'm more of a lurker than a poster here. Read through the last 5 pages or so.

I'm going to guess no

Cheerful Spring · 08-03-2019 10:04pm

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

So did the next layer get revealed yet?...

I'm more of a lurker than a poster here. Read through the last 5 pages or so.

I'm going to guess no

They looking for money they have not got yet. They, not Wikileaks they are crime cyber group.

Layer 5 is a 2 million bitcoin, Crazy amount of money.

. 9/11 papers they released got them taken off Reddit and Twitter and Semmit blockchain. Even a site in the dark web was shut down.

Cheerful Spring · 08-03-2019 10:11pm

Layer_1.container – 5.000 USD of BTC (All Layer 1 Documents)

Layer_2.container – 50.000 USD of BTC (All Layer 2 Documents)

Layer_3.container – 100.000 USD of BTC (All Layer 2 Documents)

Layer_4.container – 1.000.000 USD of BTC (All Layer 4 Documents)

Layer_5.container – 2.000.000 USD of BTC ( All Layer 5 document)

Overheal · 08-03-2019 10:32pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

What evidence?

Cheerful Spring · 08-03-2019 11:32pm

Overheal wrote: »

What evidence?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/shame-on-jesse-ventura

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option.

The building was not unstable a lie.
NIST said the building was not unstable.
A girder slipping of its seat on one floor caused the collapse according to them.

Larry excuse for not turning up to work that day. Strange his daughter and son in law also skipped work on the same day.

Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Comments