Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 3:30pm

Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers

The Nal · 12-03-2019 3:38pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Never said they never existed. I said in posts before this, Pakistan ISI and Saudi royals financed this operation. Read the links in the first dump the Saudis were mentioned in the file dump.

The video not out yet, but I know is about General Mahmoud Ahmed, and him sending money to the hijackers.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11

Yet another whacky source, poorly researched. No surprise there.

Michael Meacher. Completely debunked here. In the same newspaper.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/09/september11.usa

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 3:42pm

The Nal wrote: »

Jason Bermas? FFS. This is one of the clowns who made Loose Change.

The documents are real. Homeland security chased them across the internet and started shutting down their accounts. They even shut down a site they owned on dark web.

By the way, the hijackers James Woods identified on flight 11 in August 2001 was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Mihdhar ( hijacker of flight 77) CIA knew who this guy was in 2000 and did not tell the FBI he arrived in the United States to carry out an attack. The other guy is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_al-Ghamdi (hijacker on flight 175)

The other two are not 9/11 hijackers. So we have evidence now the FBI list of 19 hijackers is wrong or these guys got away and were never got caught.

Overheal · 12-03-2019 4:12pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The documents are real. Homeland security chased them across the internet and started shutting down their accounts. They even shut down a site they owned on dark web.

Please, please tell me you aren’t referring to that obvious-photoshop-is-obvious that allegedly shows the government shut down their websites.

Dohnjoe · 12-03-2019 7:31pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Pakistan ISI and Saudi royals financed this operation

Added Pakistani ISI to the list of those involved in your 911 theory

It's now:
Larry Silverstein
His insurers
Saudi Princes and officials
Bush
Rumsfeld
Cheney
NORAD
CIA Mujahideen
NIST investigators
Mossad (possibly)
US military (unspecified generals)
Various unspecified businessmen
Pakistani ISI

Is that correct

How about Pentagon officials who are potentially withholding surveillance tapes?

Pentagon witnesses?

Air traffic controllers who strongly support the official government line?

The Nal · 12-03-2019 7:34pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Pentagon witnesses?

Hundreds of random Washington civilians who would've seen the plane miss the Pentagon and fly away but kept quiet about it.

Also the people who went around knocking the lampposts down.Whatever they're called. Lamppost fellers maybe.

Overheal · 12-03-2019 7:44pm

The Nal wrote: »

Hundreds of random Washington civilians who would've seen the plane miss the Pentagon and fly away but kept quiet about it.

Also the people who went around knocking the lampposts down.Whatever they're called. Lamppost fellers maybe.

Lam’posters? Lamp Imposters

storker · 16-03-2019 12:53am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Added Pakistani ISI to the list of those involved in your 911 theory

It's now:
Larry Silverstein
His insurers
Saudi Princes and officials
Bush
Rumsfeld
Cheney
NORAD
CIA Mujahideen
NIST investigators
Mossad (possibly)
US military (unspecified generals)
Various unspecified businessmen
Pakistani ISI

Is that correct

How about Pentagon officials who are potentially withholding surveillance tapes?

Pentagon witnesses?

Air traffic controllers who strongly support the official government line?

You forgot the dancing Jews, or are they included under Mossad?

Dohnjoe · 16-03-2019 11:36am

storker wrote: »

You forgot the dancing Jews, or are they included under Mossad?

Under Mossad.

Latest entry is ex vice-President Biden because someone mistyped "Bin Laden" on a conspiracy blog, which automatically makes him an integral and key suspect now with compelling evidence linking him to the entire inside job

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 3:08pm

storker wrote: »

You forgot the dancing Jews, or are they included under Mossad?

Least two of the men were identified as agents of Mossad. The confusion is when did they start filming the attacks on 9/11?

Reports vary- before the first plane hit some people have claimed. Others have said just after the first plane hit the tower.

There not a whole lot of evidence to blame this attack on the Israel.

My position is was a neocon plot ( they have links to Israel) still this does not constitute evidence, the leaders in Israel were notified about it.

Hijackers themselves were managed by Saudi Arabia royals and officials and also managed by rogue intelligence officers in the Pakistani ISI. The money trail traces back to these guys not bin laden. CIA for a long time paid and trained foreign fighters from Islamic countries to head to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets ( the foreign fighters were called the mujahideen)

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-03-2019 3:19pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Least two of the men were identified as agents of Mossad. The confusion is when did they start filming the attacks on 9/11?

Reports vary- before the first plane hit some people have claimed. Others have said just after the first plane hit the tower.

There not a whole lot of evidence to blame this attack on the Israel.

My position is was a neocon plot ( they have links to Israel) still this does not constitute evidence, the leaders in Israel were notified about it.

Hijackers themselves were managed by Saudi Arabia royals and officials and also managed by rogue intelligence officers in the Pakistani ISI. The money trail traces back to these guys not bin laden. CIA for a long time paid and trained foreign fighters from Islamic countries to head to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets ( the foreign fighters were called the mujahideen)

Honestly, you can't even get the basics right so why would anyonr believe yoi when it comes to complex/technical things?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 3:23pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Honestly, you can't even get the basics right so why would anyonr believe yoi when it comes to complex/technical things?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Afghans and foreign fighters fought the war. They were thrown in together as if they are the same. When the Soviets left, you saw the two groups split and fight each other.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-03-2019 3:44pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Afghans and foreign fighters fought the war. They were thrown in together as if they are the same. When the Soviets left, you saw the two groups split and fight each other.

Yes i know

This is the part you are wrong about

( the foreign fighters were called the mujahideen)

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 3:44pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Hijackers themselves were managed by Saudi Arabia royals and officials and also managed by rogue intelligence officers in the Pakistani ISI. The money trail traces back to these guys not bin laden. CIA for a long time paid and trained foreign fighters from Islamic countries to head to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets ( the foreign fighters were called the mujahideen)

Which hijackers, you claimed men were funded by the CIA, Saudis and the Pakistanis but you also claimed they weren't the ones who carried out the attack

Who did carry out the attacks according to you? why did they do it?

It's a pretty gaping hole in your story

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 3:58pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which hijackers, you claimed men were funded by the CIA, Saudis and the Pakistanis but you also claimed they weren't the ones who carried out the attack

Who did carry out the attacks according to you? why did they do it?

It's a pretty gaping hole in your story

I said we have not got any video of 12 hijackers boarding the planes on 9/11.

In 17 years we only got two videos of the hijackers on 9/11. One video released shown middle eastern men at (Dulles airport in Boston) this video has no timestamp or date. And the other one from a smaller airport in Maine ( The Mohammed Atta video) has a timestamp and date.

Where the security footage showing the other 12 Hijackers. Cameras are everywhere in airports, bars restaurants, check-in areas and parking lots. There must be security footage of the other 12 men and why have not they released it to the public? Obviously, the planes were hijacked but some of the men involved have never been seen on video.

Not a gaping hole at all, it only debunkers think like this. You expect truthers to know every detail of what took place this is ridiculous and not rational at all.

The Nal · 17-03-2019 4:11pm

Some detail for a theory would be good though. You provide none. You dont have a theory. Youre the best reason to believe the official explanation.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 4:12pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not a gaping hole at all, it only debunkers think like this. You expect truthers to know every detail of what took place this is ridiculous and not rational at all.

Yet it’s truthers obsessed with the fidelity of an FEA simulation over a decade old and with how quickly/slowly 18 stories of a 47 story building fell. Even though if you fell out of a tree you would experience several stages of free fall speed interspersed with hitting branches on your way down.

It’s not even a question of every detail just basic details like where any evidence at all exists of controlled demolition, much less a substantial theory about who the perpetrators were, what the goal was and how that same goal could not have been achieved by simply crashing planes into buildings and letting events take their natural course afterward.

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 4:14pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said we have not got any video of 12 hijackers boarding the planes on 9/11.

This is what you claimed:

I always said the hijackers were funded by Saudi officials and Pakistan ISI and CIA was involved or at very least allowed this attack to happen. The terrorists did not knock down the buildings if they did then this is being covered up. I doubt it was them.

Al Qeada was used you think they had the funding and logistics to pull this off. This was a state-sponsored false flag attack. The hijackers are mostly patsies some of them may have been unaware of the bigger plot.

There were two groups of hijackers?

Then who actually carried out the attacks on 911? and why did they do it? (if they are patsies?)

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 4:17pm

The Nal wrote: »

Some detail for a theory would be good though. You provide none. You dont have a theory. Youre the best reason to believe the official explanation.

If you say so. Where your evidence? You have some pictures online to look at what else?

Do you know the 19 hijackers, did you meet them? Give me a full rundown of their lives before 9/11 and include everyone they met in the years before they carried out the attack. Who they met in America and had conversations with. No Waffle just clear and concise history based on your understanding of the events.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 4:20pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you say so. Where your evidence? You have some pictures online to look at what else?

Do you know the 19 hijackers, did you meet them? Give me a full rundown of their lives before 9/11 and include everyone they met in the years before they carried out the attack. Who they met in America and had conversations with. No Waffle just clear and concise history based on your understanding of the events.

Seems like that would be your burden of proof. I’m not even sure why you need to know all that.

King Mob · 17-03-2019 4:22pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you say so. Where your evidence? You have some pictures online to look at what else?

Do you know the 19 hijackers, did you meet them? Give me a full rundown of their lives before 9/11 and include everyone they met in the years before they carried out the attack. Who they met in America and had conversations with. No Waffle just clear and concise history based on your understanding of the events.

Cheerful, that's not what you are being asked. You are being asked to detail out your version of events beyond that you just don't accept the real version of events.
You however seem to be unable to do that. You seem to equate presenting a concise summary of an alternate theory with the questions above.
This indicates that you have no sane rational alternate theory at all.

Donnielighto · 17-03-2019 4:22pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you say so. Where your evidence? You have some pictures online to look at what else?

Do you know the 19 hijackers, did you meet them? Give me a full rundown of their lives before 9/11 and include everyone they met in the years before they carried out the attack. Who they met in America and had conversations with. No Waffle just clear and concise history based on your understanding of the events.

In fiarness he didnt say that. You are finding what appear to be gaos to toy and just filling them with conjecture that suits.

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 4:25pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is what you claimed:

There were two groups of hijackers?

Then who actually carried out the attacks on 911? and why did they do it? (if they are patsies?)

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

banie01 · 17-03-2019 4:27pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you say so. Where your evidence? You have some pictures online to look at what else?

Do you know the 19 hijackers, did you meet them? Give me a full rundown of their lives before 9/11 and include everyone they met in the years before they carried out the attack. Who they met in America and had conversations with. No Waffle just clear and concise history based on your understanding of the events.

Would those not be the details that you need to present to prove "your conspiracy"?

Are you again confused as to how to proving an assertion works?
1. If you make a claim, you are expected to lay out supporting evidence
2. The absence of evidence is not proof of anything.

Every thread you are involved in descends to you repeatedly asking for proof.
Again as has been explained in your other dumpster fires.
You are presenting "theories" better described as veiled racism/sectarian blood libels with absolutely zero proof.
When pressed for proof, you present nothing of evidentiary value.

This is your chance to present a plausible theory and lay out the supporting evidence.

Can you do that?

King Mob · 17-03-2019 4:28pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

So if they were patsies and were on the plane, why do you believe there is no video footage of them?

Overheal · 17-03-2019 4:29pm

That relies on there being evidence of a controlled demolition, of which there is none; only personal incredulity that fires, debris, quakes and airplanes were able to bring three (really 4) buildings to their breaking point, based on a fixation with the NIST FEA and a failure to understand basic kinematics.

But this thread isn’t really about getting hijacked as another 3,000 post dumpster fire, and is more about this alleged release of files by the hacker group that is doling them out like a Dianetics convention

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 4:41pm

Overheal wrote: »

Seems like that would be your burden of proof. I’m not even sure why you need to know all that.

You guys are accepting the official story and not worrying about the backstory and how they ended up doing the attacks in first place. In the 28 pages, classified section of the 9/11 commission report we got a lot of information about Saudi Royals and Diplomats meeting them on a regular basis at restaurants and at Mosques and Saudi money was transferred to a Saudi spy and he passed this money onto the hijackers so they could buy cars and rent apartments. Look into the background of some of the flight's schools you find they are partly owned by Saudi Arabia. One of the schools the owner was a former CIA agent ( who had connections to the Iran- Contra affair and drug smuggling) There plenty of evidence available to notice the official narrative is fake. Bush went out of his way to stop the investigation of 9/11 it only the 9/11 families resolve that got them to do a limited whitewash investigation.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 4:48pm

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?

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 4:55pm

Overheal wrote: »

That relies on there being evidence of a controlled demolition, of which there is none; only personal incredulity that fires, debris, quakes and airplanes were able to bring three (really 4) buildings to their breaking point, based on a fixation with the NIST FEA and a failure to understand basic kinematics.

But this thread isn’t really about getting hijacked as another 3,000 post dumpster fire, and is more about this alleged release of files by the hacker group that is doling them out like a Dianetics convention

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.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-03-2019 4:57pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

What does this have to do with this thread? You're just repeating the same sh/te you havr spammed the other thread wuth for the last few months. How about discussing the topic of this thread?

Overheal · 17-03-2019 4:58pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 5:00pm

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?

banie01 · 17-03-2019 5:03pm

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?

King Mob · 17-03-2019 5:03pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 5:04pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 5:13pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 5:18pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 5:26pm

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.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 5:29pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 5:30pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 5:36pm

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.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 5:57pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 6:02pm

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.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 6:09pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 6:11pm

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.

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 6:28pm

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.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 6:37pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 6:45pm

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

banie01 · 17-03-2019 6:54pm

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.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 6:56pm

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.

Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Comments