Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

banie01 · 17-03-2019 7:02pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

Well you could, but they only needed for that one time use and like all other technology...

Sure when it's out of the bottle it's easy just to keep a lid on it. :P

Not like espionage exists.

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

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 7:11pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 7:25pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

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

See those air pressure blowouts they are called squibs.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 7:28pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

See those air pressure blowouts they are called squibs.

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

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 7:34pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

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

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

banie01 · 17-03-2019 7:34pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

See those air pressure blowouts they are called squibs.

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

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

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

Overheal · 17-03-2019 7:37pm

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

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

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 7:39pm

banie01 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Overheal · 17-03-2019 7:39pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

No.

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

Overheal · 17-03-2019 7:40pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

banie01 · 17-03-2019 7:41pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

You have claimed a squib is a blowout.
It's not, you are wrong.
Is this another symptom of English being your 2nd language?

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 7:42pm

Overheal wrote: »

No.

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

This is not an explantation- what causing the debris and air to be forced out laterally on floors below the collapsing dust clouds?

Overheal · 17-03-2019 7:42pm

banie01 wrote: »

You have claimed a squib is a blowout.
It's not, you are wrong.
Is this another symptom of English being your 2nd language?

careful with that

Can go as far as to say its a demonstrable lack of understanding of the fundamentals required to entertain this whackadoodle stuff.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 7:43pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is not an explantation- what causing the debris and air to be forced out laterally on floors below the collapsing dust clouds?

air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.
air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.
air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.
air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 7:43pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

Air compression from what. The floors are intact and not damaged.

banie01 · 17-03-2019 7:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Air compression from what. The floors are intact and not damaged.

Where do you think the air, glass and every other piece of compressible material goes in the event of a compression event?

You do understand the basic precept that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space, at the same time?

If you do, then surely you understand that ejection of material will occur via the path of least resistance?

Where do you think that path lies?

banie01 · 17-03-2019 7:49pm

Overheal wrote: »

careful with that

Can go as far as to say its a demonstrable lack of understanding of the fundamentals required to entertain this whackadoodle stuff.

I understand the reason for the mod comment and accept it.

But I do feel the poster's lack of knowledge of context, idiom and syntax of English in common usage, let alone in a technical capacity goes a long way towards perpetuating the stances taken.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 7:50pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Air compression from what. The floors are intact and not damaged.

That’s an extraordinary assumption. Do you have proof the floors were undamaged? Nope. In WTC 7’s collapse we see the penthouse cave in first and down into the structure; ergo it would be night impossible to claim the floors were intact.

You’re also fundamentally forgetting the involvement of the elevator shafts, which would act as big compression tubes/pumps as elevator cars and debris crushed down upon them.

Edit: pistons! That’s the word I was looking for

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 7:54pm

banie01 wrote: »

Where do you think the air, glass and every other piece of compressible material goes in the event of a compression event?

You do understand the basic precept that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space, at the same time?

If you do, then surely you understand that ejection of material will occur via the path of least resistance?

Where do you think that path lies?

Use your brain for once. The blowouts are 10 floors or more beneath the collapse each time. The debris and air and energy from above has not reached this point yet.

You can't accelerate when floors are undamaged there resistance there from another 80 floors. You don't understand physics or structural engineering.

NIST avoided discussing this collapse for obvious reasons. Their entire study was based on the alleged failures, not the actual collapse.

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 7:56pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is not an explantation- what causing the debris and air to be forced out laterally on floors below the collapsing dust clouds?

Air compression

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 7:57pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Use your brain for once. The blowouts are 10 floors or more beneath the collapse each time. The debris and air and energy from above has not reached this point yet.

You can't accelerate when floors are undamaged there resistance there from another 80 floors. You don't understand physics or structural engineering.

NIST avoided discussing this collapse for obvious reasons. Their entire study was based on the alleged failures, not the actual collapse.

It's air compression

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 7:57pm

We're straight back into the "explain that! No, I don't get it, therefore conspiracy"

Over and over and over again, circular

This is why we ask conspiracy theorists to explain their theory, because they take everyone on a hamster wheel of their very limited (and belligerent) understanding of the world

banie01 · 17-03-2019 7:59pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Use your brain for once. The blowouts are 10 floors or more beneath the collapse each time. The debris and air and energy from above has not reached this point yet.

You can't accelerate when floors are undamaged there resistance there from another 80 floors. You don't understand physics or structural engineering.

NIST avoided discussing this collapse for obvious reasons. Their entire study was based on the alleged failures, not the actual collapse.

Let's see if you can infer how this article
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/12/yosemites-supersonic-blast

Demonstrates fairly clearly what you can't seem to grasp?

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 8:01pm

banie01 wrote: »

Let's see if you can infer how this article
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/12/yosemites-supersonic-blast

Demonstrates fairly clearly what you can't seem to grasp?

Grasping it = possibility there's no conspiracy

Not grasping it = possibility there's a conspiracy

Since they are in control of their choice, it's not unsurprising which is chosen every time. Incredible coincidence how every time a conspiracy theorists has a blind spot in terms of science or physics - it's always one that aids their conspiracy, never otherwise

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 8:04pm

banie01 wrote: »

Let's see if you can infer how this article
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/12/yosemites-supersonic-blast

Demonstrates fairly clearly what you can't seem to grasp?

Your link explains the squibs and lack of resistance:) It does not and never will.

banie01 · 17-03-2019 8:05pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your link explains the squibs and lack of resistance:) It does not and never will.

It does?
Or does not?

Overheal · 17-03-2019 8:07pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Use your brain for once. The blowouts are 10 floors or more beneath the collapse each time. The debris and air and energy from above has not reached this point yet.

You can't accelerate when floors are undamaged there resistance there from another 80 floors. You don't understand physics or structural engineering.

NIST avoided discussing this collapse for obvious reasons. Their entire study was based on the alleged failures, not the actual collapse.

Calm down

It’s 10 or so floors beneath the exterior collapse. That’s well within the ability of the elevator shafts to deliver compressed air down to those lower floors as a result of the collapsing structure above.

And that doesn’t mean the NIST study is wrong: NASA was more interested in WHY Columbia disintegrated on reentry than how many Cities and states the debris scattered across. It doesn’t mean their conclusions about the heat shielding was invalid.

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 8:20pm

Overheal wrote: »

Calm down

It’s 10 or so floors beneath the exterior collapse. That’s well within the ability of the elevator shafts to deliver compressed air down to those lower floors as a result of the collapsing structure above.

And that doesn’t mean the NIST study is wrong: NASA was more interested in WHY Columbia disintegrated on reentry than how many Cities and states the debris scattered across. It doesn’t mean their conclusions about the heat shielding was invalid.

NIST never touched the full collapse. Twin Tower study is only about the failures pre collapse.

It's a theory still the squibs went laterally not downwards and air would be flowing downwards coming from above.

The demolition theory made more sense, as it explains the lack of steel resistance on the way down and why the towers kept accelerating when falling

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 8:35pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The demolition theory made more sense, as it explains the lack of steel resistance on the way down and why the towers kept accelerating.

What demolition theory?

Show us, on a page, in written form, this theory? where's it outlined, who did it involves, who were the witnesses, what's the supporting evidence?

Otherwise you're just referring to some vague notion. Like a child believing the moon is made of cheese. And like a child, believing such a notion based entirely on the limits of their/your understanding

It's impossible to debate with someone who repeatedly references a theory which doesn't exist - which is probably the reason you keep using it

Overheal · 17-03-2019 8:36pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST never touched the full collapse. Twin Tower study is only about the failures pre collapse.

It's a theory still the squibs went laterally not downwards and air would be flowing downwards coming from above.

The demolition theory made more sense, as it explains the lack of steel resistance on the way down and why the towers kept accelerating when falling

Air flows downwards when you consider the elevator shafts yes- but not downwards out windows: it wouldn’t push out the window and then just take a 90 degree elbow?

The demolition theory does not make sense, owing to the lack of supporting evidence for a controlled demolition - like the lack of positive tests for explosive residues. Things keep accelerating when they fall: if you fell out of a tree you would still encounter branches on the way down, and in between these branches you would fall in free fall acceleration.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 8:37pm

Somehow yet unremarkably we’ve veered from the topic of insurance documents obtained by the Darklord hacker group

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 8:44pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What demolition theory?

Show us, on a page, in written form, this theory? where's it outlined, who did it involves, who were the witnesses, what's the supporting evidence?

Otherwise you're just referring to some vague notion. Like a child believing the moon is made of cheese. And like a child, believing such a notion based entirely on the limits of their/your understanding

It's impossible to debate with someone who repeatedly references a theory which doesn't exist - which is probably the reason you keep using it

What's your theory? NIST has no historical precedent backing them up. Never ever had a steel beam high rise building fallen by fire and then you have to neck to demand evidence for demolition. What your evidence for fire?

The anomalies and errors and NIST lying is evidence the fire explanation does not hold up to scrutiny.

We have evidence demolition has brought down steel framed building in the past at freefall speeds. Fire no records.

banie01 · 17-03-2019 8:48pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What's your theory? NIST has no historical precedent backing them up. Never ever had a steel beam high rise building fallen by fire and then you have to neck to demand evidence for demolition. What your evidence for fire?

The anomalies and errors and NIST lying is evidence the fire explanation does hold up to scrutiny.

We have evidence demolition has brought down steel framed building in the past at freefall speeds. Fire no records.

Measuring theories has no bearing on this particular thread does it?
I am impressed at the level of obfuscation you have brought to it again however.

What in the insurance documents or other Darklord materials outlines the conspiracy theory?
What in those documents supports any of the claims you repeatedly make?

Overheal · 17-03-2019 9:04pm

you have to neck to demand evidence for demolition

yet you have the neck to claim it

What your evidence for fire?

The undisputed presence of fire, for a start

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 9:07pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What's your theory?

Historical fact

https://www.britannica.com/event/September-11-attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/911-attack
https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/north-america/us/911
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/9-11_Attack
https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-timeline
https://www.nyhistory.org/september-11-collection
https://amhistory.si.edu/september11/
https://kidskonnect.com/history/9-11/

This is fact in history books, science books, literature all over the world, taught in schools, universities

And you're the one challenging it, so let's hear it, what's this "911 demolition theory"?

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 9:14pm

Overheal wrote: »

yet you have the neck to claim itThe undisputed presence of fire, for a start

Fires were involved here too and none of these steel framed building collapsed.

Top two photos are very revealing and steel and supporting elements are not weak as debunkers try to claim

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 9:18pm

I don't know, I think this is a character, there's no way this is a lack of understanding after all this time and all the explanations. There's a very deliberate effort going on here.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 9:20pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Fires were involved here too and none of these steel framed building collapsed.

Top two photos are very revealing and steel and supporting elements are not weak as debunkers try to claim

Which of them was engineered or constructed identically to the WTC buildings, which involved aluminum exoskeletons etc?

And which of these is relevant to the Darklord files?!

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 9:29pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I don't know, I think this is a character, there's no way this is a lack of understanding after all this time and all the explanations. There's a very deliberate effort going on here.

Lack of understanding. Three of the buildings came down on 9/11 by fire and never happened in history previously.

Overheal least showed some honesty and admitted the NIST model is not accurate. You guys have been claiming differently for years.

He then discusses the root cause of the collapse. Overheal would you model a collapse and just ignore the construction drawings? Say you trying to replicate it? Would your university professor give you an A or E grade ( he might give you a few marks for writing your name?

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 9:37pm

Images and some footage of WTC 7 that truthers avoid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXa5uATKrwY

Cheerful Spring · 17-03-2019 9:40pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Images and some footage of WTC 7 that truthers avoid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXa5uATKrwY

Don't avoid them. You posting images of dust clouds after the tower fells down, can you not see the debris?

banie01 · 17-03-2019 9:47pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lack of understanding. Three of the buildings came down on 9/11 by fire and never happened in history previously.

Overheal least showed some honesty and admitted the NIST model is not accurate. You guys have been claiming differently for years.

You are fixated upon the NIST simulation not mirroring the actual collapse.
That is not the purpose of the simulation, that has been explained to you multiple times across multiple threads.

When challenged you repeatedly pull this stroke of claiming you guys don't understand"!
To be quite honest, I'm not going to have my understanding impugned by someone who by their own admission confuses acceleration and speed!
Someone who has a demonstrably poor grasp of basic arithmetic let alone physics!

You are one of the reasons that conspiracy theories are held in such low regard on this particular forum.

You argue in soundbites and copy and paste without actually comprehending what any of it means.
When your arguments are refuted you resort to parroting previous replies even of already debunked.

A wise man once told me that constant repetition is a sure sign of a moron...
Funnily enough the proof is becoming more and more apparent on this sub forum.

Overheal · 17-03-2019 9:48pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lack of understanding. Three of the buildings came down on 9/11 by fire and never happened in history previously.

Overheal least showed some honesty and admitted the NIST model is not accurate. You guys have been claiming differently for years.

He then discusses the root cause of the collapse. Overheal would you model a collapse and just ignore the construction drawings? Say you trying to replicate it? Would your university professor give you an A or E grade ( he might give you a few marks for writing your name?

Dude I’ve modeled pressure regulators for compressed natural gas and not bothered to include the bolts that keep the bonnet attached to the regulator body: it just depends on what you’re looking at, which determines what is relevant. In those studies the mating surface that is held by the bolts was just defined as a fixed mate, since we overengineered the bolt pattern to withstand 4x the service pressure and it was a waste of compute time to include them, when the point of the study was to determine the design strength of the bonnet, which was an aluminum forging.

Now on this meme since you’ve posted it, surely dozens of times:

Windsor building: partial collapse:

https://youtu.be/eKvgD9NyIi4

The TVCC building in Beijing was responded to by over 600 firefighters, who had the bulk of the blaze under control inside of 3 hours and fully out in 5 hours. The TVCC building also, demonstrably, not designed the same way the WTC buildings were. The fire also started from the top floor and traveled down, oddly enough.

The Chechnya fire blazed up the outside of the building (a flammable wall facade) and did not damage the interior:

“Although flames enveloped the outside of the 475-foot tower — the tallest Russian dwelling outside Moscow — Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov said the interior was not seriously damaged, RIA Novosti reported.

About 30 people were evacuated from the "Olympus" tower, one of seven residential skyscrapers in the Grozny City complex. Initial reports indicated that an electrical short-circuit may have ignited insulation around the fourth or fifth floors about 6 p.m. local time.

Flames and black smoke spread rapidly up three sides of the building because of its plastic trim, the RT television network reported.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/03/russia-chechnya-high-rise-fire/2050713/

And FEMA’s 1988 report of the first interstate bank fire makes special attribution to the “Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire.”

Edit: FEMA 1988 report https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lafire.com%2Ffamous_fires%2F880504_1stInterstateFire%2FFEMA-TecReport%2FFEMA-report.htm&date=2010-07-13

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 9:52pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Three of the buildings came down on 9/11 by fire and never happened in history previously.

Multiple jetliners didn't fly into buildings before in history. This is the "appeal to history" fallacy (it hasn't happened before, therefore it couldn't happen)

This has been explained to you several times now, like someone would explain to a child. It's getting to the point where the only explanation is you are deliberately refusing to understand simple concepts, and rehashing stuff from the past (whack-a-mole technique)

Overheal · 17-03-2019 9:54pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Multiple jetliners didn't fly into buildings before in history. This is the "appeal to history" fallacy (it hasn't happened before, therefore it couldn't happen)

This has been explained to you several times now, like someone would explain to a child. It's getting to the point where the only explanation is you are deliberately refusing to understand simple concepts, and rehashing stuff from the past (whack-a-mole technique)

Yep like back to the Columbia disaster: ‘never in history had a shuttle disintegrated on re-entry,’ does not mean that Columbia was blown up maliciously.

Dohnjoe · 17-03-2019 9:55pm

A dishonest answer for everything, or a "I don't get it" or "I can't believe it"

It's like dealing with someone in a religious cult

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-03-2019 10:28pm

How has CS been allowed to hijack this thread and turn it into a mirror of the other thread where he has posted the same lies?

Overheal · 17-03-2019 10:30pm

True, this tangent has been given too much oxygen.

No more posts unless it’s about the Darklord hack please.

Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Comments