SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Dark Overlord Decrypts More 9/11 Insurance Files
On New Year's Eve, Motherboard broke the news that a hacking group known as The Dark Overlord was threatening to release a cache of stolen insurance and legal documents related to the 9/11 attacks. After distributing a small preview set of files, the group has now publicly released a decryption key for more files, meaning anyone can download and read them.
[...] Twitter banned The Dark Overlord's account on Wednesday. Reddit followed suit shortly after. In response, The Dark Overlord is now publishing its announcements on Steemit, a blockchain-based and harder to moderate platform. The Shadow Brokers, a self-described hacking group that released a slew of NSA hacking tools, used the same platform for their communications.
The stolen data itself allegedly comes from a legal firm that advised Hiscox Group, a Hiscox spokesperson previously told Motherboard in a statement. The previously released documents included presentation slide decks, legal correspondence between law firms, and letters from a handful of government agencies. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have been particularly interested in the release of the documents, with internet commenters and several conspiracy-minded YouTubers making videos saying that they hope they will somehow reveal a vast conspiracy around the attacks.
[...] The group released the data after receiving 3 bitcoin, or around $11,000, as part of its self-announced crowdfunding effort.
Does anyone have a link to these documents yet?
Also at the Miami Herald.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 05 2019, @10:42PM (55 children)
Article is short on substance. What exactly is in these files? I always wondered why the hell Tower 7 went down even though it wasn't hit with anything...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @10:53PM (35 children)
It went down because it was rigged for demolition for some reason. Use occams razor:
1) Immediately before collapse people heard a series of explosions, exactly like before a controlled demolition.
2) It collapsed exactly as it would in a controlled demolition.
3) No skyscraper besides that one has ever collapsed, besides due to controlled demolition.
4) There is no other explanation for the collapsed that doesnt involve ignoring evidence or simulatimg a poorly designed skyscraper.
Now why was it rigged and who did it? That is what the upcoming grand jury is about.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @05:29AM (5 children)
There is no other explanation for the collapsed that doesnt involve ignoring evidence or simulatimg a poorly designed skyscraper
Really? Having a background in construction tells me otherwise.
I can even use the vaunted conspiracy theory goto 'building 7'. A controlled explosion would have brought the whole thing down. It failed due to fire. Due to the fact across the street ANOTHER 2 large buildings had collapsed on top of the water mains and most of the fire fighters in the area being dead. Those noises heard where the load bearing members snapping like twigs as they failed due to heat stress.
Most people think buildings are these massive rigid structures. No. They are more like toothpicks held together with gum. They sway. They flex. They move. They are built by the lowest bidder. This is the same city that can not get its shit together to replace some train tracks and some signals in their subway despite billions of dollars spent. Yet somehow these buildings were to be masterpieces of construction that could withstand nuclear blasts. I am going to say that seems unlikely.
You are using occams razor wrong The simpliest idea is they failed due to 2 airplanes that were filmed and witness flying into WTC1 and 2. Those buildings collapsed due to heat stress of the load bearing floor supports and several thousand tons of 2 jets sitting on floors not meant to support that weight? How much does a 737 weigh? How much can 1 floor of the WTC support. I am going to go out on a limb and say NOT the weight of a jet. 7 caught fire due to flaming jet fuel and debris from WTC1 and WTC2.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @09:31AM
So you agree the official explanation is wrong? Or you just dont realize what it is?
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:49AM
You know, we had a fire at Trump Tower. Almost a year ago. So many people in Trump Tower. Getting a lot of work done. Or just having a fabulous time -- whether it's fine dining, shopping or "sex." Very popular building, a lot of people there when the fire happened. But, nobody injured in that one. twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/950344716637360128 [twitter.com]
And, we had another fire in April. Also VERY CONFINED. Because it's what we call a well built building. No sprinklers. So many people said, "oh, what about Sprinklers, where are the Sprinklers?" I'll tell you, nobody knew from Sprinklers when we did the Design for that one. So we designed it, very successfully, with ZERO Sprinklers. But it's a magnificent design, that fire did very little damage. Because our firemen (and women firemen) did a tremendous job. THANK YOU!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @12:49PM
What type of gum? And what flavor??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @08:23PM (1 child)
no, you lazy slave. that's not what happened. it was demolished just like larry silverstein said on tape. go read 9/11 commission report omissions and distortions, for starters. if you think the twin towers fell due to the plains you're pathetic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @09:26PM
Doubt anybody claimed that they collapsed due to plains.
(Score: 5, Touché) by epitaxial on Sunday January 06 2019, @06:35AM (2 children)
Occam's razor tells me you're a foil hat wearing idiot. The fact that you're so highly modded gives me doubt about the intelligence of the readers of this site.
1) The "explosions" were the support structures failing. Know what happens when a lot of energy is suddenly released? Loud noise
2) The building was designed to fail in that manner
3) Name another skyscraper to be hit by a jumbo jet at speed
4) This is conjecture on your part
What are your thoughts about the bombing of the same building in 1993? Was that also a false flag operation?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @07:04AM
Then why did WTC 7 collapse at free fall from a ‘furniture fire’? Another ‘coincidence’.
The fact you’re modded so highly gives me great doubt of the readers of this site.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @09:37AM
Another random explanation not offered by FEMA or NIST. The officials missed yours too I guess.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday January 06 2019, @04:28PM (25 children)
If you have an alternate theory, you need evidence, facts that distinguish between your theory and the official theory. Noises that sound like explosions aren't necessarily explosions. Orderly-seeming collapses can happen for other reasons than controlled demolition. We don't have a lot of skyscrapers like the old World Trade Center towers and hence, not a lot of collapses about which to make your unwarranted judgment of point 3). And there are other explanations contrary to your assertion of point 4).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @05:14PM (19 children)
Once again, you have an alternative theory. In the official version there were no sounds like explosions. And building 7 did not collapse like in the official version. In fact they stopped the simulation 2 second in once it started diverging from reality so much and did not investigate further.
Like the other naysayers in this thread you are simply not aware of the official version, let alone the evidence.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/the-official-theory-wtc7 [ae911truth.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 06 2019, @06:34PM (18 children)
I'm merely assuming you aren't bullshitting us. The point is that the presence of "sounds like explosions" doesn't undermine the official version.
And that's supposed to be relevant why? You still haven't shown a case for the alternatives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @07:29PM (17 children)
Just click the link, it is all described in great detail. The official theory is not what you keep claiming, so it is pointless for me to continue. You are simply un/mis-informed on this topic.
Somehow I think you have a mental block to receiving this information. It is too scary for some people to consider I guess.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 06 2019, @09:43PM (16 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:13PM (15 children)
It has already been written up by engineers who studied this and shared at the link. I have nothing to add to their findings. A special grand jury is being, or has been, convened to address their findings (it was approved by the SDNY attorney general last November, dont know how long it takes to begin): https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjury [ae911truth.org]
All you are doing is playing ostrich if you care about the topic but dont click the link and read it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @12:46AM (14 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @03:06AM (8 children)
So you calling the deficiencies "supposed" based on what? Just that you failed to check them for yourself?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @04:23AM (7 children)
And because conspiracy theories are such a profitable cottage industry, I don't find it even a little surprising that there is some group who is convinced that the government didn't investigate thoroughly enough or is covering something up. Those would exist no matter what happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @04:37AM (1 child)
It seems like you are literally just cognitively blind to the section where they made this case? Here is the case:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/the-official-theory-wtc7 [ae911truth.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @03:58PM
A common thing. It becomes a much harder problem to model a building's collapse after the point of initial failure because then you're modeling breakage which is a vastly harder problem than modeling strain that reaches a breaking point. For example, I have a book that has a nice model of a dam failure which models the stresses on the dam to the point where components of the dam would start to slide. It obviously fails as a model after that because the whole thing is a completely different physical system after that. But it does a great job of determining when the point of failure starts.
That's the same problem here. They wanted to know what caused the building to collapse, not accurately model the collapse after that point.
I glanced at Wikipedia and discovered a couple of interesting things. First, that there was an out of control fire burning for somewhere around seven hours before the building came down. Second, that the building showed various signs of impending structural failure before its collapse (bulging of the building, creaking sounds, some sort of mess in the basement). Third, the building was completely evacuated of firefighters almost two hours before its collapse because of those warning signs.
That last point indicates your above statement is bullshit. There was no way to determine that the fire had "burned out" since no one was there to put it out - going through debris and actually hosing down the hot spots. Fires can still burn while appearing from a distance to be "burned out". And the heat doesn't go away. That would still be present even if things happened as you say.
And of course, there's the ongoing out of control fire and evidence of building failure that gets ignored. I notice elsewhere someone elsewhere in the discussion termed this a "furniture fire" [soylentnews.org], as if furniture (and a bunch of diesel fuel!) couldn't burn hot enough to undermine steel.
[...]
[...]
These three are most of the impossible claims with no justification for why they're supposed to be impossible. The obvious rebuttal is the building collapsed of something. You being wrong is just as valid a reason as controlled demolition in the continuing absence of evidence. So an alternate explanation here is that the stiffeners, shear studs, etc were insufficient and the floor beams did indeed flex that extra half an inch contrary to your claim.
Differential heating is not a stretch here. The floor beams would heat up and expand first, both because they're closer to the fire and have better heat conductivity.
Unless, of course, you're wrong here. Then it would have shown the collapse was feasible.
What's really telling here is that there's no reason for why anyone in the implied conspiracy would want to take down WTC 7 via secret demolition. The building was already a total loss from seven hours of uncontrolled fire. Insurance money was guaranteed (and was already more than ample from the initial collapses). The two towers dropping provided all the propaganda value that a false flag operation would need (few people even knew that other buildings were lost at the time). The only people who need to take down WTC 7 in this way are the conspiracy theorists!
And on that last point, it's worth noting that the 911 conspiracy theories have evolved to this point as the old ones were proven false. I read sites like this one [debunking911.com] that shows a lot of ongoing deception (such as taking single words like "pull" out of context). I think this sums my view of your current efforts:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @04:42AM (4 children)
I am sorry to say you have been showing all the evidence of this the entire thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness#Expectation_2 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @06:54AM (3 children)
Exactly. I've played this game before. If you had real evidence, you wouldn't be dwelling on minutia and unprovable claims about eyewitness accounts, floor beams and girders that supposedly can just move so, and supposed flaws in simulation programs outside the scope of the simulation (it's common for structural engineering simulations to break down once things start to break - but those programs are still viable right to the point where the breaking starts). The problem with this is that you don't actually have evidence - you have a narrative (a shifting narrative that has evolved considerably since 2001). And the collapse did happen.
I think it more likely that you are simply wrong in your assertions than that there is yet another elaborate conspiracy involving Middle East terrorists, US government officials, and the owner of the WTC who apparently wanted more insurance money than just dropping the two towers would provide.
The amateur psychoanalysis is a typical response - again conveniently indistinguishable from someone who did due diligence and is tired of the games.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @07:17AM (2 children)
Ive seen this before too, nothing will make you consider the arguments and evidence until someone who is an authority figure to you says it. If i presented the NIST model as someone besides the official one you would say that was bs, etc.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 07 2019, @10:02AM
Khallow, in his element! Shaka, and the wall fell! Bad faith and conspiracy theories just kinda go together.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @01:48PM
Guess that's not you. Come back with evidence and then we'll have something to talk about.
You aren't though. You aren't presenting anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @03:22AM (4 children)
Did you look into the evidence that people heard explosions, when the official report denies there were any such sounds heard (whether actually due to explosions or not)?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @04:35AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @04:44AM (2 children)
Here you go, sound of explosions on video:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/12-wtc-7-sound-evidence-for-explosions [ae911truth.org]
It is all on the site. They were very thorough.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @01:45PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @07:26PM
See, you'll just dismiss anything. It isnt ten minutes of propoganda, it is ten minutes of video explaining the evidence. Whatever, if it ends up mattering at all, it'll be your loss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @08:37PM (3 children)
you can watch molten steel pouring out the side of the main towers like a fucking foundry! i guess the jet fuel did that?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 06 2019, @09:48PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:52PM
I think the new idea is there were stragically placed fuel tanks for the backup generators filled with some sort of explosive additive. So with a big enough fire the buildings would be demolished.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @05:26PM
it's been a long time since i've watched the videos but i want to say it was further down than the plane impacts. don't take my word for it. just go watch the videos. it's not caused by diesel or jet fuel and i don't think the thermate (not thermite) charges are all that big or apt to falloff the steel columns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @09:21AM
In regard to point 3. My Conspiracy Theory friend forwarded me a 9/11 conspiracy article about a tall building in Europe that had a fire and didn't collapse. They claimed it was proof that the 9/11 towers shouldn't have collapsed from fire.
I pointed out that ALL of the steel supporting the floors and outer walls DID collapse despite being held up by a concrete stairwell/elevator shaft in the center. He just went 'oh' and retreated back into his conspiracy world. The guy is a freakin' Engineer too... but he's of Eastern European heritage which from my experience seem to be more prone to conspiracy theories.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @11:00PM
https://ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/LC-Petition-041018.pdf [ae911truth.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @12:08AM (13 children)
Seismic activity from the falling towers was sufficient to weaken the roof into collapsing from from all the AC and electrical equipment up there. Damn thing just wasn't that strong. Nothing mysterious there. The only mystery is the who-done-it. That's still top secret. And simple insurance fraud is entirely plausible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @12:18AM (12 children)
Source for the siesmic activty, roof collapse explanation? That is not the official one, so strange how you call it "nothing mysterious". And if all you needed to do is collapse the roof to cleanly demolish a building why isnt that the normal procedure?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @04:12AM (11 children)
Shit construction. What can I say? The damn thing fell, didn't it? And the official conspiracy theory? Please! The insurance fraud will never become "official", any more than the official Benghazi story will reveal the true crime of state department weapon sales to terrorists in Syria through Libya (or what was left of it). That shit's classified, brother. All we can do is assume the most plausible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @09:24AM (7 children)
So no source?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 06 2019, @04:29PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @12:46AM (1 child)
Where are your sources for your doubts? Government conspiracy theorists feeding the wire services? My sources are my eyes and ears, what's yours? your butt?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @04:11AM
The point is that you have your own unique alternative theory, like everyone else in this thread apparently. It is not the official one. The government explanation disagrees with your theory. But everything is totally non-mysterious I guess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @12:54AM (3 children)
So no source?
Are you a fucking idiot or what? We know how and why the buildings fell. The only unknown to the public is the financing and internal complicity. Save your bullshit for Infowars!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @05:12AM (2 children)
Yep, I'm a fucking idiot. I've heard like 5 different theories of why wtc 7 collapsed in this thread alone, all different from the government explanation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @06:59AM
Just proves the government is wrong, or more likely lying. They had a war and domestic power grab to sell. I don't even give a shit anymore. The sale was made, and here we are.
Find out who financed the deed and who got rich. Let's hope these docs help us reach that goal.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @04:01PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @08:27PM (2 children)
yeah, except they won awards for it's construction b/c it was designed to take jet impacts and what not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @07:04AM (1 child)
And Obama won a Peace Prize. What are you trying to say?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @05:30PM
so many suck ass slaves paying taxes and making excuses for their masters like fucking cowards.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @02:04AM (3 children)
According to a doc cited in that steemit link posted by another AC:
https://steemit.com/thedarkoverlord/@thedarkoverlord/9-11-papers-megaleak-layer-1-checkpoint-03-04-05-06-and-07-cyber-cash-for-cyber-cache [steemit.com]
Search for "gasoline". Right below that comment are images of scanned docs citing that tower 7 had large (and per the citation, "unsafe") diesel fuel storage tanks installed in it. including a 6000 gallon fuel tank installed on the 23rd floor next to an elevator shaft.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @02:41AM (2 children)
Placed to have the building collapse into its own footprint though?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @04:38AM (1 child)
Where else is it going to collapse? Center of gravity is inside the building after all.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Monday January 07 2019, @03:05PM
The Government is a Bird