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: 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.