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 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.