Hacker group releases '9/11 Papers', says future leaks will 'burn down' US deep state

[Angilion]

What is interesting about that? It is the same old conspiraloon garbage about explosives supposedly brining down the twin towers and WT7

As if no one saw the massive planes flying into the towers? Can't possibly be the massive planes captured on numerous photos and videos etc... no it must have been a controlled explosion of some kind after a secret operation by hundreds of special forces all of whom were totally OK with blowing up buildings in the middle of NYC and none of whom have leaked their accounts to the press.

It would have been much easier to use the destructo-rays and mind control equipment taken from the crashed alien spaceships to demolish the buildings and insert false visions into the minds of the witnesses while simultaneously inserting false photos and videos into all the cameras. So I bet that's what they did. I've seen Independence Day, so I know that any human computer and OS can immediately access and control any alien computer system. Since their technology is more advanced than ours, it's obvious that the reverse is also true.

 

[Vanquish-Storm]

One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the hackers will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new dark overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted forum member, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground bitmining caves.

 

[MookJong]

I probably wasted months of my life in my 20's reading all of the 911 conspiracy stuff. I say wasted, actually I learnt quite a bit about the US and middle east affairs so it wasn't all bad I guess.

There is indeed a cover up regarding 911 but it's nothing to do with controlled demolition, cruise missiles or anything physical that happened on the day. The conspiracy as anyone who has really looked into it knows comes from the fact that the operation was most likely aided by radical elements in the Saudi establishment. I believe 28 pages which point to this are still redacted in the 9/11 commission report. Other file releases and members of the commission have quietly pointed to this being true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_September_11_attacks

 

[majestyk]

And in the background, very slowly, the 9/11 families lawsuit against SA makes its way through the courts.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/...abias-economic-and-political-plans-1232597998

 

[Mulder]

It seems the standard approach for CT loons is to conflate a load of unrelated stuff, tell people to go read some conspiraloon website or watch some video.... but muh false flags etc..

What is so hard about just explaining your position? I'm simply asking you about your claim re: WTC7, there is no need to go off on a tangent about some New Pearl Harbour or whatever other guff you're paranoid about.

Why?

It is a straight forward question - why is the "official story" rubbish? What specifically do you believe to be rubbish and why?

Are you able to just give a straight forward explanation of your position there?

Can you relax and stop calling me names? I've been polite and with every post you include "loon", "crackpot", accusations of paranoia etc. I know you're assuming a position of intellectual superiority (because of course you're right and I'm a "crackpot", nice critical thinking there) but name calling? It makes me cringe every time I read it.

You're also presumably extending those slurs to millions of people who think like I do, like a majority of Germans. Germans who, by the way, are acutely aware of military powers lying to their people in order to justify war.

My point is basically:

• The official story is wrong, on many counts, and history will eventually see those that question it (omg you're a nut case!) proved right, as has been the case for dozens of other conspiracies that turned out to be true (see my previous post for a selection)
• Anyone studying it in detail, and without bias, will come to this conclusion (as have millions of people, including engineers, academics, families of the 9/11 victims, firefighters on the ground during the day, architects etc)
• One of the most relatable points is WT7, which provably could not have collapsed as it did according to the official story. NIST admits the building fell at freefall for a period of time, which as many independent experts have shown, cannot tie in with fire causing the collapse. Freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building.

But you won't look into it, because you know you're right, and that anyone questioning the official story must be nuts. Even though, that mindset in itself is nuts, and history proves so.

@Mulder - I know I'm going to regret asking, but...

Presumably dowie is right and you believe that 100s if not 1000s of government employees and military personnel carried the operation you believe occurred... and that the silence of these people has been successfully maintained for over 16 years, through subsequent administrations of both Republicans and Democrats ... And so, what about Trump?

How has he been pursuaded to play along?

Also, is there any evidence that you can think of that would disprove your theory?

People speak out, you just don't really read about it. Other than occasional articles in the UK media (the Guardian has covered it a bit). Firefighters on the day, victims families, heck even the chairman and various members of the 9/11 commission itself challenged the "official" report. It made precisely zero mentions of WT7, which caused a lot of the criticism, but I guess they knew it was one of the weakest parts of the story. Besides, you wouldn't need that many.

Yes, there's evidence on both sides, as always. All you can do is weigh it all up and make your own conclusions.

No idea on Trump, your guess is as good as mine. Even if he did believe it, I doubt he'd go public, for fear of getting the same reaction as many on here do.

I've already said I personally find it doubtful 9/11 was an inside job, but going by the track record of certain shady plots/conspiracies that turned out to be true, I'm willing to keep an open mind and not hop on either train right now.

Exactly. It's provable conspiracies have been true, so why couldn't this one be.

So it seems some of these crackpots have submitted some petition to the US Attorney and they're bound to investigate, there doesn't seem to be anything significant, it is the same old CT stuff... only now they're trying to make a Grand Jury take a look at it, which may or may not happen as the reply they've had from the US attorney is rather terse:

https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...-berman-will-comply-with-18-usc-section-3332/

"we will comply with the provisions of 18 USC 3322 as they relate to your submissions"

So either there is some reason the US attorney can turn around and say "erm yeah, this is guff" or a Grand Jury can take a look at it and likely say "err yeah this is guff"

It doesn't really seem like anything to be excited about, no one has provided any vindication for them and their claims - nothing has changed there other than they've just submitted something that the US attorney seemingly has to take note of and the US attorney has acknowledged that they've received the petition.

"Crackpots". Nice.

 

[dowie]

Can you relax and stop calling me names?

CT or conspiraloon is the phrase usually used for people who are putting forth these sorts of claims?

You might want to consider that many people died on 911 and that some CT types on the internet trying to promote some silly conspiracies around this tragic event isn't exactly helpful for the victims rather than worrying that people might say you're a CT nut.

• The official story is wrong, on many counts, and history will eventually see those that question it (omg you're a nut case!) proved right, as has been the case for dozens of other conspiracies that turned out to be true (see my previous post for a selection)

I'm aware you believe the official story is wrong, what I'm interested in (and I've asked a few times now) is why? What about it is wrong? What do you believe happened?

• Anyone studying it in detail, and without bias, will come to this conclusion (as have millions of people, including engineers, academics, families of the 9/11 victims, firefighters on the ground during the day, architects etc)

Well that is clearly false for a start as plenty of investigators have studied it in detail and not arrived at conspiracy theories. If you want to claim that some people have some alternative ideas or conspiracy theories then sure, I'm aware of that.

• One of the most relatable points is WT7, which provably could not have collapsed as it did according to the official story. NIST admits the building fell at freefall for a period of time, which as many independent experts have shown, cannot tie in with fire causing the collapse. Freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building.

But you won't look into it, because you know you're right, and that anyone questioning the official story must be nuts. Even though, that mindset in itself is nuts, and history proves so.

But I won't look into it??? I've been repeatedly asking you to actually lay out what it is you think is wrong? That is the very opposite of ignoring it/not looking into it- I'm actively trying to find out more about your claim, asking you to explain your position....

Can you clarify what you're saying here - what do you mean by WTC7 "provably could not have collapsed as it did according to the official story"?

WTC7 did collapse, it is caught on video collapsing? What specifically is wrong about it collapsing? And what is the alternative explanation for why it collapsed?

 

[Dis86]

Also what is the advantage to building 7 collapsing when it did. From memory it had been fully evacuated.

 

[Housey]

I probably wasted months of my life in my 20's reading all of the 911 conspiracy stuff. I say wasted, actually I learnt quite a bit about the US and middle east affairs so it wasn't all bad I guess.

There is indeed a cover up regarding 911 but it's nothing to do with controlled demolition, cruise missiles or anything physical that happened on the day. The conspiracy as anyone who has really looked into it knows comes from the fact that the operation was most likely aided by radical elements in the Saudi establishment. I believe 28 pages which point to this are still redacted in the 9/11 commission report. Other file releases and members of the commission have quietly pointed to this being true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_September_11_attacks

To my point most people grow out of the CT fantasies, as you did. Now the involvement of Saudi does stand investigation as they are the most evil purveyors of terror in that region and without question elements had pre-knowledge. Problem is, CT nutters call out the fact a government official said man leaves through left door when evidence shows it was the right door and turn that into “it’s all lies”.

I have some insights into this event, some personal with family/colleagues/friends involved, some business related after the event and getting access to data due to my role at a particular time and some through people I know with broader insights than most. No point going into it, but as said above seeing some ill informed people sucking up content from people like them with a web browser claiming crap is at best tiresome at worst insulting to the informed, same with the moon landings.

To my point, had 4 planes not been hijacked this would not have happed so everything came from planes crashing. This is a fact yet many seek to dispute it and they are ill informed or stupid. I chose to think they are on a learning journey and will see the light. Hope so.

 

[RaohNS]

Also what is the advantage to building 7 collapsing when it did. From memory it had been fully evacuated.

Wasn't WTC a hub for the FBI investigating insider trading on a mass scale (similar to the HSBC scandal of laundering money for drug cartels)?

Having read Mulders post I did question whether it had the potential as a double agent troll post. However, taking the bait a few points should always be noted:

1) the official story is government led and anybody who believes what a government says has it coming long and hard (that's what she said)
2) multiple "conspiracy theories" have been proven correct and the word CTer is an oxymoron. A conspiracy theory means a total lack of tangible evidence. A hypothesis is technically the correct moniker for these.
3) something is very very very fishy about 9/11. It is not as clear cut as we are being told to believe it is (remember: what you are told to believe

I believe in questioning a great deal of official narratives. Remember to the supercilious posters on here (the ones says crackpots etc) that around 500 years ago the "conspiraloons" were telling everyone the earth was round because they saw some evidence.

The conspiraloons before that were saying Terra is not the centre of the known universe. Before that they were saying we were not on a turtles back.

Keeping an open mind is a very important thing. I don't trust governments whatever their stripe. I may have to concede some things here and there due to the sway of evidence. But I would absolutely refuse to go along hook line and sinker with some politician selling me snake oil.

I dare say a quick google will show the site but there was a website I saw years back that used to log things that were conspiracy that turned up true.

9/11 though... Jury is still out for me, I think the fact that Bob Mueller was head of the FBI at the time should give anyone serious serious concerns about involvement of state actors. That guy has some serious dirt under his carpet. Look into things like Enron and Jet setters.

To the posters here also: Did you know every text email and phone call you make is recorded? Has been for years? If you believe that now then just a decade or so ago you were the conspiracy nut jobs

 

[Werewolf]

Wasn't WTC a hub for the FBI investigating insider trading on a mass scale (similar to the HSBC scandal of laundering money for drug cartels)?

Having read Mulders post I did question whether it had the potential as a double agent troll post. However, taking the bait a few points should always be noted:

1) the official story is government led and anybody who believes what a government says has it coming long and hard (that's what she said)
2) multiple "conspiracy theories" have been proven correct and the word CTer is an oxymoron. A conspiracy theory means a total lack of tangible evidence. A hypothesis is technically the correct moniker for these.
3) something is very very very fishy about 9/11. It is not as clear cut as we are being told to believe it is (remember: what you are told to believe

I believe in questioning a great deal of official narratives. Remember to the supercilious posters on here (the ones says crackpots etc) that around 500 years ago the "conspiraloons" were telling everyone the earth was round because they saw some evidence.

The conspiraloons before that were saying Terra is not the centre of the known universe. Before that they were saying we were not on a turtles back.

Keeping an open mind is a very important thing. I don't trust governments whatever their stripe. I may have to concede some things here and there due to the sway of evidence. But I would absolutely refuse to go along hook line and sinker with some politician selling me snake oil.

I dare say a quick google will show the site but there was a website I saw years back that used to log things that were conspiracy that turned up true.

9/11 though... Jury is still out for me, I think the fact that Bob Mueller was head of the FBI at the time should give anyone serious serious concerns about involvement of state actors. That guy has some serious dirt under his carpet. Look into things like Enron and Jet setters.

To the posters here also: Did you know every text email and phone call you make is recorded? Has been for years? If you believe that now then just a decade or so ago you were the conspiracy nut jobs

First up if you think any serious investigation is not going to have all the paperwork/computer files backed up offsite you're probably not aware of what even in the government is good practice - especially after the repeated attempts by various people to blow up government buildings.

1: Yes because the government lies about everything all the time, even when the lie would have to involve tens of thousands of people for it to vary far from the truth in easily observable and observed details.
2: Yes some have, but it's rare, and usually when the actual evidence is there and doesn't rely on uncounted hoards of people being involved in something that killed thousands of american citizens, or ignoring basic science.
3: This I could give you for certain values - but not as some sort of conspiracy to commit it, or allow it to happen, but more to cover up where people made mistakes (although they admitted a number of mistakes which if there had been proceedures for could potentially have prevented at least one of the hits).

I've yet to see any CT about 911 that was coherent and showed a real scientifically and practical way that it could have been carried out, short of the US government having planted the hijackers and got them to carry out the attack, every CT seems to be based around not understanding things like the strength of steel when heated (it loses it well below melting, as pretty much everyone who passed GCSE science should know, and every blacksmith and metal worker for the last 3k* years should have observed/used), or that the super duper nanothermite that was so obviuously used because they've found traces of what happens after using it, can also be explained by the simple fact that thermite is IIRC basically iron oxide with some additives, and you tend to find a lot of iron oxide (rust to the layman) in steel buildings, and the additives can be found in common office equipment, or things like the structure and skin of aircraft.


*It's the one of the most basic tools in working with metal, the idea that you can form it far easier when it's hot, and can do it at far lower temperatures than is needed to melt it.

 

[Housey]

A little bit of knowledge and a blindness to massive evidence is the primary failing of all CT’s added to case examples that bare no testing such as the flat earth example used a few times to evidence their CT brothers and sisters were right, so flawed and simplistic. Open minds that never conclude are pointless and simply throwing up ‘yea but’ arguments are not arguments, they are just conjecture, most of it easily refutable but as i said earlier that is pointless as it’s more important to question than conclude in a CT mind because conclusion leads to delusion with having wasted so much time on fantasy.

 

[Angilion]

Just as an aside, nobody is saying that the buildings collapsed in free fall. That's a strawman from the conspiracy believers. It's close to free fall, which is exactly what you'd expect from a building designed specifically to collapse straight down if it fails (as all tall buildings in urban areas are). But it's not free fall.

Here's where a conspiracy believer will claim (again) that NIST "admitted" that WTC7 fell in free fall. The NIST report is publically available. It doesn't say what the conspiracy believers claim it says. No surprises there. There were 2 seconds during the collapse when part of the building was in free fall. That's it. What do people think would happen when part of the support in a tall building fails? Bits above it will fall under gravity for short periods of time until they hit something else. That's gravity, not invisible explosives laid by invisible people or alien destructo-rays.

If you scour a beach and find one tiny gold nugget and millions of stone pebbles, that doesn't prove that the beach is made of gold.

 

[D3K]

which is exactly what you'd expect from a building designed specifically to collapse straight down if it fails (as all tall buildings in urban areas are)

Comedy gold. No one designs buildings to fall.

WT7 is the low hanging fruit here. It was a controlled demo. Impossible for a building to fall like this any other way.

 

[Angilion]

Comedy gold. No one designs buildings to fall.

Thank you for so thoughtfully and quickly providing such a perfect example of how conspiracy believers work - ignore what was written or said, pick one or two words out of it, add some more of your own until you get what you want to hear and then pretend the other person said it.

Obviously, I never said people design buildings to fall. Just in case anyone reads D3K's post and doesn't click back to read what I actually wrote.

Just out of interest, can you explain how you think it's possible to do a controlled demolition of a very large building in use without anyone noticing? Do you go the whole nine yards and claim alien technology? Or just not bother with an explanation?

 

[itchy]

Just out of interest, can you explain how you think it's possible to do a controlled demolition of a very large building in use without anyone noticing? Do you go the whole nine yards and claim alien technology? Or just not bother with an explanation?

You really don't know how far this rabbit hole goes. I looked into it for 7 years and I know who done it, but it was no muslim in a cave that's for sure.

Not going to say who as its shady as hell to even mention it on the internet.

 

[Diddums]

You really don't know how far this rabbit hole goes. I looked into it for 7 years and I know who done it, but it was no muslim in a cave that's for sure.

Not going to say who as its shady as hell to even mention it on the internet.

Of course you do.

 

[SixTwoSix]

Just out of interest, can you explain how you think it's possible to do a controlled demolition of a very large building in use without anyone noticing?

You fly a plane into it...oh...wait, NM

 

[FortuitousFluke]

In before holograms.

Soon we'll be able to enhance the pictures to the point where you can actually see Tupac and Biggy flying the planes.

 

[D3K]

Thank you for so thoughtfully and quickly providing such a perfect example of how conspiracy believers work - ignore what was written or said, pick one or two words out of it, add some more of your own until you get what you want to hear and then pretend the other person said it.

Obviously, I never said people design buildings to fall. Just in case anyone reads D3K's post and doesn't click back to read what I actually wrote.

Just out of interest, can you explain how you think it's possible to do a controlled demolition of a very large building in use without anyone noticing? Do you go the whole nine yards and claim alien technology? Or just not bother with an explanation?

And every single person in this thread calling loon at every opportunity is hashing out the same bonkers engineering theory as you do. You said buildings are designed to fall close to freefall. In what universe is building collapse a consideration of design?

Can you at least acknowledge that there is no precedence on the planet for a building falling like that did without assistance, or provide some examples of how it can happen? Had it just been struck by flying debris which simultaneously knocked out every single one of it's supports at the foundation level, I could be convinced. That didn't happen, and it suddenly collapsed long after the alleged impact. Also care to mention how the BBC reported it's collapse while it was still standing?

 

[Dis86]

And every single person in this thread calling loon at every opportunity is hashing out the same bonkers engineering theory as you do. You said buildings are designed to fall close to freefall. In what universe is building collapse a consideration of design?

Can you at least acknowledge that there is no precedence on the planet for a building falling like that did without assistance, or provide some examples of how it can happen? Had it just been struck by flying debris which simultaneously knocked out every single one of it's supports at the foundation level, I could be convinced. That didn't happen, and it suddenly collapsed long after the alleged impact. Also care to mention how the BBC reported it's collapse while it was still standing?

This universe. I design buildings. Demolition of said buildings at the end of their lifespan is a design consideration.

The BBC report has already been covered.

You're a prime example of why people consider those who believe in CT theories such as this to be morons.