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

Mulder · 6 Jan 2019 at 22:13

dowie said:
Yet you haven't responded... I'm literally asking for you to make some actual points - why is that so hard?

Points I've made:
WT7
3,000+ Architects and Engineers who challenge the official story
Proven false flag ops in the past everyone now accepts as true
10 members of Bush's administration openly calling for a New Pearl Harbour

Points you've made:
?

Here's an article in Europhysicsnews (it's a journal published by European physicists) that further points to what I'm saying.

ScoTTyBEEE · 6 Jan 2019 at 22:15

Ugley_Matt said:
If it was staged, for what reason?

Patriot Act. Bypassing areas of the constitution to allow for more government control.

Dis86 · 6 Jan 2019 at 22:17

And yet opens with a paragraph stating it's speculation...

dowie · 6 Jan 2019 at 22:23

Mulder said:
Points I've made:
WT7
3,000+ Architects and Engineers who challenge the official story
Proven false flag ops in the past everyone now accepts as true
10 members of Bush's administration openly calling for a New Pearl Harbour

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.

Mulder said:
My argument is the official story is rubbish.

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?

Housey · 6 Jan 2019 at 22:28

If 4 passenger planes didn’t crash on 9/11 it would have been just a normal day.

The End.

Vexr · 6 Jan 2019 at 22:29

This is an apparently interesting recent development regarding 9/11:

https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/grand-jury-petition-executive-summary/

What the 9/11 truthers and the Lawyers’ Committee have achieved is the destruction of the designation of 9/11 skeptics as “conspiracy theorists.” No US Attorney would convene a grand jury on the basis of a conspiracy theory. Clearly, the evidence is compelling that has put the US Attorney in an unenviable position.

I'm not sure I'd be quite that bold about it just yet.

dowie · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:00

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.

Malevolence · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:14

dowie said:
Can't possibly be the massive planes captured on numerous photos and videos etc

In before holograms.

garnett · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:20

dowie said:
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.

@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?

dowie · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:23

@garnett Just to clarify, that post of mine you've quoted had nothing to do with Mulder's claims but is in response to Vexr's supposedly "interesting" link directly above it that contains the usual silly allegations about thermite etc...

All I've asked of Mulder is for an straight forward explanation of his position re: WTC7 after he made this statement: "My argument is the official story is rubbish."

Hes not been clear re: what his argument is or why the "official story" is rubbish.

Vexr · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:29

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

What is interesting is it's going before a special grand jury.

garnett · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:30

dowie said:
@garnett Just to clarify, that post of mine you've quoted had nothing to do with Mulder's claims but is in response to Vexr's supposedly "interesting" link directly above it that contains the usual silly allegations about thermite etc...

All I've asked of Mulder is for an straight forward explanation of his position re: WTC7 after he made this statement: "My argument is the official story is rubbish."

Hes not been clear re: what his argument is or why the "official story" is rubbish.

Ah, apologies. To be honest, I'm interested in any CT input on my question though... So @Vexr, feel free to chip in...

dowie · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:30

Vexr said:
What is interesting is it's going before a special grand jury.

When is that happening?

Vexr · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:38

dowie said:
When is that happening?

No idea, just stumbled on it myself. Apparently it was sometime in November they got the green light from the US Attorney's office or whoever, so probably not any time soon I'd suspect.

garnett said:
Ah, apologies. To be honest, I'm interested in any CT input on my question though... So @Vexr, feel free to chip in...

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.

dowie · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:39

Vexr said:
No idea, just stumbled on it myself. Apparently it was sometime in November they got the green light from the US Attorney's office or whoever, so probably not any time soon I'd suspect.

What is the source for this? Edit - it is this you're referring to right?

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/505...to-ensure-successful-grand-jury-investigation

Minusorange · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:43

Housey said:
If 4 passenger planes didn’t crash on 9/11 it would have been just a normal day.

One of the leaked documents actually suggests flight 93 was shot down

Document name from release: 00010135.doc

Document title from footnote: OP-260315-1

Heading: II. LIABILITY POTENTIAL OF AMERICAN AND UNITED AIRLINES

Subheading: D. Failure to Require that Commercial Jetliners Be Equipped With Automated Transponders.

Aviation experts agree that knowing right away that the planes had not crashed but had been commandeered might have cut precious minutes off the time it took the FAA to decide to contact the military. 6 This may have allowed the military to intervene as they did on the flight in Pennsylvania. The airlines’ failure to adopt such a policies represents another possible breach of their duty to exercise reasonable care.

Vexr · 6 Jan 2019 at 23:50

dowie said:
What is the source for this? Edit - it is this you're referring to right?
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/505...to-ensure-successful-grand-jury-investigation

Never seen that site, I heard about it elsewhere.

It's on the lawyers committee for 9/11s own homepage dated 10th December 2018: https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/ so I'd say that's the source.

dowie · 7 Jan 2019 at 00:13

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.

Housey · 7 Jan 2019 at 00:23

Minusorange said:
One of the leaked documents actually suggests flight 93 was shot down

And 57676567854568 documents said it wasn’t. The typical CT approach to debate.

balky12 · 7 Jan 2019 at 01:14

Malevolence said:
Yeah, I wonder if Silverstein is fretting? Especially as he tried to get his grubby little mitts on double the insurance policy on the towers by trying to claim that two planes equals two different incidents. I bet there's some juicy paperwork surrounding that.

Yea I think you’re putting too much into the insurance thing. It was a legit argument he had.

He changed his insurance policy shortly before the incident so his total sum insured was basically the value of one building (after being advised that losing both towers in one event would be remote).

9/11 happened and he argued it was two events. It was deemed one in court. So he got the value of one tower.

Was slightly more to it than that including a mishap with the broker. Most of the insurance companies were bound to one wording and paid one event, a few were bound to another wording and had to treat it as two events.