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

Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
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?

I'm kind of on the fence on this aspect.

I've worked in some pretty big multi-occupancy business buildings - if people come around wearing high-vis and acting official no one blinks an eyelid - dress it up as a HVAC maintenance or whatever and you can move a lot of equipment around and get access to all sorts without people giving it a second thought (obviously would be remembered afterwards). Unless you were hanging explosives and miles of detonating cordage off support structures, etc. people aren't going to really notice.

With conventional demolition though you'd probably have to use some pretty big charges on unused floors to make up for not being able to stack supports at will and that would be very noticeable going off - not just "maybe it was demolition charges" it would be massive flashes and distinct booms of primary charges before any collapse (IIRC there is usually a sequence of charges as well to bring a building that big down).

On the other hand from the days I was working in R&D even back then there was tech i.e. specialised shaped charges either functional or in development that could work around the conventional aspect so while unlikely in that respect I can't rule it out.

The harder bit is pulling the whole lot off without anyone ever talking down the line given the number of people it would have to involve even assuming that was via a smaller number of actors controlling the actions of a larger unwitting number - most people don't question someone superior to them when their attention or efforts are directed, etc.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,738
Location
Lincs
Also care to mention how the BBC reported it's collapse while it was still standing?

Yes, unfortunately it's going to be a too mundane and boring explanation for you to believe

World Trade Center Building 7 has become the subject of heated speculation and a host of conspiracy theories suggesting it was brought down by a controlled demolition. And some people suggest it was not just the government and foreign intelligence, but the police, the fire service, first responders and even the media that were involved.

It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day.

So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media.

The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?"

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."

I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?"

He added candidly: "I didn't really want to put that line in the movie."

And the reason the interview with the BBC correspondent, Jane Standley, ended so abruptly? The satellite feed had an electronic timer, which cut out at 1715 exactly.

We've done our best to tackle many of the other questions raised about Tower 7. I interviewed the lead official investigators, scientists and eyewitnesses who support the official explanation; but also architects, engineers and others who now question that account.

The final report on 9/11 should be with us soon. The official investigators are confident they will be able to solve the final mystery of 9/11. But I doubt they will ever convince their harshest critics, who believe there was a home-grown conspiracy at work that day.

We see it all the time now, every time there is a breaking live news story the initial information reported is patchy, confusing, contradictory and invariably incorrect, it's the 'fog of war' effect.

So the firefighters had reported they feared the building could collapse, by the time it's gone through a few hands this is reported as another building could or has collapsed, Reuters take that as has collapsed, everyone else jumps on it to be at the cutting edge of updated news and reports it has collapsed.

What's the expression, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
We see it all the time now, every time there is a breaking live news story the initial information reported is patchy, confusing, contradictory and invariably incorrect, it's the 'fog of war' effect.

So the firefighters had reported they feared the building could collapse, by the time it's gone through a few hands this is reported as another building could or has collapsed, Reuters take that as has collapsed, everyone else jumps on it to be at the cutting edge of updated news and reports it has collapsed.

Just look at Sandy Hook - it was a fast moving, confusing, terrifying, horrifying situation, unfortunately a lot of berks out there translate the naturally occurring conflicting pieces of information and confusion, that occur with such horror into "massive government conspiracy theory"

It's sad really.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Posts
8,410
Location
In the Gym
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.

That makes several correct assumptions. But raises other possibilities eg: If WTC7 was a hub doing investigations how compromised was it. Are all investigations into political insider trading stored where they can be accessed (think how the CIA went through under Brennan the oversight committees emails). They are stored in very very few places. I can think they are only stored in one location with possibly one off site for security)

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.

Maybe involve tens of thousands. It might only involve a few hundred. Who knows. The real message is: Don't trust governments

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.

How rare? When MK Ultra was being talked about decades ago people had livelihoods ruined. Then it comes out that MK Ultra was an actual project, doing exactly what the nutters said and was even called what the nutters said. The same is true of the heart attack gun. They were making claims about it and were dismissed. And yet what they were saying was accurate.

I'll give a big one: Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK? If you say no, you're a conspiracy nut.

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).

Naturally, as sometimes even liars get it right.

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

Yes but you are setting the parameters of what constitutes the theory. If I said the US Govt must have had a hand in it occurring, would I be a nutter or would it hold water? The 9/11 Commission... While being pro Saudi shows a lack of intelligence.

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),

It would take structural engineers to attest that and a group did come out.

or that the super duper nanothermite that was so obviuously used

Some people said that. I don't buy that.

Why wont the Pentagon release footage of the plane impact (that was caught on CCTV systems). Put the matter to bed.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Posts
1,287
I do wonder how easy it is to for experts to create alternative narratives to anything that really happens.

Say I purposefully unplugged my USB wi-fi dongle at a critical moment when downloading/uploading something that's somehow of critical importance.

When questioned, I could say "It's rather mundane actually. Event viewer showed a timeout occurred while waiting for the EHCI host controller Interrupt on Async Advance Doorbell response, an error that caused a system wide loss of all but a couple of USB ports, a rare but not unheard of defect that has been seen in some AM3+ chipset motherboards which usually manifests when there's high throughput on a USB port, as when downloading/uploading. The PC then became unbootable when I attempted to restart it."

Their response may be "Yes, this is certainly plausible but unlikely. We will await further analysis of the motherboard, hard drive, and wi-fi dongle to corroborate."

"My apologies, I immediately sent them off to China to be melted down. If there's anything else I can provide you with to aid your investigation, well actually that'd be classified." ;)
 
Man of Honour
Joined
21 Feb 2006
Posts
29,297
And still the crazies crazy.

I had a friend walking to work that saw the plane go into the Pentagon, with his eyes, from a few hundred yards away, with his eyes I remind you again. I had several friends in NYC who saw the planes go in, some 1 some 2. I genuinely feel sorry for those simpletons who seek to suggest it never happened. Be clear, YOU ARE CRAZY if you think it didn't happen, such as the Pentagon one above. It was NOT a cruise missile to shut that rubbish one down too.

I say again, if 4 planes did not crash on 9/11, this thread would not exist. Think about that and all your crazy side stories and please....no more questions or links to 'people like you'. I am 100% confident in my sources for they are 100% trustworthy normal Joes. THAT is why CT people **** off so many people because they are too stupid to realise how stupid they are.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Posts
8,336
It would take a large number of people to rig buildings that size for demolition and many more people to perform other tasks involved with faking the events of that day. Even if the buildings fell on their own, the plot would require a lot of preparation work in multiple areas.

Not one has spoken out, nobody who was asked to be involved but refused has spoken out. No deathbed confessions, no Wikileaks uploads no nothing.

The reason is because Islamic terrorists carried out the attacks.

I know this topic inside out, I was on the other team till around 2006 and was highly suspicious of the events. I was an absolute idiot who's narrow outlook and lack of knowledge about the real world allowed me to be sucked in. Conspiracies exist, but this isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
21 Feb 2006
Posts
29,297
I know this topic inside out, I was on the other team till around 2006 and was highly suspicious of the events. I was an absolute idiot who's narrow outlook and lack of knowledge about the real world allowed me to be sucked in. Conspiracies exist, but this isn't one of them.
Another reformed and as I said previously in this thread. We all have this in is to a lesser or greater extent, but then we become grown ups, learn about the realities of the world and realise that most of this rubbish, vast swathes of it, is rubbish for the fickle and limited life experienced sorts. That hurts some, they can't see it but as you admitted and as have others, you usually come to see what idiocy most of this stuff is, created by people in the same place, CT want to believes they know more than normal people, when they don't and far FAR less than the truly informed. As I also said, most of use grow up and from me who joined this forum in my late 30's and now in my early 50's I see how many posters have evolved, matured and become more sensible in their ramblings.

Sad thing is at my age it's downhill so from here I will will start to believe all this stuff again I suspect :D
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2012
Posts
3,290
Location
2
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.

Presumably also in tectonic activity zones and areas of high density high-rise buildings.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
I am 100% confident in my sources for they are 100% trustworthy normal Joes. THAT is why CT people **** off so many people because they are too stupid to realise how stupid they are.

Comes into a conspiracy thread, complains about conspiracy people

And you call the CT people crazy ? :rolleyes:
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
Presumably also in tectonic activity zones and areas of high density high-rise buildings.

Tectonic activity zones are something I've had very little exposure to. With regards to high-rise, high-density demolition is key. You do not want them falling over as there will simply be too many buildings in too close a proximity. People often talk about the buildings imploding, they don't. You do want them to collapse inwards however so the debris field is minimised.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
21 Feb 2006
Posts
29,297
Tectonic activity zones are something I've had very little exposure to. With regards to high-rise, high-density demolition is key. You do not want them falling over as there will simply be too many buildings in too close a proximity. People often talk about the buildings imploding, they don't. You do want them to collapse inwards however so the debris field is minimised.
We need Fred Dibna in this thread but sadly 'they' killed him to silence him.
 
Back
Top Bottom