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

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:31

Why did i originally post the video?

dowie said:
What is scary and what isn't surprising?

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:32

dowie · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:33

Trusty said:
Why did i originally post the video?

Presumably because you like conspiracies.

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:36

Devious little **** arent you.

Dis86 · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:39

Lol. Aw Dowie, you broke him.

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:40

How am i broken for calling a spade a spade?

Dis86 · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:43

Losing your beans when he's been nothing but straight forward.

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:47

dowie said:
The guy was widely derided for this at the time

dowie said:
that is essentially it

1 article is widely derided apparently..

Im losing my beans because i called a spade a spade..

lol

Flibster · 5 Jan 2019 at 00:49

Trusty said:
Im losing my beans because i called a spade a spade..

lol

The correct term is 'person of colour'

dowie · 5 Jan 2019 at 01:00

Dis86 said:
Lol. Aw Dowie, you broke him.

Well I'd have been surprised if he was able to back up the conspiracy he posted, it isn't too surprising that the default move by a CT poster is to then start deflecting...

Trusty said:
1 article is widely derided apparently..

No, but it happened 9 years ago... there was coverage about it at the time, thus why you also had blog posts such as that reported in the Guardian - do you supposed the blogger just read about it in Hansard?

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 01:09

Funny how you cant find any articles on it since it was so widely covered. Just proves you were talking nonsense..

dowie · 5 Jan 2019 at 01:19

You didn't clarify what you're after? I remembered it from when it was reported at the time, perhaps because I actually read the news rather than getting all my information from conspiracy sites.

A quick search reveals that it was mentioned on these forums at the time too:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/foundation-x.18203648/

Here is link to a Reuter's blog at the time it was reported:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/11/03/conspiracy-theory-of-the-day-foundation-x-edition/

After opening with reminiscences of seeing “Brigadoon” in the West End, James explains that:

Britain needs “investment in industry”, to the tune of about £5 billion.

He’s going to “raise a subject that I should not raise and which is going to be one which I think is now time to put on a higher awareness”.

There is “a strange organisation which wishes to make a great deal of money available to assist the recovery of the economy in this country”, which he refers to as Foundation X.

Foundation X has “megabucks”.

He, Lord James, has “handled billions of pounds of terrorist money”; his “biggest terrorist client was the IRA”, who weren’t as nasty as the north African terrorists.

As a result, he has “an interesting set of phone numbers”, which he used to “get a reference and a clearance on foundation X”.

He has “come to the absolute conclusion that foundation X is completely genuine and sincere and that it directly wishes to make the United Kingdom one of the principal points that it will use to disseminate its extraordinarily great wealth into the world at this present moment, as part of an attempt to seek the recovery of the global economy.”

The government — in the form of both the Bank of England and the Treasury — thinks that the whole thing is “rubbish”.

Foundation X’s people “expect to be contacted only by someone equal to head of state status or someone with an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world”.

They claim to have already deposited £5 billion in British banks — a claim Treasury says cannot be true.

They claim to have more than $7 trillion in gold bullion — more than the standard figure of 5.3 billion troy ounces of gold which has been mined in human history.

They would be happy to put up £5 billion for the UK government to invest in industry, they don’t want to control the funds, and they won’t charge interest.

They’d also be happy to transfer £17 billion to the UK government for the Crossrail plan — before Christmas.

Oh, and they’ll happily fund the building of hospitals and schools, too.

Lord James always struck me as a perfectly sensible person, but he does seem to have gone completely bonkers here. But hey, at least he’s provided years’ worth of grist for conspiracy theorists around the world. Who could this Foundation X be? Might they be related to the Rosicrucians? The Knights Templar? The Illuminati Elite? The Vatican? And what terrible fate might befall James, now that he has hinted at their shadowy existence?

You'll find more links in the thread above...

So what are you actually trying to clarify here? That this seemingly nutty Lord made the dubious claim? Well there is video of it already posted and now you've got several links in the thread made at the time....

This is all deflecting a bit, despite it being clear now that this guy has history for being rather gullible and making rather silly claims in the House of Lords you don't seem to have anything to say about the CT video you posted where he made similar silly claims.

Werewolf · 5 Jan 2019 at 01:30

Dis86 said:
@Minusorange go read a book on structural design and you'll begin to understand. Also note that parts of the upper structures did fall to the side.

Ta da.

You can't see how on a day like it was why confusion may have occurred regarding building numbers and the status? I'm pretty sure there were even reports other targets had been hit that hadn't.

The pentagon was a military structure. People generally aren't allowed to film them and a lot of the footage will likely remain confidential, again due to the nature of the structure.

More likely there wasn't much, and what was would have been pretty poor quality, at least of the initial attack and exterior.

One of the common things I've noticed amongst 911 "truthers" is a complete and utter lack of understanding in regards to even basic things like the fact that back in '01 most people didn't carry cameras around with them (and cameras were a lot larger with very limited shots before you had to change storage media), and that basically no one with the exception of some tourists and people who made a living off it carried video gear around with them, and even then it was extremely bulky with short "run" times between battery/tape changes so wasn't left recording all the time and often stored in bags to protect it/make it easier to carry.

It's one of those almost amusing, in a sad way, type of things when you realise people who were adults at the time seem to have no memory of camcorders, film cameras, and that IIRC mobile phones with cameras didn't become available until about '02 and were sub VGA resolution so it was a very conscious choice (and often some degree of inconvenience) to have a camera on you unless there was a specific reason.

It'd probably be more suspicious if the US government showed loads of great quality video of the plane approaching and hitting the pentagon, but the CT'ers don't seem to grasp that

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 01:32

dowie said:
You didn't clarify what you're after? I remembered it from when it was reported at the time, perhaps because I actually read the news rather than getting all my information from conspiracy sites.

A quick search reveals that it was mentioned on these forums at the time too:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/foundation-x.18203648/

Here is link to a Reuter's blog at the time it was reported:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/11/03/conspiracy-theory-of-the-day-foundation-x-edition/

You'll find more links in the thread above...

So what are you actually trying to clarify here? That this seemingly nutty Lord made the dubious claim? Well there is video of it already posted and now you've got several links in the thread made at the time....

This is all deflecting a bit, despite it being clear now that this guy has history for being rather gullible and making rather silly claims in the House of Lords you don't seem to have anything to say about the CT video you posted where he made similar silly claims.

Why are they all in blog form?
Have you looked through that thread. I dont see many articles. The links are all broken too

Ive no idea why youre obsessed with saying im a CT nut. Are you saying there are no conspiracies?

Do i believe 9/11 was an inside job? No
Did we land on the moon? Yes
Is the earth round? Yes
Is Qanon real? No

Im hardly a CT nut. Im more conspiratorially minded when it comes to absolute power and wealth.
As has been proven through the ages, shady **** happens when it comes to money & power

dowie · 5 Jan 2019 at 01:41

Trusty said:
Why are they all in blog form?
Have you looked through that thread. I dont see many articles. The links are all broken too

Some links are broken? Well it happened in 2010, I'm not surprised the links are broken, news sites get updated, they don't necessarily retain all content.

Ive no idea why youre obsessed with saying im a CT nut. Are you saying there are no conspiracies?

I'm not obsessed with saying it, you chose to post a conspiracy video, you're not able to provide anything further regarding that video and instead have focused your attention on a previous incident involving the same member of the house of Lords where it isn't particularly clear what you want.

I've not claimed there are no conspiracies. Common sense dictates that the one you posted is obviously wrong, even if you lack common sense then you could perhaps finally come to that realisation when you realise there it nothing at all to back it up.... so far you made a vague handwaving argument that the existence of some multi trillionaire is plausible because the combined wealth of the billionaires and multi millionaires of the House of Saud comes to just over a trillion???

Minusorange · 5 Jan 2019 at 01:42

Werewolf said:
It's one of those almost amusing, in a sad way, type of things when you realise people who were adults at the time seem to have no memory of camcorders, film cameras, and that IIRC mobile phones with cameras didn't become available until about '02 and were sub VGA resolution so it was a very conscious choice (and often some degree of inconvenience) to have a camera on you unless there was a specific reason.

That would be fine if it was say a motel or a garage that was struck but it was one of the most secure buildings in the entire country, you're telling me they had nothing better than the 1 frame every 5 second camera they allowed to be shown of the impact ?

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 01:49

dowie said:
Some links are broken? Well it happened in 2010, I'm not surprised the links are broken, news sites get updated, they don't necessarily retain all content.

I'm not obsessed with saying it, you chose to post a conspiracy video, you're not able to provide anything further regarding that video and instead have focused your attention on a previous incident involving the same member of the house of Lords where it isn't particularly clear what you want.

I've not claimed there are no conspiracies. Common sense dictates that the one you posted is obviously wrong, even if you lack common sense then you could perhaps finally come to that realisation when you realise there it nothing at all to back it up.... so far you made a vague handwaving argument that the existence of some multi trillionaire is plausible because the combined wealth of the billionaires and multi millionaires of the House of Saud comes to just over a trillion???

I dont want anything. You engaged me, remember?

You asked me why i find it surprising?

What is the general theme, its irrelevant wether the video of 15 trillion is fake or not. We know 75 trillion is offshore..

Therefore i dont find corruption surprising. Do you understand now?

And yes, i'll never have proof that particular video is real or not. Neither do you.

But we know 75 trillion is offshore..

Connect the dots eh.

dowie · 5 Jan 2019 at 02:00

Trusty said:
What is the general theme, its irrelevant wether the video of 15 trillion is fake or not.

Brilliant

And yes, i'll never have proof that particular video is real or not. Neither do you.

I don't expect to find proof that it is real, it is quite clearly nonsense ergo there won't be any proof.

Connect the dots eh.

Connect what dots? You're all over the place here tbh...

I should add, since you felt the need to highlight that billionaires exist previously, I am aware that corruption exists in the world

Trusty · 5 Jan 2019 at 02:01

Is 75 trillion offshore, nonsense?

I do expect a reply.

dowie · 5 Jan 2019 at 02:01

Minusorange said:
That would be fine if it was say a motel or a garage that was struck but it was one of the most secure buildings in the entire country, you're telling me they had nothing better than the 1 frame every 5 second camera they allowed to be shown of the impact ?

They had several dozen cameras that might have captured some footage, apparently the only useful footage was captured on a couple of cameras.