1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Now that something has actually been released from this leak, I'm going to allow some less-structured discussion on this topic, as it's an interesting current event. The leaks appear to be real but are essentially just client-confidential information for a law firm, like lots of deposition transcripts. Fascinating stuff which might point at some ordinary indications or accusations of negligence, corruption or illegal activity, but I don't think it's going to be very satisfying to the more extreme conspiracy theorists, like AE911Truth.

    Some interesting perspective can be had in a comment which claims to quote an AMA session that DO did:


    Google Drive link to "Layer 1" docs:
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  2. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    They should sell it then to the Daily Mail. They'd get alot more money for a lot less hassle that way.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've skimmed over the documents actually released so far. Boring stuff. Example:
    Metabunk 2019-01-04 10-46-51.

    It seem, so far to be entirely about liability litigation that entirely supports the broad strokes of the "official story." So it's probably going to get dismissed as misinformation by the "Controlled Demolition" theorists.

    I'd hope though that for some people the vast bulk of these documents will give them some better sense of how the world really works.

    We'll see. I'm going to let other people comb through it.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    hhmm.. wonder if this news from RT is true. If they are only extorting conspiracy theorists, i'm not sure how i feel about that.

  5. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    From what I've seen, this looks to be a pretty shameless cash grab by the hackers in question. I guess we shouldn't be surprised about that as shameless cash grabs and extortion are this particular group's MO, but it's worth stating.

    The documents released so far appear to me to all be ordinary course legal documents that any familiar with such things would expect to see. There is nothing pointing to an inside job or some other kind of cover-up, as far as I can see, which is the same thing reflected in the related public documents concerning these litigations. And there were thousands such litigations related to the 9/11 attacks (note this docket and case consolidation note from the SDNY to get a sense of how many cases there were and how courts struggled to handle them, for example) and many of them of course involved insurance claims. I would not be surprised if nearly every major insurance and re-insurance company in the world was involved in some way at some point. I would bet it was one of the most litigated events in history (with maybe only superstorms like Katrina coming close).

    As an attorney myself, I find the sheer volume and scope of these litigations to be reason enough to believe that there is no truth to the inside job/controlled demolition conspiracy theories, even if you put all the other (ample) countrary evidence aside. These cases collectively involved thousands of the world's best lawyers spending hundreds of thousands of hours exactingly examining all of the events that day with billions of dollars on the line, and not a single such case ever supported such conspiracy theories, even though such conspiracy theories, if true, would have led to billions of dollars of savings for the insurance companies (such as was the case in the Aegis Insurance case re WTC7 that has been discussed at length here).

    As Mick says, these files are likely to be excused away as limited hangout or misinformation by dyed-in-the-wool truthers, but, to any reasonable truth-seeker, they should go even further to provide that the inside job/controlled demolition conspiracy theories are nonsense. I thus not only hope that truthers spend money paying for access to them, but actually read and think about them; it'd definitely be a better use of money than wasting $300k to have a bridge expert in Alaska promise, but never deliver, a peer reviewed paper on WTC7's collapse.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    In that RT link it's stated they want 2 million from the public before they release any of the 'good stuff'. so , that's kinda ridiculous.
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    And Cyberscoop is saying (bold added for emphasis)