Slashdot Mirror


Hackers Threaten To Dump Insurance Files Related To 9/11 Attacks (vice.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: On Monday, New Year's Eve, a hacker group announced it had breached a law firm handling cases related to the September 11 attacks, and threatened to publicly release a large cache of related internal files unless their ransom demands were met. The news is the latest public extortion attempt from the group known as The Dark Overlord, which has previously targeted a production studio working for Netflix, as well as a host of medical centres and private businesses across the United States. The announcement also signals a slight evolution in The Dark Overlord's strategy, which has expanded on leveraging the media to exert pressure on victims, to now distributing its threats and stolen data in a wider fashion.

In its announcement published on Pastebin, The Dark Overlord points to several different insurers and legal firms, claiming specifically that it hacked Hiscox Syndicates Ltd, Lloyds of London, and Silverstein Properties. "Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Lloyds of London are some of the biggest insurers on the planet insuring everything from the smallest policies to some of the largest policies on the planet, and who even insured structures such as the World Trade Centers," the announcement reads.

134 comments

  1. hmmm by nomadic · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how valuable 18-year old files are.

    1. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're not very imaginative. But why prejudge them either way, unless you have an agenda to push beyond what the documents say anyway? That's like deciding not to investigate Saudi Arabia even with the smoking guns.

    2. Re:hmmm by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep, follow the money. We should have embargoed the Saudi scum and blockaded their ports in the weeks after 9/11, not spend trillions on endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Send a message that financing terrorism and mass murder is not an acceptable thing to do.

      But no, the Bush family was too corrupt and enmeshed in oil interests to do the right thing.

    3. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama had 8 years to get it done. So....?

    4. Re:hmmm by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fuck 'em both, and fuck Trump too. We haven't had a good president since Carter (IMHO).

    5. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obama? Was probably too busy killing Osama Bin Laden for the Republican weaklings who couldn't get it done, saving the economy from Republican discretionary spending on wars and corporate tax cuts, and not lusting after his own daughters.

      Trump truly is a traitor, but it's the weird way he wants to fuck his daughter that will probably be remembered even more than his whining from Federal Prison.

    6. Re:hmmm by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

      Actually, we shouldn't have gone after Bin Laden at all -- a leader is replaceable. Cutting off the funding to him and every other fucker like him would have been far more effective.

    7. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that's why al qaeda is still in the news so much, because you're right and killing UBL was stupid. "Far more effective" - go join Space Force ya twat, SOCOM will be fine without you somehow, I promise. Jesus.

      captcha : BLURTING

    8. Re:hmmm by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I'm not prejudging them, I'm saying that in my expert opinion it is far more likely than not that these documents will be boring and pointless, and if such is the case the law firm should not pay any ransom.

    9. Re: hmmm by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and about those hacks, I wonder when we are going to start seeing those hackers shot in the balls, knees and elbows, just to send a message that not everything should be hacked. I'm really surprised it hasn't happened yet.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    10. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Qaeda has been in the news the entire time. They were referenced as Al Nusra. We financed the rise of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, just as we financed and trained the terrorists we flooded into Syria to get rid of Assad so we could get a pipeline through the country and take over their oil reserves. Are you new? It isn't safe to drink the water, do you really think we are off saving the world? Don't be so naive.

    11. Re: hmmm by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Hopefully never -- some of them serve a valid societal function of exposing corruption.

    12. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But no, the Bush family was too corrupt and enmeshed in oil interests to do the right thing.

      USA has pretty much legalized corruption. What did you expect? Bush family doesn't even remotely give two shits about anything that you give two shits about.

      How about limiting contributions and at least try to test if someone is a psychopath or a sociopath before letting them run for anything government related? Or is it a violation of first amendment that today seams to only apply to corporations and their bitches?

    13. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually it was 6 weeks before 9/11. He had breakfast at Windows of the World at WTC every morning except on 9/11. He and is son and daughter - who both worked at the WTC - were all suspiciously absent that day.

    14. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was a gambling man, I would bet one American dollar that this "hack" is a honeypot, and anyone who downloads the 10-gb zip file (which is most likely actually something you *really* don't want on your computer) will find themselves in federal pmita prison. There are 1337 h4x0r5 publishing manifestos like this every other day, but they're never reported by mainstream media because they tend to be either bullshit, or too embarrassing for the high-profile target. Nothing that "TheDarkOverlord" (come the fuck on. really??) has shown is remotely damaging or interesting, which should by itself be a massive red flag. If they had anything worthwhile, they'd at least show a few pages to prove that they're legit.

    15. Re:hmmm by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who didn't live through the Arab Oil Embargo. A Democrat President would have done the same thing. The effect of the embargo and subsequent higher oil prices on the U.S. economy already sank the Carter Presidency. The Democrats would not have allowed a repeat.

      While not going after the Saudis may have been the morally bankrupt choice, it was the economically cheaper choice even if it did involve spending trillions on wars. Any President who implemented a contrary policy would have been voted out of office the next election, after Saudi retaliation by throttling oil exports would have devastated the U.S. economy more than 9/11 and the wars did. Ultimately, Americans vote based on their economic well-being. Voting based on morality is an option they exercise only when they feel their household is financially secure.

    16. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, inflation was so low and the economy was doing so well and we so quickly ended the Iranian hostage crisis under his leadership. Not.

      Carter was probably the most principled and empathetic US President of my lifetime and I respect him greatly as a person, but he was a horrible President. He was an "outsider" and very ineffective in the job.

    17. Re:hmmm by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Arab Oil Embargo was a good thing -- it allowed more efficient Japanese cars to temporarily slaughter the antiquated beasts the US automakers were vomiting onto the roads. It's a shame that oil didn't STAY expensive after the early 80s. We'd probably be driving more electric cars, have more of our railroad network electrified, and we'd have much smaller cars (like in Europe) -- not as many idiots driving huge SUVs and pickups in the suburbs.

      Personally, I'd WELCOME another oil embargo or an Iran-Iraq-Saudi war if it puts worldwide oil prices in their rightful place: above $250/bbl.

    18. Re:hmmm by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      it is far more likely than not that these documents will be boring and pointless, and if such is the case the law firm should not pay any ransom

      Certainly not an expert on the matter, but how many lawyers would be lined up to sue the shit out these three firms for failing to protect sensitive information? I give it 3 days for a class action lawsuit to be announced, no matter how boring the contents of the files are.

    19. Re:hmmm by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      And Trump's had 3 years to get it done. So.... ?

      I think it's fair to say the sitting president primarily takes responsibility for the policy thereafter.

    20. Re:hmmm by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

      Almost but not really: https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

      Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or “fortuitous,” therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy — which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage — two months before 9/11, because that’s when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn’t even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer.

      And he got back $4.55 billion when the rebuilding cost was estimated to be $9 billion so he lost a ton of money here, so no there where no "funny how a jew profited from terrorist attacks" at all.

    21. Re:hmmm by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      A Democrat President would have done the same thing.

      Stop reading partisan politics into everything for God's sake. He just said Bush was corrupt. He didn't say all Rs are corrupt. If you want to talk about Carter's corruption, go start a thread where that's relevant. It's not an excuse for other corrupt presidents.

    22. Re:hmmm by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Two years - not quite 2 years. Remember, he was sworn in January 2017.

    23. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SNOPES? Give us a break. You can't trust a damn thing THEY say.

    24. Re:hmmm by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Meh, we're required to exercise due care with documents but I don't think they can be liable for acts like this, unless they were really negligent in securing them. We're not expected to be infallible, just not too stupid or careless.

    25. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He paid 3.2 billion for the buildings. That puts him a little over a billion up, plus the rights to some of the best real estate in the country as a bonus.

    26. Re:hmmm by quenda · · Score: 1

      Yep, follow the money. We should have embargoed the Saudi scum and blockaded their ports in the weeks after 9/11, not spend trillions on endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Send a message that financing terrorism and mass murder is not an acceptable thing to do.

      Unless we do it. Afghanistan in the '80s, Cuba, Brazil, Nicaragua, Pinochet, Mubarak ...

    27. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing. Any thoughts of your own? Or do you just regurgitate leftist propaganda verbatim?

    28. Re:hmmm by jcr · · Score: 2

      Carter? The idiot of the Tehran Vaudeville Show?

      Yeah, right.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    29. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the tens of thousands of lives saved by a reduction in driving.

    30. Re: hmmm by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Link to a single mistake they ever made in their thousands of documents.

      Or admit being brainwashed.

    31. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and sworn at continuously since then

    32. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me repeat: Do not download that file en masse so our IP logs don't get clogged by a million downloads. We can't imprison a million downloaders so please make sure only a few are alone in the logfiles so we can make an example out of them.

      Yess my fellow regular citizens, I am not a ssshill of the enemy because no one has enemies and an enemy is just someone you didn't give enough foreign aid, and I am deebly gonserned about random Anons going to prison for downloading a file even though everyone worth their salt would be using TOR over seven proxies to do so.

    33. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and my fellow conspiracy theorists, our dear friend Silverstein was only by accident breaking his daily routine for that one day and that one day only, just like everyone of his family.

      Conspiracies never happen and no one would put out the flat earth shilling to discredit more seriously researched others. Everything happens exactly as the media report it. We have no time to investigate that now. Go back to work, someone has to pay all that interest from the federal debt. To the New York banks, coincidentally.

    34. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beeing 18 years old make them less valuable?

      Perhaps you better tell that to all the black bars in the 55 year old JFK files.

    35. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if Jews stopped doing these things, there would be a lot less antisemetism in the world.

      It sounds like Osama was just trying to combat anti-Americanism and should be applauded for his actions. I mean, if I could get some HD footage of you getting blown out of the side of a skyscraper whilst clinging to your fucking desk to watch over and over, I would feel a lot more positive about American interests around the World.

    36. Re:hmmm by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      But no, the Bush family was too corrupt and enmeshed in oil interests to do the right thing.

      It's far worse than that. He was a puppet that gurgled and drank the swamp water. You said it was the Bush's interests, as if the only. No, it was mutual to the swamp.

      Personally I would have gone after entire nations and forced their declaration of surrender. Once done, get their military to spend the capital. Nukes required? Fuck it, let God sort it out. Would be far far cheaper than the TRILLIONS blown to this date.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    37. Re:hmmm by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, me too. Nothing like a massive human die-off to cull the human population. Right comrade?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    38. Re:hmmm by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      I don't. Confiscate (tax) from the rich to subsidize the poor converting to clean sources of energy. Hell of a lot cheaper than propping up oil dictators and endless war.

    39. Re:hmmm by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Seriously speaking, I'd be all for a one-child policy (or at least no tax advantages for having > 1 child). We talk about ZPG but we should strive for NPG.

    40. Re:hmmm by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The simple SANE responsible action that meets the governments basic mandate to "provide for the common defense" to shutdown immigration from that part of the world.

      The state department could grant the handfuls of special case visa to permit the required well known persons limited access to the USA to facilitate the oil trade and the movement of other goods. No VISA for anyone else from the middle east. As far as mid easterners go with foreign passwords they better have a long establish residency in their adopted nation with no criminal history at all or No VISA.

      We could enjoy near total safety from international terrorism on the within the US if we just made a little effort to control who gets in here. No need for massive costly unending morally evil military adventures.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    41. Re:hmmm by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You're thinking like a Western; and I actually agree with you. In reality however, those in power would be short of slave-labor to exploit, so they would both in-source and out-source it.

      Notice how the West is having an immigration problem and those in power spit on well-beings of the citizens it's supposed to represent? Yeah, that problem. Meanwhile, the brain-drain continues to flow out of 'shithole' nations which only exasperates the need to pop out babies like watermelon seeds. THAT is the problem. Over THERE, not here in the West. Just replace fossil-fuels with nuclear and renewables and the population will continue to drop in the West. Just ask Germany and Japan.

      Meanwhile....build that damn wall to keep the breeding infestation out!!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    42. Re: hmmm by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and about those hacks, I wonder when we are going to start seeing those hackers shot in the balls, knees and elbows, just to send a message that not everything should be hacked. I'm really surprised it hasn't happened yet.

      I see you're not a fan of the Eighth Amendment. You think that's an appropriate punishment for hacking? That's some next-level authoritarian dictator shit. Thank god you're not in charge.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    43. Re:hmmm by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Except that's not really true any more, at least in countries for which a wall would work. The fertility rate in LatAm and the Caribbean is 2.0, not so different than the US rate of 1.8.

    44. Re:hmmm by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You can't fight globalism....err...neo-feudalism. They own the media. Here, read this

      https://www.newscientist.com/a...

      That's the narrative.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    45. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is not to imprison a million downloaders, it's to have a convenient reason to imprison certain individuals. By all means, please download it and tell us what you find. Also: You're on /., not 4chan.

    46. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carter had a globalist cabal 'advising' him, same as every president since him--with one exception. Funny how that person is the one the media simply will not write even a neutral let alone positive story about ever, and they constantly criticize simple, routine things and manufacture crisis after made-up crisis. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though. Everyone can go back to their virtue signaling now.

    47. Re: hmmm by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Carter had a globalist cabal 'advising' him, same as every president since him--with one exception.

      That's the thing. Great leaders aren't hyper-intelligent individuals that know all the answers. Why? Because that describes no one. Nobody is an expert in all the fields necessary to govern a large nation.

      Great leaders are people that are smart enough to surround themselves with experts to form coordinated informed actions. "That person" continues to alienate and fire all of their experts and go it alone. That should scare you.

    48. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is America, where Equifax got away with dropping the entire nation's dox. Don't get your hopes up. "Failing to protect sensitive information" isn't a crime. Yet.

    49. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mabye 9-11 truths idk.

    50. Re:hmmm by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      So he pays 3.2 billion, gets back 4.55 billion and have to pay at least 9 billion rebuilding it, that still leaves him 7.65 billion in the red, not to mention all the missed rent that he could have collected for all these years. But no of course he plotted to kill 3k people just to be 7.65 billion in the red, you people are truly insane.

    51. Re:hmmm by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Carter is an absolutely stellar example of someone who meant well and was a decent person, but couldn't do the job well. Sometimes you gotta be a jerk, and he wasn't.

    52. Re:hmmm by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Then we should be glad you aren't in charge.
      There have been lots of leaders in history with that idea. It never works out.

  2. Do we even care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    9/11 to geneation z was like the titanic, some disaster that happened a long time ago before they were born. Yes, in 9 months time you can legally watch post 9/11 porn stars.

    1. Re:Do we even care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a valid point, since nobody who was alive at the time is still alive today.

    2. Re:Do we even care? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0

      The sarcasm is strong with this one.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: Do we even care? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Your "Gen Z" is going to be paying for the 9/11 (PNAC) wars for the rest of their lives given the current trajectory. They might just care about that if the hackers release history and economics primers as well.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Do we even care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the holocaust.

    5. Re:Do we even care? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      in 9 months time you can legally watch post 9/11 porn stars

      I love this new definition of "eighteen years".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re: Do we even care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 9/11 stuck us with DHS, the TSA, the NSA spying on everone--curiously topics that never seem to cause any partisan splits among people who allegedly hate each other in Washington. Certainly learning all that was the intended effect and not a reaction wouldn't mean anything, huh?

      Here's one people forget: the TWA 800 bombing, er, missile strike, er, fuel tank explosion...yeah, fuel tank explosion. Silly me. Thing about that is this is the event that led the feds to do the airlines' bidding and make your name on your ticket match your ID, thus heralding in obscene change fees since you can't resell tickets now. This was a reaction to an alleged terrorist incident which they later said was not a terrorist incident--but did the policy put in place because of it get revoked? Funny how that happens.

  3. pfft 17 year old data by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    I mean at this point there have been so many other major breaches Its hard to imagine to much of real interesting being there.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:pfft 17 year old data by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      Also, the outcome of the attempt to blackmail Netflix with release of part of a season of Orange is the new black was hilarious.

      This person is such a clown. All ransom notes from this individual should be read in lisping-tending-toward-daffy-duck pocket protector nerd voice for maximum hilarity.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:pfft 17 year old data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except maybe where all that Red Cross money went -- or didn't, as the case may be. I suspect the people most likely to be injured by a breach like this aren't those we would typically identify as victims of those attacks.

    3. Re:pfft 17 year old data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its hard to imagine to much of real interesting being there.

      Except that it might reveal the reason for having the buildings demolished (I mean, something other than they were ugly as hell), and who done it. You know somebody paid the man. This shit ain't done for free!

  4. maybe I'm dense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I slow this morning?....Can someone explain....Why do we care? Who has anything to hide/gain with this? also...Where are my pants?

    1. Re:maybe I'm dense... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Who has to gain? The public -- people affected by 9/11 should have access to as much air-quality and hazmat data as possible to facilitate lawsuits against relevant parties. Who has to lose? The state and US governments who both understated health risks in the weeks after 9/11.

      Leak away, people, you're doing the good people of New York a solid.

    2. Re:maybe I'm dense... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Come one there was no coordinated attempt to cover up the health risks. If the understated the risks it was to avoid a panic. The reality is at the end of the day state and federal medicare is going to be on the hook of those health effects either way. So private insurers might get stuck with some of the bill in the mean time but for the most part these things will present as increased rates of later life illnesses like COPD and various cancers among those exposed.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:maybe I'm dense... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Medicare is one thing, but people with health issues might also be entitled to compensation from private insurers. If the private insurance companies can be bled some more, so much the better ....

  5. Good... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let them leak it. I don't believe in any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I *do* believe that the Feds and NY government massively understated health risks to people in downtown Manhattan (and possibly Brooklyn and Staten Island) after the incident. Maybe this will shed some light on what toxic chemicals were in the towers and actual air sampling data. Sunlight disinfects, and it's not like I'd weep for insurance companies.

    1. Re:Good... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The French solved these problems a long time ago via proper reactor design and reprocessing. Solving them in the US is a legal and engineering issue, not one requiring major scientific advances.

    2. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building 7 was hit by a plane!! oh wait it wasn't.. Didn't Larry himself personally admit to pulling the plug on it? or wasn't building 7 announced as being knocked down while it was still in plain sight?

      What was in building 7? Who were P Tech? what about the hundreds of other 'your pants are down' moments that happened on that day? Sloppiest op in history?

    3. Re:Good... by 3seas · · Score: 2

      Asbestos was an issue with the towers and in the dust cloud no doubt and this lead to illness and death due cancer. Laws were absolutely broken regarding architectural research on the structure failure. These laws were created to support Architectural & Engineering industries ability to improve their technology. The laws were broken by not allowing the research.

    4. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is of course money, as you dishonestly avoid and constantly try to deny. Renewables are safer and cheaper to make ubiquitous and require no guarding, no reprocessing, no 10,000 year physics simulations. You keep pretending renewables are unproven technologically and nuclear "just works" - the reality is just the opposite, nuclear has proven to be too expensive for a variety of reasons and renewable resources "just work" without the containment building required or the threat of permanent contamination baked in. You also advocate a 50-year replacement cycle as if it could be accomplished in 5, it's just dishonest from start to finish.

      But please, continue opining about your "gut" feelings on 9/11 and how safe the hundreds of thousands of core rods sitting in cement cooling pools around the country is an example of perfect engineering working swimmingly.

    5. Re:Good... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't be "sitting in cement cooling pools" if we allowed reprocessing. French and Japanese can do it, why not us?

    6. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah Japan has no issues with unsafe nuclear power and France has no issues with the massive costs, good point derp. God you're so intentionally thick sometimes, you could block gamma rays with your ignorant veneer.

    7. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The disappearance of the channel 7 coverage where a reporter ran up to one of the (umpteen) fire chiefs saying that there were rumors that Building 7 was going to go down and the chief threating to have her arrested for unnecessarily spreading panic because it was structurally intact and completely unaffected. Just over an hour later, whoops, there it went.

      That sequence of events has haunted me for years and I still have never seen the footage replayed. I would appreciate a link if ANYONE has it available.

    8. Re:Good... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Better to subsidize carbon-free power than endless oil wars. Besides, France has lower electricity costs than even the US ($0.20 per kWh vs $0.21 for the US). Some dirty-coal burning Eastern EU countries are even lower, but that's not a good option carbon-wise.

    9. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Building 7 was hit by a plane!! oh wait it wasn't.. Didn't Larry himself personally admit to pulling the plug on it? or wasn't building 7 announced as being knocked down while it was still in plain sight?

      What was in building 7? Who were P Tech? what about the hundreds of other 'your pants are down' moments that happened on that day? Sloppiest op in history?

      wiki paragraph

      As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Additionally, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.

      After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. The fire expanded the girders of the building, causing some to lose their structural integrity. This led column number 79, a critical column supporting a large part of the 13th floor, to buckle, causing the floors above it to collapse to the fifth floor; however, this could not be seen from outside the building. The structure also developed cracks in the facade just before the entire building started to fall. According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling. Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed: at 5:21:10pm EDT according to FEMA, and at 5:20:52pm EDT according to NIST. There were no casualties associated with the collapse. NIST found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse.

      Even if this is the first steel structure to fall due to fire, I believe the NY firefighters, seriously very competant badasses. It would be far more difficult to believe NYFD was and is involved in conspiracy to destroy evidence of something nefarious in Building 7.

    10. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah Japan has no issues with unsafe nuclear power

      I hear tsunamis are a real problem a thousand miles inland.

    11. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Better to subsidize carbon-free power than endless oil wars" = renewables, cheapest, safest, quickest, best. Deal with it snowflake.

    12. Re:Good... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      I actually support both -- but nuclear is great for base load whereas renewables are not.

    13. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you. If you look at the deaths per terawatt-hour generated by each energy medium, nuclear is a class by itself. It needs to be tossed because of that.

    14. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch "The New Pearl Harbor" in full to see a review of the evidence.

  6. Re:Utf by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Records related to the World Trade Center attack on 9/11/2001, not 911 calls.

  7. So bring it on by mschuyler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These guys want money or they will release the files. So if they do not they got paid. That, if it happens, should tell you something about both groups.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:So bring it on by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what smarmy things the internal lawyer records might show, there's a good reason for the attorney client privlege, namely, not letting those in power abuse prosecution of opponents to their own advantage.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:So bring it on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or someone "got to them" before they could release....

    3. Re:So bring it on by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You only public threaten want you can not achieve privately, so a big bluff, the taste is all there is or to throw the trail off government hackers, set the media with the mind state that it is blackmail that failed or establish a precedent for mass censorship to prevent data protected by law from reaching the internet.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  8. The actual pastebin link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We don't need no stinking ad-ridden middlemen to tell us, news for n00bs

    https://pastebin.com/4F5R8QyQ

  9. Re:Utf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently it's something that happened on the 9th of November.

  10. It's called clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    msmash gets off on headlines with "hacker" in them.

  11. Re:Utf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But 9/11/2001 is not a valid date format.

  12. Re:Utf by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure it's something that happened on the ~298th day of the year.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  13. Slashdot is part of the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFS:

    "The announcement also signals a slight evolution in The Dark Overlord's strategy, which has expanded on leveraging the media to exert pressure on victims, to now distributing its threats and stolen data in a wider fashion."

  14. Re:Utf by BringsApples · · Score: 1, Informative

    "The 11th of November 2001" 11/9/2001
    vs
    "November the 11th 2001" 9/11/2001

    The first way is how everyone, with the exception of the USA, formats and speaks the date. The second is what the USA does.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  15. Ruskies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like the Shadow Brokers all over again. Who makes public threats and demands ransom? Someone with an interest in making a public statement spreading more conspiracy theories. Any entity threatened publicly is LESS likely to pay up because they don't want to look weak. Threaten someone publicly and you get public image involved. Threaten privately, and it's mostly about money. Guess which one is more profitable?

    The Ruskies are currently betting on gaining on any damage done to the Western world. Leaking some weird conspiracy garbage benefits them greatly because conspiracy theories weaken government, and in this case, The US specifically.

    1. Re: Ruskies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cyka blyat

    2. Re: Ruskies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damage control anyone :) ?

    3. Re:Ruskies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Them Russians are so brilliant, they are everywhere doing everything, how did we win the cold war?

  16. Re:Utf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use JodaTime instead.

  17. Re:Utf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    In America we actually call the 9th month September. Don't hold your breath on us converting to a metric calendar system, though.

  18. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a credible source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia is not a credible source, you've just lost all credibility. Parrot repeating is not source journalism.

    1. Re: Sorry, Wikipedia is not a credible source. by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      It is where it's quoting reliable sources.

  19. eviloverlord.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure The Dark Overlord has failed at multiple entries on the official list.

    1. Re:eviloverlord.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he was defeated once and for all back in 1986 by Howard T. Duck.

  20. It's not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're addicted to oil and they can F us over is the short reason why none of the presidents have done anything, on either side.

    You're right that they're not trustworthy allies.

    We need alternate energy yesterday so we can let them get bent.

    1. Re:It's not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except, now, we (the US) are a net exporter of oil. Sure, it's a global market, but if prices climb we net benefit. This situation is not likely to change in the future as we move to more fuel efficient vehicles and electric vehicles. The only way for the Saudis to screw us is dump oil onto the market (their production costs are among the lowest in the world) to drive the price down below where US oilfields can make money -- but within months of them again restricting supply, the mothballed rigs in the US will be restarted. The Saudis and the Middle East in general are in a no win game and they know it.

      This is why the rich countries in the Middle East are desperately trying to make themselves luxury tourist destinations as they know the oil game is winding down and they will be broke. I'm not convinced that very many people really would rather play golf in the desert just because it's amazing how they can keep the greens green (they flood them every night with very expensive water) or ski on a short, easy, inside ski slope just because it's amazing how they can keep the place cold enough to make/keep snow (unsurprisingly, they expend massive amounts of electricity to do so). The novelty will wear off.

      Personally, given the choice of playing golf at Pebble Beach or in the middle of the desert, I know which I would pick. Similarly, given the choice of skiing at Telluride or Jackson Hole (or many other places in the US alone, let alone in the Alps etc) or in an enclosed building on a short run in the desert, I know which I would pick.

    2. Re:It's not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Middle East are desperately trying to make themselves luxury tourist destinations"
      Would the deluxe holiday package include a fulltime protection detail? Vacationing in the ME is just slightly better than planning an all exclusive vacation package in NK.
      The US is the only major producer of oil that doesn't depend on oil exports for +90% of it's GDP and the only source of hard currency needed to trade. The OPEC countries, Russia , and the oil producing Scandinavian countries would go broke if the US decided to turn up the taps. The US government could subsidize the oil producing companies in the US to make up any losses when the price of oil decreases to 10 bbl. The US has been increasing the use of alternative energy sources while relying less on oil and that trend will continue. And the US no longer needs to underwrite the security for oil exports out of the ME countries. If other countries are worried about securing the oil exports from the ME they can step up and provide the security.
       

    3. Re:It's not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The petrodollar still screws us over. Oil is fungible so we can't really control where we get our supply from, either, at least not to a meaningful extent.

      I agree that it's sort of a situation where both of us would hurt each other, though.

      I badly want clean energy so we can leave this nonsense behind, but I don't see it happening, sadly.

  21. Paid in Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds risky to me. They'd better convert their bounty into bucks before it goes to zero later this year.

  22. Re:Utf by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 2

    yet another reason to use ISO 8601 date formats, no one is confused if you say 2001-09-11

    --
    horror vacui
  23. Do you remember the 21st night of September? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    nah, I'm distinctly remember it goes

    Remember, remember, the 5 th of November
    The Gunpowder Treason and plot;

  24. Re:Utf by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    You underestimate the Americans. They're some of the most easily confused people on the planet, and congratulate themselves as such.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. remind me again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how many 9/11 hijackers we from ....

    North Korea
    Iran
    Afghanistan
    Iraq
    Syria

    and how many were from Saudi Arabia ... All of them!!!!!!!!!!!

  27. Re:Utf by sexconker · · Score: 2

    8:01 PM on the 9th of November?

  28. Re:Utf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get rid of AM/PM as well and use 24-hour time.

  29. actually... by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    I would be more interested in All the Pentagon files for 9/11. I just think they would tell you more than what an insurance report would. just saying

    1. Re:actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be more interested in All the Pentagon files for 9/11. I just think they would tell you more than what an insurance report would. just saying

      Yes, because the insurance industry is full of clowns, failures and frauds unlike the fucking military.

  30. WTC7 exploded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is a fact that explosions were involved in the destruction of WTC7. Eyewitness accounts report multiple explosions. A firefighter yelled "WTC7 is exploding!" over the firefighter's radio channel. The sound of a huge explosion was captured on video on a street nearby WTC7 during the disaster, people visibly flinching in response. An explosion destroyed the lobby and 1st floor stairwells of the building.

    Search for a video called "Barry Jennings 911 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview." He was there. Firefighters rescued him from the WTC7 building just before it fell. They killed him for giving that interview, a week later.

    1. Re:WTC7 exploded by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Search for a video called "Barry Jennings 911 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview." He was there. Firefighters rescued him from the WTC7 building just before it fell. They killed him for giving that interview, a week later.

      A friend of mine searched for that video once. Barely a year later, they pulled his charred and almost-unrecognisable corpse from the smoking wreckage of his battered Smart car.

      Yes, he had turned to alcohol as a way of coping with the burden of knowledge, and his somewhat complicated divorce, but I have my suspicions still.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  31. Start at Silverstein, and follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's clear from documented facts that this guy knew exactly what was going to happen, and where the money was going.

  32. Re:Utf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'd just as soon be left alone since we invented most of the modern world. Stop being an ungrateful leach.

  33. Insurance Companies? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Surely this is like extorting The Joker and threatening to reveal how he does his makeup :|

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  34. Re:Utf by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    yet another reason to use ISO 8601 date formats, no one is confused if you say 2001-09-11

    How did that help? It is still between the month being 9 or 11. I use the military style. 11 SEP 2001. No confusion at all possible. All months are three letter abbreviation.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  35. Re:Utf by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    Shit, I always misspell November. I mean November. Shit! November.

    ...September!

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  36. Re:Utf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did that help? It is still between the month being 9 or 11.

    Because no one was ever stupid enough to have a year-day-month date format.

  37. Re:Utf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It helps because it is always yyyy-mm-dd and there isn't a system that reverses the two numbers when it starts with year, thus avoiding interpretation issues between different groups of people when using a numeric-only style.