9/11 was an inside job

**harrybarracuda** · 06-01-2019, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cujo

What's with the CNN obsession?

I think he's an avid viewer but he seems to think everyone else is as well. The dopey c u n t.

**pseudolus** · 06-01-2019, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I think he's an avid viewer but he seems to think everyone else is as well. The dopey c u n t.

Yellow bellied chickenshit coward. That's what you are MOONER

**Dragonfly** · 06-01-2019, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Still waffling to get out of answering the question.

Fucking pussy.

CNN coward !!!

**harrybarracuda** · 07-01-2019, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Yellow bellied chickenshit coward.

Well I prefer to think of you as a fucking pussy, but if the cap fits....

**pseudolus** · 07-01-2019, 02:02 AM

You're a nothing, Mooner harry.

Simple question COWARD. Do you believe in full the official narrative of the events of 9/11?

Simple question or are you too chicken shit to answer it?

**harrybarracuda** · 07-01-2019, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You're a nothing, Mooner harry.

Simple question COWARD. Do you believe in full the official narrative of the events of 9/11?

Simple question or are you too chicken shit to answer it?

You can read all my posts in this thread and you'll have an exact idea of what I believe and I don't.

You're still avoiding my question aren't you, little girl. You think your little hissy fit will hide that simple fact?

You fucking pussy.

**pseudolus** · 07-01-2019, 02:28 AM

Answered you 4 times now chicken shit. I not believe the official narrative, but do not dare to say who or how. Only the official narrative is bullshit.

You are a chickenshit.

Do you believe the official narrative. A simple yes or no will suffice. But you won't, because you are a chickenshit coward.

**Pragmatic** · 07-01-2019, 07:31 AM

John McCain the lying bastard.

On April 9, 2013, Senator John McCain appeared on C-SPAN’s live call-in show Washington Journal. I asked him the following question:

Click the image above to Watch the Video

“The National Institute of Standards and Technology asserts that the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was caused by fire. Yet they acknowledge that the first 100 feet of that collapse took place at free-fall acceleration. Engineers will tell you that fire cannot do this, that the only method by which it can be accomplished is the use of pre-planted explosives.How do you explain this discrepancy...of a hundred feet of free fall, without the use of explosives?”As the video shows, John McCain claimed ignorance, saying, “To tell you the truth, this is an area that I’m not very familiar...and if you would drop me a note and mention that we talked on C-SPAN, I’d be glad to get you a more complete answer.But... honestly, every once in a while I have to plead ignorance about an issue, and this is one that I have not been involved in, but I’ll be more than happy to look into it...”John McCain, of course, is not ignorant of 9/11 Truth. He wrote the foreword for the Popular Mechanics (PM) book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” In his essay “9/11 Conspiracy Myths: Truth Under Attack,” which was adapted from his foreword for PM’s book, McCain wrote:“Any explanation for 9/11 must start and end with the facts. The evidence must be gathered and analyzed. Then—only then—can conclusions be drawn.”Indeed, 100 feet of free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 is a fact, as acknowledged by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was the government agency tasked with investigating the destruction of the building. NIST was forced to admit to WTC 7’s free fall after physics teacher David Chandler embarrassed the agency into telling the truth at a technical briefing in August of 2008.

e erup..

Click the image above to Watch the Video

As well, NIST has refused requests to disclose the input data used to create the computer models for its WTC7 investigation, claiming that doing so would “jeopardize public safety.”It’s likely that John McCain’s plea of ignorance on Washington Journal was in reference to the technical information cited in the question that I asked him, and not to 9/11 Truth in general. In regard to the controversial issue of WTC 7’s destruction, he should be quite familiar with the topic.In 2008, Blair Gadsby — a religious history professor and constituent of McCain — held a hunger strike for 17 days at McCain’s Phoenix office after failing to obtain a personal meeting with the Senator to discuss his concerns about the 9/11 crime. Richard Gage, AIA — CEO and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth — offered his immediate availability to Senator McCain to discuss the evidence.
Despite numerous attempts by AE911Truth supporters to inform Senator McCain about the explosive 9/11 evidence, he has refused to lift a finger in support of a new investigation
Although a member of McCain’s staff finally met with Gadsby and other 9/11 activists after nine days into Gadsby’s hunger strike, and the staff member was given materials that laid out the evidence of the Twin Towers and Building 7’s controlled demolition on 9/11, Senator McCain himself refused to meet with the activists personally, stating in a letter to Gadsby:“I believe these investigations have been conducted in good faith by qualified experts who have approached this daunting task honestly and objectively. My staff and I are always open to new, scientifically substantiated information that helps explain how and why the tragedies of September 11th occurred. I welcome any additional new information you may wish to present on the subject and will make my staff available to listen to your concerns.”Because NIST’s acknowledgement of WTC 7’s freefall took place after McCain wrote those words to Gadsby, it qualifies as the “new, scientifically substantiated information” McCain was seeking. McCain promised on Washington Journal that he would try to answer the question that I asked him. Based on his promise and the existence of the new evidence, John McCain’s office should, therefore, be open to a new meeting with supporters of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a personal re-examination of the evidence.

Senator John McCain Free-Falls on 9/11? Again

**harrybarracuda** · 07-01-2019, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Answered you 4 times now chicken shit. I not believe the official narrative, but do not dare to say who or how.

Yeah, bullshit, I bet you have some tinfoil whackjob story that you tell stoopid people like Thai birds to impress them, but you're too scared to tell us because you'd be a laughing stock.

You fucking pussy.

**harrybarracuda** · 07-01-2019, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

John McCain the lying bastard.

Senator John McCain Free-Falls on 9/11? Again

About the whackiest whackjob website out there.

They must keep Alcoa in business on their own.

**Cujo** · 07-01-2019, 12:54 PM

I don't think McCain was a demolition expert.

**pseudolus** · 07-01-2019, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

tinfoil whackjob story

Ahhh poor little chicken shit Moonerharry. No brain, utter coward. Answer you 5 times, and still you are unable to bring yourself to answer one simple little question.

Shall we try again, chicken shit cowardly pussy?

Do you believe the official narrative then? You think Osama bin laden planned it and it was done as CNN tells you it was?

So sad that you lack the courage to even answer a question and instead think you are some sort of playground bully instead. Mid sized penis swinger harry the complete garbage troll coward.

**Pragmatic** · 07-01-2019, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Cujo

I don't think McCain was a demolition expert.

And I'm 100% sure the writers of 'Popular Mechanics' aren't. Whereas

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

..............

**pseudolus** · 07-01-2019, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Ever heard of the concept of controlled opposition? Steven Jones, the person who worked for The State to stop Pons and Fleischmann (Cold Fusion) in their tracks can now be found at the forefront of this organisation, pulling it down rabbit holes and attacking other groups.

**raycarey** · 07-01-2019, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

therefore they are like me

**harrybarracuda** · 07-01-2019, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

And I'm 100% sure the writers of 'Popular Mechanics' aren't. Whereas ..............

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

And if you'd done your homework in this thread you'd know that a lot of the whackjobs on this tin foil website that call themselves "architects and engineers" are in fact interior designers and landscape artists, and the total represents a miniscule fraction of the real architects and engineers that know that the fucking buildings got hit with planes, burned and collapsed.

Anyone that denies those obvious facts should really be sectioned for their own good.

Of course pseudopuss has an alternative theory, but he's too much of a fucking pussy to post it here.

**raycarey** · 07-01-2019, 03:48 PM

^
to be fair, he's not the only one on TD posting half-baked conspiracy theories.....skkin is just as much of a nutter.

**Pragmatic** · 07-01-2019, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"architects and engineers" are in fact interior designers and landscape artists

And the Saudis that hijacked the planes were competent pilots and good muslims.

**harrybarracuda** · 07-01-2019, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

And the Saudis that hijacked the planes were competent pilots and good muslims.

Modern planes aren't hard to fly.

And no-one said you can't get pissed and laid the day before topping yourself.

**Maanaam** · 07-01-2019, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Modern planes aren't hard to fly.

Try telling that to experienced pilots. Why is there 1000's of hours flying experience needed?

**Latindancer** · 07-01-2019, 04:50 PM

^ To take off and land.

Planes are hard to fly consistently well. Flying a plane is like playing music : one wrong note and you're stuffed. Plus, a lot of the difficulty is in taking off and landing them.

If you hijack one mid-air it is exactly as Harry says .....they're not too difficult.

**Maanaam** · 07-01-2019, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Latindancer

^ To take off and land.

Planes are hard to fly consistently well. Flying a plane is like playing music : one wrong note and you're stuffed. Plus, a lot of the difficulty is in taking off and landing them.

If you hijack one mid-air it is exactly as Harry says .....they're not too difficult.

Yeah, autopilot etc. But most pilots agree that the manouvres of the planes to hit the targets were far beyond an inexperience person.

**docmartin** · 07-01-2019, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Yeah, autopilot etc. But most pilots agree that the manouvres of the planes to hit the targets were far beyond an inexperience person.

I don't think there was a fake news conspiracy.
However.
Had a chat with a conservative ex-RAAF Sabre pilot about it and he thinks that there was no way a beginner could drive a plane into the Pentagon the way it was done.
But.
Having done a bit of 'direct action' in the past I know that sometimes when the adrenalin's pumping and the stars align amazing things can happen.

**Maanaam** · 07-01-2019, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by docmartin

I know that sometimes when the adrenalin's pumping and the stars align amazing things can happen.

I agree, they can, but I doubt an important suicide mission would have banked on "a wing and a prayer".

**docmartin** · 07-01-2019, 05:38 PM

I would've thought a cashed-up bomber wouldn't bother with hijacking.
The obvious 'more-fail-safe' course would be to buy some clapped out DC 10 freight aircraft or similar.
Hire some pilots for the take-off and up up and away.

View Poll Results: Was 9/11 an inside job - 2016 TD poll

Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions