An argument could be raised using science, or simply physics and its attachment to the laws of gravity, to support a reasonable hypothesis supporting reasons for the collapse of the twin towers building, but that is not scientific evidence that "proves" the event was engineered.
I wish you could "get over it". The reality is, the psychotic attacks of 9/11 were the "catalyst" for the re-engagement with the Afghan war; that's what matters!

What else matters is the residual effects of the war on Australians. The biggest of which will continue well in to the distance of history. If we continue to support "idiot thinking" such as evinced from the Marilyins' of this life, who wish all Afghans could jump on a plane and set up permanent camp in Australia, where they could be surrounded with "love and affection" and nurtured for days eternal by the ever-loving welfare state, funded by Australian workers, fighting off the horrors of 427 visas entries from Asia, willing to work for $2.00 a day. AJ, I am increasingly convinced you are camped under a "gum tree" in the wilds of the west...get with it!

Diver Dan if you cannot understand the science,then this site might help convince you http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ We are taking about thousands of political leaders,scientists,professors,doctors engineers,ex-CIA,Ex-FBI,pilots,media professionals etc who say we need a proper investigation into 911.

We will not be fobbed off so easily by the likes of you who want to crawl into a hole and pretend it didn't happen.

The head of ASIO David Irvine has been warning us about the threat of home grown terrorism.He wants to see our terrorism laws beefed up even more.This means less rights for us.

There is a huge body of scientific evidence proving that the official conspiracy theory about 9/11 cannot be true, and the finding of nano-thermite in the residue of WTC 1, 2 and 7 (as reported in the Open Chemistry and Physics Journal of 2010) is of itself evidence that someone other than the alleged hijackers were responsible for the destruction of the buildings.

The perpetrators of 9/11 had a number of motives, including the destruction of thousands of prosecution files relating to companies supporting the military-industrial-intelligence complex; obscuring the theft of $240 billion of gold bullion; and much else. All of this has been documented in books, articles in peer reviewed journals and elsewhere. But the evidence is never discussed in the media. People who raise serious questions are dismissed as "conspiracy theorists", an epithet incidentally that ignores that the US government's own version is itself a conspiracy theory.

The significance of 9/11 for the purposes of the present discussion however, is that it provided the pretext for the so-called "war on terror", a phoney concept that successive Australian governments have readily bought into. It might more accurately be called a war for other people's resources. As such it is indistinguishable from centuries of colonial exploitation under various guises.

Part of the tragedy is that Australia is such a willing accomplice to US imperialism. The ongoing debacle in Afghanistan that Kelley Tranter writes about is simply one manifestation of that tragedy. Other recent examples include Libya, Syria and Iran. The Australian government distinguishes itself by the stupidity of its position and by its blind adherence to the aggressive rantings emanating from Washington and Tel Aviv.

One longs for a mature, independent and considered foreign policy, but I am not holding my breath.

You interest me James; no offence but you are obviously a 9/11 conspiratist; elsewhere I have seen you support AGW.

Given that Lewandowsky has done a 'survey' showing AGW sceptics are prone to believe in conspiracies like 9/11 how is it that you are not a sceptic?

Here she goes again,
Marilyn, if the war is not in the public interest and it's not supported by Australians how is it "our" war? What's more your precious "13" have done precisely sweet FA to try and stop the endless war on terror even though they have the power to influence the government by putting their foot down on other issues. The Greens sole interest in the matter is Refugees and Andrew Wilkie cares about the welfare of Soldiers as well as Refugees, they don't care about stopping the war or preventing future imperialist deployments. We all know that if it kicks off in Iran the government will send special forces, technical advisers and warships to the Middle East and the Greens and Indies will support them in doing so, thus beginning another cycle of violence, mayhem, dislocation of populations and miserable refugee flight to the West, the Greens and Indies have blood on their hands too, failure to act puts them in the same immoral out group as the rest of parliament.

@ Cohenite. A conspiracy is simply an agreement by two or more persons to carry out an illegal act. The US government says that 19 Muslim hijackers conspired to hijack 4 planes and fly them into buildings. Ergo, it is a conspiracy theory. The question therefore is not whether or not the events are explained by a conspiracy theory but rather which theory (and there are many) best fits the known facts.

If you are seriously interested in knowing more then I suggest you read David Ray Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited (2008) and Griffin's book (9/11 Ten Years Later (2011). The earlier book was Publishers Weekly's Book of the Month in November 2008.

If one seriously considers the evidence it is obvious in my view that the official story is a load of cobblers. The importance in knowing the truth about what really happened (and I do not pretend to know) is that the events of that day have been used to justify, inter alia, wars, bombings and all round terror campaigns, not to mention a sustained assault on our diminishing civil liberties.

It follows that if one can attack the rationale for any given action then there is a greater chance of convincing a majority of people that a given policy (in the instant case the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan) cannot be sustained.

The politicians and the media know this which is why it is impossible to find any rational and reasoned debate about 9/11 or any serious attempt to understand what happened. Instead, the evidence is suppressed, (e.g. the nano-thermite example I referred to in an earlier post, but there are literally dozens more)
and persons like myself discounted as "conspiracy theorists" or other derogatory epithets. All of which of course ignores the real issues.

If you read what I actually said about AGW then you will know that I try to adopt a similar evidence based approach. Frankly, Plimer, Monckton et al are less than convincing and that also applies to many of their acolytes in the comment section to Dr Florin's article.