Methusala

See ya later...Elvis is leaving you all to it.

Have heard it postulated that the buildings were designed with eventual demolition in mind. Israeli firm had the security contract over the centre. Sounds crazy, I know, but lifespan of buildings is not now unlimited. If there is any truth in this then it could be a plus to a future buyer. As stated, WTC 7 came down with no aircraft collision and the owner deciding to "pull it " 30 mins before it collapsed in a controlled demolition. Pools of molten steel were found in the rubble of the 2 towers. Molten steel!

This is where a conclusion is arrived at via false logic or evidence. Meaning - Doesn't follow. Cognitive dissonance - The belief in a principle when all evidence is to the contrary. To my knowledge, the only conclusion that I have drawn is that the official explanation for the 9/11 disaster is nonsense ie. It stinks! Fact: The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. Fact: There has been no known collapse of steel framed high rise buildings due to fire damage before or following the WTC debacle. The 3rd building to be destroyed (WTC 7) on that day was not even hit by anything except (possibly) some debris from the twin towers' collapse hours beforehand. It suffered some localised fire damage to a few floors. That these buildings collapsed at free fall velocity on their own footprint is ONLY possible if they had been demolished by controlled explosive demolition charges. Fact; Silverstein leased the center some 6 months before the event. He had insured it against terrorist attack for $3.2bn. On the afternoon of 9/11 he is on public record as saying,"We decided to pull it". About 30 mins later it collapsed (guess what?), on its own footprint as had towers 1 & 2 earlier that day. How can a decision signaled by the phrase,"pull it" be followed by its total demolition 30 minutes later if it had not had the means for destruction already installed. I may not be a genius but if you can't give meaningful answers to these questions please don't label me with pathetic phrases.

The concocted 'cover story' is truly cognative dissonance.

Julian Assange, a hero of truly free speech, who is currently being treated to heinous abuse by the Brit establishment should be knighted. The British 'legal system', showing the extent of their high minded principles, won't give him the opportunity to present his defense fairly. His crime was to speak the truth to war crimes. He enabled the publication of a video showing armed troops murdering 9 defenseless individuals, including a Reuters person. This is in the public domain. For this he is detained in a maximum security cell and denied medical attention. Free speech is the cornerstone of a democracy so why the personal attacks here? Posting an opinion piece for discussion unleashed a tirade of scornful abuse on a long standing forum member. Perhaps Australia needs a 'justice system' imported from Britain along with our Head of State.

I would respectfully also argue that making gratuitous judgements on the character or motives of fellow forumites is an addmission that you have no meaningful input to add to the topic. Thanks Guys. don

Should this forum have a set of restrictive rules so that participants will never encounter opinions that conflict with their own? Like a modern version of Pravda or The Chinese Peoples Daily. Years ago, in response to such questions, Ian started What's up Australia. A number of us were pleased to remove our"offensive" discussions to that area. This has now been replaced by "Off Topic". That is where, at the kind suggestion of Willedoo, I posted this thread. I suggest that anyone who is "embarrassed" to read or comment on a wider range of topics should avoid this area "like the plague". Don

[ATTACH type=full]53482[/ATTACH]

I remain agnostic to any theory yet advanced as to the "real truth" behind the tragic events of 9/11. I address any post I've made to the collective readership on this site in an attempt to simply find the truth. So far, I find that the official version of these events is stacked with many logical inconsistencies (if not outright lies) and, given the shocking aftermath of the "War on Terror", I'd like to see a more realistic, believable explanation. So far, not at all convinced. Can anyone explain how a giant airliner striking the Pentagon can leave a "20ft hole" and no debris on the lawn? Don

I have never thought that this event didn't take place nor do I imagine that many thousands of innocent people did not die on 9/11. I need to be satisfied that the official story as reported by the inquiry stacks up to the evidence. Many sane people (not MENTALLY CHALLENGED) have a great deal of trouble believing the Warren Commission's conclusions about JFK's assassination. To be sure, it is truly a terrible idea, that such a diabolical fraud could be perpetrated on the World. I am only partially able to think of this. But I did hear the taped voice of Silverstien (the owner of the WTC complex) say about building 7,"We decided to pull it"! shortly before it collapsed. I don't see much evidence of myself being, "mentally challenged", but I do think that the current state of the world leaves me skeptical, even jaundiced at the current state of officialdom. Who could keep a straight face imagining Trump would ever be POTUS or that Biden could be entertained as the putative replacement. Just sayi'n! Don

G'day RGMA, What I see from your helpful video is that, as the F-4 impacts the stationary object at high velocity, it creates a debris field of large radius. From the clips allegedly depicting a much larger plane impacting the steel-faced skyscraper, no debris field AT ALL! How can this be. We have all, in our youth, thrown rocks into water and loved watching the splash that results therefrom. Yet a high speed collision of a fast moving airliner leaves no disturbance. Of course the debris is moving away from the target at some speed in the opposite direction from the impact. This image doesn't make sense in a physical world. Don

Thinking about the construction of a large airliner, there is a massively strong, rigid core supporting the engines and landing gear. Outboard is the outerwing which is mainly hollow containing fuel and air. These are not dense enough to penetrate the mass of concrete and steel. However the penetration of the steel facade shows clear profile of wingtips. Have to be very gullible to accept this idea. Surely the outer wings at least would fail to penetrate. Could soft butter ( thin aluminium) even at jet speed cut the knife (steel cladding)? Intriguing food for thought.

There have been many stories on the 'alternative media', that is not the News.com, ABC, Fairfax or TV, concerning the truth or otherwise of the official story relating to the destruction of the 3 WTC buildings in NY. In this article, actual people of reasonable standing, put forward opinions which, in view of their reputation, can be considered serious in nature. They are not faceless clowns hiding behind a wall of nom-de-plume anonymity; is the publisher a frivolous conspiracy purveyor? Maybe, but IMO the article seems to raise some valid questions. https://newspunch.com/cia-pilot-presents-evidence-that-no-planes-hit-towers-on-911/

I respectfully accede to your suggestion and will move my attention to an off topic post. Thanks Willedoo (even sillier nom-de-plume than Methusala {{sorry!}})

Question of missing debris aside (some very chunky hi temp resistant pieces admittedly) there is also the question how did a low time 172 student achieve some remarkable flying which seems beyond the capacity of expert air transport pilots with years experience. One stated that the required flight path would be in excess of the structural capability of the airframe.

I think that it is easier than most people realise for those that we consider 'experts' to be drawn into a sucker shot. A friend of mine whose father was a salesman says that they are the easiest people to hoodwink into a poor deal

G'day SP, Ever seen a "Hollywood Blockbuster"? These guys are serious people, not easily fooled by 'smoke and mirrors'. I can only refer fellow posters to material for their consideration and interest. Whether it is filed under 'whacky conspiracy theories' is out of my control. BTW did you know that the term 'conspiracy theory' was first used by the CIA?

Can a 100 ton aircraft really disappear without trace into a steel column encased building? The linked story is told by very experienced jet transport pilots and throws real doubt on the official story of the WTC attacks. https://newspunch.com/cia-pilot-presents-evidence-that-no-planes-hit-towers-on-911/

Then came the news that the 5th generation techno-marvel coming out of the US MIC could not even fly at sustained supersonic speeds (just as a reminder, normally the concept of “5th” generation not only implies the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound, it also implies the ability to do so (for a lengthy period of time) without even the use of afterburners, in the so-called “supercruise” mode!).

A Canberra times front page article I saw last Thursday was headed "Contract Tracing..." This on a front page FGS! I used to be a proofreader on this paper decades ago but saw the demise of proof reading as electronic typesetting took over. How could such an obvious error get through to the front page. Years ago, the head reader had to sign off on the front page. (Sorry to be off topic here. Don)

I've just realised that I don't care if the bloody pubs never reopen.

Couldn't agree more, Nev. Similar to the mantra,"It's safe to open our schools." Morrison said that the idea of a "National Cabinet", was so that the states could control areas that they were responsible for. But the control freak must have his way. Note that it is a "National Cabinet" not COAG simply so that decisions are covered by the 20 or 30 year rule and remain secret.

Morrison govt refuses to put ministers on the mat for any transgression. Hide behind a compliant AFP or blatently tough it out knowing the 24/7 media will move on. Trust them at their word? I dont think so.