Carlton Supporters Club

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

None of the above suggests I am one of those gifted individuals who know everything. I’d like to think I have more than average knowledge but I’m more like a trained monkey who can do a limited number of tricks. To go anywhere near being able to debate something as complex as the destruction of the WTC buildings, I’d need to do a load of preparatory work in a variety of areas. And even then, maybe I’d end up being like a budgerigar trying to learn calculus.

...............................
This makes it easy for good marketers to appeal to common sense. Nigel Parkinson, a Tory politician wrote a book 50 odd years ago in which he marketed conservative economic policies by arguing running a government was like running a household, so everyone could just apply common sense. He then suggested that households needed to operate on a balanced budget, so governments running deficits invited disaster. That set the table for guys like Peter Costello to demonise deficits which has poisoned the well for anything but PPP deals (even though we’ve had extremely low interest rates for a long time). The only “good deficits” have been those caused by conservative governments cutting taxes on the rich on the specious basis that the benefits would trickle down (or a rising sea would lift all boats). A recent study of 17 countries over 50 years have disproved this “common sense” policy but has demonstrated that it sure does increase the wealth of the rich and inequality.
........................................

So so true. Poor suffering slobs have been fleeced for decades.

@cookie2  Most buildings are basically eggshells or hollow wire frames with central/internal supporting columns, not solid like the pyramids. Those columns work in very specific circumstances, kept in alignment by the floors which act as supports and dampeners. As the floors begin to pancake they reduced lateral support to the columns and effectively the columns develop kinks from a shockwave, initially they almost ring like a guitar string at some fundamental frequency, then eventually under compressive force they bow like overloaded straws, once bowed even slightly in any direction they have a fraction of the required strength to support even the buildings static mass, let alone the ongoing force of continuing impacts.

But really, in a failure like this, you only test the very weakest component, and in this case it was probably the stays and struts that supported the floors.

Well LP I will have to defer to your expertise on these matters. They are outside of my area so I will make no further comment.

while aluminium and titanium once ignited burn at above 3200°F, both are common material components of aircraft.

I'm not one to put much credence into conspiracy theories.
That's just me though.
The basic reason is that it requires so many folks to be involved in the planning and execution, and they then have to maintain a level of secrecy with few or no leaks that it just defies logic.
From an initial thought (e.g. 'Let's start a war on terror')... how do you get from that point to recruiting people of power and expertise to your cause, and the end result of crashing planes and bringing down buildings?
Somewhere along the way someone must think it's not the brightest idea and say so.

This is not an area i have put too much research into, but playing devils advocate somewhat.

Firstly, this sort of thing has been planned (and i believe executed) multiple times in the past. We know why they do it, its just a matter of how often can they pull it off.

Secondly, the secrecy part of it is relatively easy to explain. Keep people in the dark. Give people a small job, don't tell them what its for or why they are doing it and they can't 'spill the beans'. Anyone who speaks out about it automatically a crack pot.
You see how many people who believe the standard line are happy to take pot shots at others who question it and flat out to refuse to look at any evidence the other side presents.
Alternatively, my drive is to get questions answered and am looking at what has been provided too me.....and have pointed out some questionable (IMO) parts of it in the process.

Thridly, the Nazis.
Follow orders, no matter how over the top they may seem. You'd be shunned if you refused (or worse).

Without knowing for sure, I can't understand why a building would collapse under its own weight.

Should i call you a conspiracy theorist now?

You keep stating it, even your own articles have suggested this did not happen.

No they don't you've made that up!

They write about about molten metals pouring down the side of the buildings being unlikely to be pure aluminium given the yellowish colour, and that aluminium is not likely to ignite at normal building fire temperatures.

You've taken an uncertainty, and morphed it into a certainty to supporting your case, isn't that a sign of a conspiracist?

You're too heavily invested in this, you'll keep making those mistakes if you don't stick to the facts.

I wouldn't call nine months to clear the WTC site quick.  And rightly so as they were mindful of searching for all remains of the fallen.

As for the passports, how many passengers carry them on a domestic flight?  Very very few