I never "promised to leave this forum", you're just making things up.

I do recall saying that I wouldn't expend any more energy thinking about this 9/11 crap. I think I've delivered on that one so far (apart from posting a link of course, but I didn't have to think about conspiracies to do it).

daggett, cacofonix, Sympneology and Steel, (have I missed anyone here?). A few more resources for you. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=18&id=98

I think all of these sites contain proper scientific discussion of the issues and will answer most of your questions on the topic.

Happy reading one and all.

I really don't know why I am doing this, I am sure it is a total waste of time. Perhaps if only to let you know how easy it is to see through the conspiracy theory.

Bugsy,

I'm sorry, but I presumed that not wasting any more of your time thinking about this issue implied that you would not be posting to this forum.

After all, Bugsy, what possible value to people who do wish to discuss a subject would be a post on that subject by someone who had not given it any thought?

Do you understand why others might consider someone who posted comments into which they had not put any thought would be considered a nuisance?

---

As for CJM's latest post, if it is still there, I have requested that it be removed.

I asked that it be removed on the grounds that it is not in any way addressing the topic at hand.

At the end of his post he stated:

"That the topic is shite just means that I'm not disrupting any kind of serious discussion"

I would say that it makes CJM's attitude crystal clear. CJM doesn't consider this discussion to have any worth, so he believes that he is entitled to be as disruptive as he pleases without any regard to the wishes of those who do wish to discuss this issue.

I see no reason why the presence of a person with such an attitude should be tolerated for a minute longer on this forum, or indeed on OLO at all.

(In case CJM's post has disappeared by the time you read this, I have kept my own copy of it, should anyone wish to see it for themselves.)

Agronomist those links are mostly a mixture of opinion and conjecture. I hope you realise that while nitpicking the conspiracy theories may highlight inconsistencies or inaccuracies here and there, it does not offer any explanation. in other words, these sites are only as narrow as the frameworks of the objects of their derision. And these sites you've linked to are weak in that offering an explanation is much harder (especially from a viewpoint of obscurity and distance, such as are the conspiracy theories) than nitpicking propositions.

Agronomist,
Your selection of sites offering "proper scientific discussion of the issues" in fact answers none of my questions on the topic.

The first in essence bears out the main criticism of the NIST report in that it deals only with WTC 1 and 2 and does not deal with WTC 7 which was of an entirely different construction. It also affirms that the flames from the aircraft fuel could not melt steel so does not explain the molten steel found under the rubble.

The second site complains about AE911Truth authors writing "outside their area of expertise". It is written by someone who describes himself as a "live speech writer and actor". Obviously an expert!

The third has a whinge about the producers of the 911Mysteries video "stealing" their video and adding explosions and police radio calls to it. Thanks to their showing the two versions over and over it became obvious that these were two different videos. In the one they claimed was their original is something that does not appear in the "copy" - an explosion of flame coming from one of the floors just below the level of the collapse.

The fourth is just a long PDF of the 911 Commission Report, which has been well and truly debunked.

I don't agree that you were wasting time. Your contribution has shown just how easy it is to expose the weakness of the official conspiracy theories.

Sympneology “so does not explain the molten steel found under the rubble” Doesn’t have to. Remember the pile remained hot for a very long time after the collapse with the overbearing material keeping the heat in.

If you really want engineering information that describes how the collapses happened go to these:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/?p=af305ef1f04243598e063b8d0de84c14&pi=3
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9615qr01381223n4/?p=59edf424180f428ab5b595731dea5e07&pi=12
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f08uu7jk6t821848/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/113x89267395h768/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p42m41t753721442/?p=59edf424180f428ab5b595731dea5e07&pi=15
http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/content/h136637317516x47/?p=ee47b9a39b6e496685bc2c38faa7b563&pi=16
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0500041
http://www.springerlink.com/content/lp0431483014j475/
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0800818
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0303235

When you have read all these come back and have a chat about the building collapses.

For the moment, I can comfortably ignore Steel. All writing that Steel doesn't agree with will be dismissed as a mixture of opinion and conjecture.