Steel

You say >> “.I hope you realise that while nitpicking the conspiracy theories may highlight inconsistencies or inaccuracies here and there, it does not offer any explanation”

Are you serious? Did you miss the two 315,000lb planes flying into the twin towers at mach 0.75? They were the root cause of the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2. As for WTC7. It was hit by massive pieces from the collapse of the twin towers. See http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Frankly, the fact that WTC7 collapsed is evidence that this was not a conspiracy. I can understand placing explosives in buildings which you had idiots intending to fly into, but bringing down a building not hit by planes using explosives would be entirely unrealistic.

Symneology

I went to the site you posted.
http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html
There were no scientific facts introduced at all. This is typical of conspiracy nut websites these days because all their original claims have been comprehensively debunked.

The “9/11 truth movement”, surely an ironic misnomer if ever there was one, now suggests that the real evidence for the conspiracy theory is Motive and Capability. Ie the US gov’t had a motive and they had the capability.

So please show me the physical evidence which proves that the WTC 1,2 and 7, were demolished using explosives.

BTW, The implication must be that every scientist/engineer who has examined the evidence and agrees with the official explanation, must be part of the conspiracy.

Maybe those on OLO are conspirators as well.

Agronomist and Paul.L - you're completely on the money here. Kudos to you for bothering to refute this nonsense (for the umpteenth time in the blogosphere, as well as more serious forums). As should be obvious, I'm not inclined to give this "9/11 Truth" crap any oxygen at all.

As should also be obvious, "sock puppets" are a pet hate of mine and I delight in outing them. I have this thing about honesty in discourse, a concept that doesn't seem to be shared by some people who post regularly to OLO. It's quite satisfying to expose lies when they are deployed, particularly when it's done by those who invite robust responses by their manner of articulating their opinions.

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al - my post's still there. On re-reading it, I still think it's a quite reasonable response to your antics here. Apparently, the moderator agrees - indeed, I would have been surprised if your smug use of multiple identities would have been supported, given your open flouting of the forum rules.

However, as I've said, so long as you keep your sock puppets in the drawer I won't draw attention to them.

Agronomist wrote:
'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.'

Yes, it does have to. Remember that the report said that the burning fuel was not hot enough to melt steel. So while the overbearing material kept the heat in that does not explain how the steel melted in the first place.

I am surprised you folk are even bothering to give this thread space and time.

Most "conspiracy theories" are the ravings of minds with more time to spare than jobs or purpose to fulfill or the small minded envy of under achievers, as an excuse for their personal failings.

The idea that 9/11 was due to CIA/FBI US Government incompetence would be laughable if it were not so offensive a suggestion.

Better leave the feeble minded to play with their conspiracy theories and pull their welfare cheques, at least we can keep an eye on them and be ready when their paranoia gets out of hand(like lab rats).

Sympneology, Ignorance is indeed bliss. Is that the best you can do?

Who said the metal melted in the towers?

The data in this paper http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/?p=af305ef1f04243598e063b8d0de84c14&pi=3 concludes that the evidence is metal removal from the beams occurred after the building had collapsed and while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile.

The first reports of molten steel under the towers came 6 weeks afterwards in the American Free Press.

Paul.L wrote:
"Symneology
I went to the site you posted.
http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html
There were no scientific facts introduced at all. This is typical of conspiracy nut websites these days because all their original claims have been comprehensively debunked."

No scientific facts were intended to be introduced, just a pointer to the fact that your claims to have "comprehensively debunked" the 9/11Truth movement have been themselves debunked.

"So please show me the physical evidence which proves that the WTC 1,2 and 7, were demolished using explosives."

Molten steel for a start. Only explosives like thermate are capable of producing the molten steel found, not aviation fuel in WTC 1 and 2 nor office fires in WTC 7. If not by explosions, how did the steel melt?

"The implication must be that every scientist/engineer who has examined the evidence and agrees with the official explanation, must be part of the conspiracy."

Not necessarily. Most people find it very hard to contemplate the dreadful implications of accepting the culpability of the US Government in committing such an atrocity. Much better to scapegoat a few aliens.