ummm...Carol.... since Wolfgang and Catspaw & I are not technical experts in structural architecture, physics, metallurgy, demolition, photo enhancement or firefighting etc... and since we have no knowledge of or access to any secret documents which may or may not exist, we cannot personally answer questions like..."..what caused the towers to fall? Give us the easily proven scientific explanation."

Wolfgang IS trained in and teaches how to analyze argument forms in various contexts, and I had a number of courses in such things...and Catspaw is no slouch in seeing thru slippery reasoning, either.

All we can do is read the various explanations on all sides of an issues and see who we think makes the most sense and answers the most questions with the fewest dangling, unanswered parts.

What we DO see is much like the fellow said in the article you say "doesn't address the core" (I have no idea whether you actually read it, so I will C&P some here.

"Argument by Anomaly

In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the 'evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy."

A successful scientific theory organizes masses of information into a coherent, well-tested narrative. When a theory has managed to explain the real world accurately enough for long enough, it becomes accepted as fact. Conspiracy theorists, Shermer points out, generally ignore the mass of evidence that supports the mainstream view and focus strictly on tiny anomalies. But, in a complex and messy world, the fact that there might be a few details we don't yet understand should not be surprising.

You Carol, are over & over asking us to explain anomalies which YOU are not happy with...even in the face of expert testimony which does explain them.
This begins to 'feel' like a child who can't have what he wants demanding "why, Mommie?", over & over. If he doesn't LIKE the answer, there's little one can do.

(and to Lizzie...that building 7 nonsense about "...Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion" **HAS** been explained, and it was NOT "..a few...small fires..."...it was many fires which grew very large and burned for hours! Read ALL the sites and look at the images!!! There are interviews with firefighters which TELL you how it happened!)


So..... I will repeat one-last-time. There ARE coherent, expert, scientific explanations to all your questions and doubts. If you have read them and either don't understand or just have a strong 'need' to distrust them, there's little *I* can say to reassure you. When I see...over & over... repetition of false data & disproven claims, gleaned from conspiracy sites, I can only shrug.

I will NOT be badgered into a circular, redundant process of 'answering' hypothetical questions forever. I accept that 19 guys hijacked 4 planes and with a bit of luck, did a lot of damage. I do NOT accept, with the evidence I have seen, that any complex plot involving our own government was coordinated with the terrorists and aided the destruction with 'controlled demolition'!
If you should discover any new information that gets us out of this cycle, feel free to contact me.