I'm more than happy to debunk bunk wherever I find it. However you seem to be suggesting that there should automatically be the same amount of bunk (and hence debunking) to both support and deny your argument. I'm afraid I've generally found a lot more bunk on the conspiracy theorist side of most argument. Certainly that's the case with 9/11. On the one site there's the official story, which contains almost no bunk beyond minor errors, and on the other side there's the conspiracy theories, with their wild ideas of nano-thermite, "pyroclastic flow", terrible understanding of physics, and intimations perfectly executed mind-bogglingly risky plans.
I mean, if you were to look at the OS, then what would you say was the biggest piece of bunk in there?
Alternatively, if you look at my debunking, or any 9/11 debunking, then what was one thing that is wrong?
I previously commented on how even handed I thought you were re the 'Iranian connection', and I was pleasantly surprised by that but I do not see that even handedness as being the norm. eg, you cite as evidence backing the OS, things like strawman videos where the 'conspiracy theorists' are plainly out of their depth or possibly patsies.... demolitions which have no relevance to the towers are promoted as 'evidence' underpinning the OS and 'valid physics' which explain the inexplicable or a n instance where a roof collapses is put forward as proof positive that the towers fell according to the OS and yet when the many buildings, similar to the towers survive hours or days of intense fire, they are dismissed as 'apples and pears', incomparable because of this or that.
No I am sorry Mick, I see that the only way of justifying the OS is by use of double standards.