You should see the note I sent them when they asked me to resubscribe.

These are facts no one has explained: the state of the steel in the FEMA BPAT Appendix C http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf
(least of all this tool). You think he (and the rest of the establishment) cannot see what is plainly obvious to anyone (who's even remotely objective) who looks? No. It's way too obvious.

If only Shermer could actually 'deubunk' these facts. Unfortunately, there is no 'bunk' about it (that isnt disinfo). There is nothing theoretical about any part of the large body of concordant facts, from diverse sources, that prove the destruction of WTC 1 2 & 7, through the use of preplanted explosives. Period.
To touch on a few:
The FEMA 2002 Limited Metallurgical report (linked above) states the structural steel they analyzed had been 'liquefied' Not just 'softened.'
Steel softens when hot, true, it also conducts heat away and as the fire consumes whatever is burning there, it moves on in search of new fuel. The average local burn time in an office fire is about 20 minutes. Then the steel in that area cools and regains its strength. It could never 'liquefy' or 'evaporate.' It could never produce the precipitous freefall collapse exhibited by WTC7. In fact, no building, on well over 100 years of high rise steel-framed building construction has EVER come down that way and not been a controlled demolition. It is beyond absurd that anyone would look at the vide of this one and conclude, '-yeah' office fires and local damage can account for that." -Never mind the 58 perimeter columns. Had even one of them been left intact, it would have produced an asymmetrical collapse.

WTC 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV0m7ZpK57g#t=23

WTC 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9Jt85SW38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS--jU8DWUI

WTC7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1

Shermer hasn't explained the 100 day fires. The complete destruction of the towers, the dismemberment of their superstructures, the pulverization of almost everything in them, but steel beams and elements,, - that also left no discernible genetic trace of over 1100 people who were inside the buildings that morning. Those people remain 'unaccounted for' to this day. Over 9000 pieces of human remains are so degraded they cannot be identified using DNA analysis and remain frozen to this day. Shermer has not explained any of this.

Nor has he (or anyone else) satisfactorily explained the iron microspheres (2 & 3) which make up nearly 6% of the dust by volume. RJ Lee's report called them a 'signature component of the WTC dust because of this. These are not just iron, but primarily elemental iron, with minute amounts of other elements including sulfur. They are the forensic fingerprint of a thermitic reaction. Sulfur was found imbedded in grains the steel remnants -Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute tested and published in the (FEMA BPAT App. C). Nor has he explained (the as yet unchallenged) scientific paper (4 & 5 Harrit 2009. ) which found nano-engineered thermitic explosives in every sample of the dust they tested. The wildly excessive temperatures (6 & 7) documented by NASA & Bechtel with thermal scans and images, -to mention but a few of the facts that cannot be explained without explosives having been present. All of this mutually supportive evidence,, is but a fraction of what Shermer wants us to pretend, along with him, isn't real or significant. That he can look at all of this data and still deny the obvious, (and still manages to sleep at night) is to his unending disgrace. Like the rest of these criminals(1) (John Gross, Shyam Sunder, Van Romero, Thomas Eager, Zdenek Bazant, Yong Zhou, to mention but a few), he will not be able to hide his complicity (or remove the stigma and shame from his descendants) because the overwhelming and incontrovertible truth is there for all the world to see.

-
1: ANOTHER NINETEEN: Investigating Legitimate 911 Suspects by Kevin Ryan
2: RJ Lee http://www1.ae911truth.org/documents/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp_.pdf
3: USGS: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html
4: http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7
5: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html#incendiary_residues
6: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm
7: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

Good visual reference and links: http://ajl.smugmug.com/911/North-Tower-Exploding

RL, it doesn't surprise me that Clinton is helping with the cover up. He quietly visited our area not too long back. I happened to see him arrive at his hotel while I was out walking the dog. No one else was there. I returned home (three blocks away) and printed up a letter asking for his support for a new investigation for 9/11. On the outside of the envelope I invited him to come by the house for a beer to discuss the matter. I took it back to the hotel and left it with a startled front desk staff member asking for it to be delivered to the former President. About 45 minutes later there was a knock at the front door by two Secret Service agents. They told me that they were worried about my safety due to the crowds of protesters around the hotel. Further, they said the local police were very paranoid (and less than professional) about the protesters and they didn't want me to get hurt by coming to the hotel again. Since I'd just been there and since no one knew Clinton was staying there, I understood that the protester thing was...well, less than truthful. Further, the local police are some of the best trained in the nation. I told the agents I just went to the hotel to deliver the letter and had no reason to return. I then asked them to make certain that the President got the letter, something they promised to do.

Other than sending his Secret Service body guards to frighten me, there was never any response. It is really quiet surprising that public figures who make big efforts to ensure a positive place in history can't see the risk they take by supporting the cover-up of a monstrous and obvious crime against humanity. The former President's latest "spin" (you reported above) will not prevent the obvious conclusion that he is involved in actively aiding the cover up of the crime of 9/11, though why he would do such a thing is entirely beyond my understanding.