rationalskepticism.org

PJG wrote:... it is a case of getting satisfactory answers and you don't seem to understand this.

Where you apply a fundamentally different meaning to the word "satisfactory".

"We" - me and most others posting here, by "satisfactory" mean an answer which is soundly based on evidence and valid application of logic.

"You" however seem to mean "satisfactory to your own emotions or feelings" PLUS being a shifting target every time one of us gives a "satisfactory" answer in the normal usage meaning of "satisfactory" as applies to discussions of this type.

Taking only one of your issues:

PJG wrote:...The "falsification" of my "agnostic" position in the case of the collapse of the buildings would be a satisfactory answer to the question of the cause of the microspheres - including, either, verification that the samples to date were anomalies or an explanation of the cause of them if the samples were representative as to how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse could account for them.

You already have posted on these threads OR their RDNet predecessors OR any number of other sites satisfactory answers to each of the partial questions in this example. Remember that you have, on this occasion, granted us a defined boundary to the issue under consideration. It is "...in the case of the collapse of the buildings..." So the answers are:

1. "...would be a satisfactory answer to the question of the cause of the microspheres" - the satisfactory answer is that there is no evidence of any incendiary being used to assist the collapses AND the logistic/security aspects of any potential use make such use impossible using that term in the normal meaning for communication with lay persons THEREFORE the microspheres, if they are representative which is unproven, are anomalous evidence within the context of "...the case of the collapse of the buildings ..." ;
2. "...verification that the samples to date were anomalies..." - already done under the previous. The microspheres are irrelevant whether or not their presence as representative samples can be verified.
3. "...an explanation of the cause of them if the samples were representative as to how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse could account for them..." - simply reveals the bias as to which way you want the answers to fall.
4. Taking the core bit "...how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse..." - strawman false premise. Remember you allowed the question to be limited to "...the collapse of the buildings..." meaning WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7 to be sure you cannot misrepresent the next statement. Your premise is false hence "strawman" The collapses of those buildings did not involve "..ordinary office fires..." Since your premise is false the bits standing on it fail also. HOWEVER
5. "...collapse could account for them..." - straight forward false logic. The microspheres evidence, if it is valid, is anomalous. It could be caused by anything. You cannot link its causality to the collapse (without doing some real work of explanation.)

So how about you start to use words such as "satisfactory" with the same meaning as the rest of us?

OR use your own word to describe the subjective self serving meaning you seem to have in mind.

OR at the least publish what meaning you want to apply to "satisfactory" and let the rest of us find an alternative word to describe "proper answers".