> There is STILL nothing demonstrating that their findings were false.
In the first place, of course that's not how science works, for reasons that should be obvious to a logical person. Science is based on logic, so I'm not surprised that you don't understand that nobody is required to demonstrate that the paper's findings are false; it's their job to prove their findings are true. And yet, that thread discusses at length that: (A) they failed to do the type of tests that would have conclusively proved any thermitic reaction actually happened; (B) they failed to do the type of tests that would have conclusively proved the presence of elemental aluminum which is necessary for any such reaction; and (c) they failed to do comparison tests on the type of paint that was actually used in the building. There's no "link" necessary to show that they simply try to infer those things indirectly rather than directly testing for them; it's self-evident right there in the paper! Admittedly, it requires a certain degree of reading comprehension to notice that, but once someone points it out to you, there's no excuse for continuing to deny it. And then we have the uncomfortable fact (which is linked) that a fellow "truther" was unable to duplicate the results they used to infer those things! That is world class fail, dude, regardless of your inability to understand why.
But it gets much worse, because in this particular case there IS very convincing evidence right in the paper that their findings are false, and I pointed you to two major problems with their conclusion: The ignition temperature of the reaction they detected and the energy density they measured are not even close to those of a thermitic reaction, while they are quite common for ordinary organic materials burning in air. Specifically, the ignition temperature is at least 100 degrees too low for even "supernanothermite" and the energy density is at least twice the theoretical maximum for any thermitic reaction, "nano" or otherwise, even if the stuff were pure aluminum and iron oxide (which it wasn't). Again, there's no "link" necessary unless you are completely incapable of looking up for yourself what those values should be. If that's the case, then you should have said so and I would have tried to help you out. But then, as now, you seem to think that your ignorant and unsubstantiated denials are sufficient rebuttal. Sorry, but your inability to comprehend that the ignition temperature and energy density are fundamental properties of any exothermic chemical reaction, not random meaningless variables, is laughably irrelevant to the issue.
On the JREF forum, there is a very long list of criticisms leveled against the paper by experts in the field, but I have focused on the three major failures in the paper and the two major instances of contradictory evidence because they are well within the grasp of we laymen who are possessed with ordinary reasoning skills. If you are not a member of that group, that's not my problem.
> Like here, you just make shit up and apparently rely on your insistance that it's true for people to believe it.
Really? And yet, everything I've said is completely backed up by what's actually in the paper, accessible to anyone with ordinary reading comprehension, and by what's conspicuously missing from the paper, which can't be denied by anyone who understands why it matters. I defy you to point to a single instance of me "making shit up."
> You had nothing then and you have nothing now.
> Where are the ACTUAL refutations of the paper????
Not that I expect you to take my advice, but I'll at least ask that you please do yourself a favor: Read and reread the first two paragraphs above until you understand enough of the issues to at least attempt to answer to them rather than just fart in their general direction. Either that, or quietly back away and hope that a few months from now, people will have forgotten this thread. As it is, you're just making a fool of yourself.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read