Comment: So

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Convenient. (see in situ)

So

I was specific in my reply to the OP. I've been through about 1000 of these posts over the last what... almost 6 years I've been a member (I did about 6 months on a different user name at the beginning)?

The way to not get nailed on this garbage by arguments all over the board is to focus on a very specific argument being presented. The "Zomg what about Building 7?!" is what comes up when you're debating a proposed point and the other side doesn't like the answer.

So lets get specific about a claim in the post above. Thermite and Nano-Thermite, as it's a very specific claim, and it has been thoroughly and brutally debunked, yet still the bogus evidence is being held up as being true.

Lets get this one official: Were the chips thermite or nanothermite, and if not, lets stop citing it in arguments here. Is there something wrong with that that I don't understand? Because what I hate to see is an argument get thoroughly debunked, and then it comes back as if it's new information some 3-4 months later, repeating the same tired lines that have been discussed previously.

So lets have it:

Thermite and Nano-thermite and the "peer reviewed" paper. Is it evidence or no? If it's not, lets update the OP.

Eric Hoffer