Yet you believe it.
No. You believe the undisputed facts reveal use of explosives. You're having a lot of trouble with the distinction between what you believe and what is real.
You're getting the details wrong. Of that paper's 9 co-authors, only 3 (Harrit, Farrer, and Farnsworth) listed a university as their affiliation. Harrit was an Associate Professor near retirement, Farrer a lab manager, Farnsworth a graduate student.
You are certain, but who is this "we" of whom you speak?
See above and below.
Dave Rogers was not calling FEMA & NIST & the 9/11 Commission and the NY Times a pack of liars. For you to suggest that he was is a typical example of your distortions of the truth, which is a euphemism for your lies.
It should also be noted that FEMA, NIST, the 9/11 Commission, and the New York Times all disagree with your claims that the facts "clearly and definitively reveal the use of explosives" and that "we can be certain these were not gravity driven 'collapses.'" Citing them as though they support your claims is another example of your distortions of the truth,
i.e. your lies.
So say you, but how would you know what it's like to examine the facts with an open mind?
Almost everyone acknowledges the likelihood that molten metal was present. Truthers, however, often commit a fallacy of equivocation by assuming the molten metal was molten steel. By acting as though the presence of molten metal is controversial, you give the impression that you don't understand the importance of the distinction between molten metal and molten steel.
As arguments from incredulity go, yours is quite weak because the things that amaze you seem quite likely to those who are better informed and educated than you. In particular, no one who is capable of calculating the gravitational potential energy of the towers would express the incredulity you have expressed above.
If you understood the thermite reaction, you'd realize that thermite would burn out pretty quickly, and that aluminum oxide is neither the only possible nor the most likely explanation for white smoke.
As
Dave Rogers said, ridicule is about all that's left after you've proved yourself immune to rational discussion and continue to repeat lies.
Dave Rogers seems to be much more interested in the real truth than you are. I'm pretty sure you and he are not on the same side. Once again, you are failing to distinguish between what you believe and what is real.
