Creative Speculation

... and you didn't notice that even if one made the mistake of taking the data at face value, the data didn't support the conclusions?

What their own data showed is that the chips neither looked like nor behaved like any known form of thermite, so the paper "concluded" that it must be some unknown, "highly engineered" form. This, despite the fact that the paper did not actually demonstrate any thermitic reaction or prove that it was even theoretically possible. There is exactly zero chance that such nonsense would have ever been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed technical journal.

You also seem to be unaware that a fellow "truther" who was given a sample reported that he was unable to duplicate the results stated in the paper, after which the "researchers" decided that they would no longer share their samples with anyone. Nonetheless, a fairly recent independent study of different samples, using more precise analyses, concluded that the dust was full of paint chips. And it's interesting to note that the dust should have been expected to contain paint chips, but the "researchers" only found thermite? What happened to the paint chips that should have been there?

> As I said, you can read the document yourself and see that they had very different results for the paint chips than for the thermitic material. But you won't do that, because, well.... you know why.

That's actually a great example of both the idiotic "science" in that paper and your uncritical reading of it. Instead of making any attempt to compare the chips to paint actually used in the WTC, Steven Jones scraped some paint off the bleachers at BYU and tested that. Jones is walking, talking proof that having a PhD doesn't make you a scientist.