Creative Speculation

Just a quick search on this board, and golly gee, there's even a thread where you were involved, and I wasted time in a futile attempt to help you understand the significance of the facts that the ignition temperature and energy density given in the paper ALONE prove that it wasn't thermite -- i.e., my point about their own data not supporting their conclusions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x320133#320135

And, huh, here's another thread on the same topic where you think ignoring facts and twisting what others say will save your failed arguments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x320144#320144

In my previous post, I gave a specific example of your intellectual dishonesty, and here we have another: I have to assume that the only reason you're asking for details now is to demonstrate your awesome ability to dismiss facts and reason and keep making the same irrational arguments over and over and over, despite how many times your errors are clearly pointed out.

There's lots of other info just on DU, such as the following post concerning the paper's failure to prove that thermitic reaction was even possible, because it didn't do the testing necessary to determine if there was any elemental aluminum present, and also has a link to the "truther" who was unable to reproduce the claimed results: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x295316#296095

> But the truly stunning revelation in your post is this: You haven't bothered doing the diligence of verifying the information for yourself.... you simply believe it

If you hadn't already broken my irony measure, I'm sure that one would have made it catch fire. But please do carry on; this is the funniest thread we've had here for quite some time.