Reply #60: That's exactly what I said; You're working.

[The Doctor.]

Right now.

As for your demands, yes, they had a 'known super-thermite sample', but that's not what you want, is it?

No. It doesn't matter to you at all that they tested the ignition points and energetic outputs of the samples and found them to be lower and higher respectively. It doesn't matter to you that those results are no where near the properties of the 'paint chips' you claim them to be. It also doesn't matter to you that you and others have effectively suggested that they used a highly-flammable and potentially explosive paint in the towers. No, in reality, the paint you and others have suggested are flame-retardant, and both ignite at much higher temperatures and give off very little energy.

You don't care about any of that, because addressing any of that would make your job more difficult.

No, the technique you use is something I've seen many, many times from climate change deniers, Bush supporters, pro-torture advocates, anyone whose position was tenuous at best. (No, I'm not saying you're any of those, just your position is tenuous); "If you don't like the facts someone has on hand, demand more as though those are what really matter. Either they will work very hard and waste their time, or they will fail to find what you ask. If they do find what you ask, ask for more until they cannot find or provide them. Declare that they have failed to prove their case. Play 'Eye of the Tiger' and dance around your living room in your underwear."

This is, of course, exactly the technique you are attempting to employ.

You will deny everything you think you can get away with. Nevermind that doing so destroys any credibility you might otherwise have.

Are you really saying that if Wikipedia doesn't have the exact chemical compositions, the material cannot exist? Are you saying that if they did not have a sample of exact composition, that they must therefore not have achieved the results they did?

Do you not understand how this undermines your own credibility?

It's simple; You either believe that they found the substances they describe (Low ignition, high output), or you do not.

How about we start there.