None Dare Call This Science
Troofers like to claim that they have all these academics on their side, but the actual quality of work turned out by these scientists is no better than a layman. Witness this letter from a supposed physics PhD to NIST regarding their recent WTC7 report. It is supposedly on a scientific subject, but has no more science beyond what you would find on a typical troofer blog. And it can't even get that right:
Anecdotal Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7
1. Larry Silverstein's remarks about the decision to "pull" are clear enough. The arguments about the meaning of "pull" are a smoke-screen. There is a causal relationship between "and we made that decision" and "we watched the building fall down." The latter follows the former. Their decision resulted in the fall of WTC 7. This could only take place with controlled demolition.*
I love how he tries to explain that the debate over the meaning of "pull" is a smoke-screen, as if NIST would care, given that "pull" is only a demolition term within the troofer community itself, and nowhere else on Earth. The bizarre thing is that the footnote points out that this argument is invalid anyway.
* This is not a direct quote of Silverstein's words. He said, "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." http://911review.com/errors/wtc/pullit.html
Why you have a footnote pointing out your own inaccuracies is beyond me.