"Debunking the debunkers" has published a new excercise in double speak:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.de/2012...-al-paper.html
Main points:
1. Debunkers take Harrit e.al. serious by commissioning a repeat study. This makes allegations that Harrit e.al. wasn't peer-reviewed moot.
2. Debunkers find red-gray chips in genuine WTC dust, rendering any doubts about the origin of Jones's dust moot
First, two quick explanations why these two points won't win truthers a flower pot:
1. The problem was not the lack of peer-review as such, but that the authors and their supporters have for years, and against clear evidence, LIED when they claimed that the paper was peer-reviewed. Their very lie is the main problem, and remains the problem to this day.
2. At least I have always maintained that dust, chips and data are genuine, because
the very data proves it's primer paint, not thermite. This has more weight than legitimate residual doubts about the provenance of all four samples.
But I guess publishing that blog post does help the debate along, because
1. These Truthers admit the paper had never been peer reviewed.
2. These Truthers admit that Millette's dust samples and chips are genuine.
(See? I can do that, too
)