Ok, i've read it. I see your point about when and who collected the samples and also the time between sample collection and analysis.
It doesn't help the case he is trying to prove. It adds variables where it'd be better without them, for example, are the samples "as is" from the day of collection or have they been played with? Or indeed, are they from 9/11 at all ?
But at the same time, it doesn't make the results incorrect either. It just makes it harder to make it stand with credibility.
It hasn't changed my mind, but i will now have that slight element of doubt.
It still doesn't explain the other stuff pointed out though.
We all have our opinions, opinions that our lives are a massive contributing factor in.
As all our lives are different then it's only logical our opinions will be different.
With the 9/11 thing i agree that there are many things that were investigated wrongly, or even worse not investigated at all.
Some of that has to do with the conditions everyone was working under, as an example it's impossible to maintain a sterile crime scene with bulldozers and thousands of people trampling all over it.
It would have been a brave man/woman to suggest everyone stop looking for survivors to maintain clean evidence retrieval though.
I like many others did assume these holes in the investigation were there for a cover up.
It was only after hours of reading and going through data logically and open mindedly that i changed that assumption.
In my mind i can't fill a hole with assumptions and theory, i need something real to fill it with, all the conspiricy theories i've seen to data were that, theories.
I've not seen 1 single piece of evidence that was solid enough for me to throw out the logical explanation and bring in a massively complex and involving theory.
The other thing to factor in to WTC is the sheer size of it.
It was 1727 feet high.
There are only 9 buildings in the entire world higher
The tallest controlled demolition so far was the J.L. Hudsons Department Store in Detroit at 439 feet (which indecently came down NOTHING like the twin towers or WTC7).
[video=youtube;JP1HJoG-1Pg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg&feature=player_embedded[/video]
So there really are no comparisons with which to gauge.
It's the same with fires, sure other buildings have burnt for longer without collapsing, but did they have a huge jet fly flat out into them 1 hour before, nope.
Other structures have had planes fly into them (empire state building for one) and have stood, that is a completely different structure though, from the design through to the materials.
So when i see or hear someone say "of course it was a controlled demolition" it drives me crazy, as even experts that have been demolishing buildings since first wearing long trousers have seen nothing like this to gauge from, so how can a shoe salesman be so sure?
As i say, i've gone though and continue to go through the evidence, i've seen enough evidence to convince this very cynical mind that there was no controlled demolition.
If you have an open mind and really want to weight up the whole story then i'm more than happy to search and find that, you need to be specific though.
Plus if you unearth anything that changes my mind then i'm man enough to stand and be counted and admit i was wrong.
Apart from the families of lost loved one i have absolutely no side in this, i think that all politicians are self serving, egotistical, sociopaths so if any evidence can be unearthed to bring down jerks like the Bush's i'm more than happy to agree.
I will not sell out my standards and weaken my opinions to bring myself down to their levels though, simple as that.
P.S.
As i have already said a good friend of mine has gone on record saying he saw a commercial airliner fly over him heading towards the pentagon.
Personally i trust his opinion 100%, so for me the Pentagon is not a discussion.
