How can we honestly discuss science if we do not pay careful attention to logic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies

Paradoxically, the logical fallacies get little attention, but they are among the most useful of tools for thinking clearly about 9/11.

For instance, the basic "appeal to unqualified authority" helps short-circuit NIST's injection of possibly false information into the debate.

A couple of videos that point out fallacies in NIST's reasoning:

Sunder on What Controlled Demolition Looks Like
http://bit.ly/Sunder_on_What_Controlled_Demolition_Looks_Like

We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
http://bit.ly/We_Have_the_Results_and_Only_We_Have_the_Results

On June 10, 2010, Dr. Fahim Sadek of NIST (fahim.sadek@nist.gov), an investigator who produced the Bush Administration's report on the WTC, gave a lecture at the Engineering College of Aarhus on the entire WTC Investigation. This is apparently the only time that NIST has given a detailed talk on their entire investigation.

It was expected that Sadek would take questions at the end of the lecture. However, nobody was allowed to ask any. Nevertheless, before Sadek left, Dr. Niels Harrit managed to catch him for a brief talk.

Three months before on February 28th, 2010, Dr. Niels Harrit gave a presentation on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 in Aarhus, Denmark, as well. Hundreds of invitations were sent to both journalists, city council members and various members of the scientific community. More than 300 people attended, among them several professors from the Engineering College of Aarhus.

Despite prohibiting filming or any other documentation of Sadek's presentation, over an hour of video the presentation was pieced together from several hidden video- and sound recorders. This is that presentation and the Sadek-Harrit exchange.