They are pretending we are too stupid to figure that out. Of course it's intentional.

[Wood/Reynolds] "Why does Dr. Jones continue to boast that he uses "the scientific method" after it has been pointed out repeatedly that his thermite hypothesis does not account for the data? Does not science throw a failed hypothesis overboard after the evidence repeatedly contradicts it?"

Legge Responds: "Jones has never claimed that thermite or its variants account alone for all the observations. There is obvious evidence that incendiary thermite was used and there is evidence that the towers exploded which may have been caused by nanothermite or may have been caused by something else, such as conventional demolition explosives."

Steven Jones responds to Jim Fetzer:

Q: “are you suggesting both [thermate/superthermite] were used in the Twin Towers?

A: “I’m suggesting that’s possible along with other explosives”

[1]

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Submitted by Jim Fetzer on Sat, 2007-02-03 23:04.

“And why does he have to persist in misrepresenting the positions of others?[opinion and straw man arguments ironically offered as evidence] He commits straw man fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshmen to avoid. [Opinion offered as evidence, appeal to authority]

THIS is the sign of a scholar? [Ad-hominem] No, this is the sign of a FRAUD. [Ad-hominem, opinion/straw-man offered as evidence] Neither Judy nor I is "promoting" an energy-beam-from-space theory, other than to advance it as an [sic] HYPOTHESIS. [Absurd and illogical—a hypothesis is rejected when contradictory evidence is presented] I offered the CONJECTURE that WTC-7 may have been the source of the energy required [see previous]. I was not endorsing a CONCLUSION [irrelevant—the hypothesis must be rejected as well as any conclusions IMPLIED] but a theory about the case. Without conjectures and theories, inquiry is impossible. [Straw-man—His position is not that inquiry is wrong—it is that absurd theories using faulty data are wrong] Doesn't he know? [Don’t you?] This fraud [ad-hominem] talks the talk about science [so do you—but you don’t use the scientific method, you use your own], but his understanding of and commitment to genuine science is superficial and incomplete.” [Your comments are divisive and illogical]

I could offer a further analysis of this ad-hominem rant but there would be no point. Jim Fetzer discredits himself further with every passing day. His criticism should be directed at himself and the rest of the disinformation artists that he implicitly supports.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."