Those who promote false claims frequently retreat to untestable conditions, but failing that, complex matters can provide many details from which it is possible to cherry-pick.
This thread was originally about the UAF Report into the collapse of WTC7. I made some rigorous claims in that most rigorous field of hard science, classical physics, namely that g and free-fall are not even conceptually similar, that acceleration at g does not imply free-fall, that the rooflines of buildings that are demolished fall at less than g anyway, and that collapsing building debris cannot be in free-fall.
All argument for demolition of the Twin Towers, not WTC7, rapidly evaporated, and the thread changed tack, to the messiest and most complex fields of science, those that deal with health, and cherry-picking ensued. Que bono?