I found the following exchange on that thread which seems to sum up the opinions.
Maciamo:
"According to the Dodecad K12 and K12b admixtures, there is only about 6% of Mongoloid admixtures among the Turks."
Answer: "That is the average for instanbul and northern turkey but still you have some who are 12-15% Mongoloid other parts of Turkey are 10-15% Mongoloid on average."
Another answer: Turks with over 15% East Asian Genes are very rare. The average Turk has something around your 10%, some even less. But there are areas, for example Southwest and Central Turkey with almost 15%.
So, I don't think 30% is at all accurate for an average for East Eurasian even going by the data that was posted.
I also have some questions about the source of those figures.
I have my doubts that those figures came from 23andme, which is why there is a conflict between them and what shows up in Dodecad. The graphic posted shows that the Behar Turks score around 14% "Mongolian", yet the Dodecad analysis (Globe 13) has the Behar Turks at about 8% for a total of Siberian, Amerindian, East Asian and Arctic, and 9.5% if you add in South Asian. So, about 10%.
I'm assuming that it was the Behar Turks that Eurogenes added to that paper's PCA, yes? So, somewhere from the just under 10% of the Dodecad analysis to a high of 14%?
Perhaps though the 30% figure was meant to include the West Eurasian ancestry in these "Turkic" invaders. As to this perhaps 10-15% ancestry, I wonder how much of it was old ancestry "coming home", a back migration in a way? By that I mean didn't much of the "West Eurasian" in Central Asia come from Anatolia in the first place? Even in terms of the "Iranic" component, wouldn't that ancestry have been present in Anatolia before the Middle Ages, through Bronze Age migrations? That's why I thought that the only "new" ancestry brought by the "Turks" was the Siberian/Arctic/East Asian components.
Which brings me to the notion that Anatolians were basically indistinguishable from "Greeks" or "Italians" in 800 BC.
Given that we don't have a single ancient genome from Anatolia from any period whatsoever, I don't have much certainty about my own or any one else's opinion. We're all speculating here, but it's fun, so here goes...
I don't doubt that at some point in history the people in Anatolia, particularly in western Anatolia around the Aegean, were very EEF like. We know it changed with the "Turkic" invasions in the Middle Ages. However, the question is did it change before that, and if so, when. Also, was it uniform around Anatolia, and furthermore how much and when did that change affect southern Europe through gene flow from that area? In terms of a discussion of the Etruscans, did it change before 800 BC?
I think it did. There may have been ANE flowing into some eastern parts of Anatolia from a very early period, but certainly with the Bronze Age new peoples moved through the area and admixed. Some of that ancestry may have been a back migration of ancient Neolithic stock, but they also carried different ancestry from ANE rich or Gedrosia rich populations. I don't know what modern people would be a good model for the "new" Anatolians that lived in central Anatolia around 800 BC but I don't think they would still have been only EEF or Oetzi like. Perhaps they were more Armenian like, or more Kurd like? I don't know. For any certainty we're going to have to wait for some ancient genomes.
In terms of the Etruscan ethnogenesis, as has been said before in other places, Italy has been heavily populated since the Neolithic. If some Oetzi like people were still around in Iron Age Thrace, I don't think it's a stretch to say they would have been present in central Italy as well. Then you have to add in the migrations from north of the Alps, which is attested not only through archaeology, and language, but also now through genetics. I think this later ancestry was also on a north/south cline in Italy. That's the mix that would have existed in the area around 800 BC. I would also point out that the "upper classes" for want of a better word, although they would be mixed, would probably be higher in that more "northern" and "eastern", Indo-European component than the "lower classes". Wouldn't that produce a genome that would plot just about where these ancient genomes plot? Maybe some gene flow did arrive from Lydia or from the Greek islands in 800 BC, but it's not attested in the archaeology, and I don't see where it's necessary to explain where these samples plot even if Anatolians in 800 BC were still very EEF like. If they had already changed, then it either didn't take place at all, or it was a very small input. Ed. (If the gene flow actually came from the northern Aegean, it might have been more similar, but again, I don't think a migration from there is necessary to explain where these elite Etruscans plot.
The larger question to my mind is how do we explain the Caucaso/Persian or West Asian in all of Europe, not just in southern Europe, although obviously it's a bit larger in some parts of southern Europe. Here is the K=20 from Haak et al:
The European groups who seem to have virtually none of it are the Basques and the Sardinians. The French South and Pais Vasco have a bit but minimal, then you start to get some with the Spaniards but still lower than the rest of Europe. So, there is a decided east to west cline with far southwestern Iberia having less of it. There are also very high levels around the Caucasus, predictably enough, which is why it was given that name. Just from eyeballing it, the levels in the Czechs and the Croatians aren't much different from the levels in Bergamo, or the Tuscans, and that, to me, implicates the Indo-European migrations in some way. I think it's just a different kind of farmer ancestry. The difference between southern and northern Europeans is not the Caucaso ancestry, it's the amount of the original early Neolithic ancestry that went into Europe from the coastal Levant, and southwestern Anatolia.
So, then, what does it mean to say that some southern Europeans are "West Asian" shifted? Not much, in my opinion, if by West Asian is meant that Caucaso/Persian component, because northerners and eastern European groups have it too. Southern Europeans who are said to be "West Asian" shifted have about the same amount of this Caucaso/Persian component (a bit more in some populations, but not very much, and not in all of them) as do a lot of other Europeans. They just have more of the original Neolithic component. So, maybe the presence of this component in the older calculators was just an artifact.
At the same time, it's possible that the Caucaso/Persian component arrived in southern Europe from the Indo-Europeans by a northern route, but that there was also gene flow through Anatolia into southern Europe, particularly south eastern and south/Central Europe during the Bronze Age that carried with it both the Caucaso/Persian component and some more EEF like genetic material.
That's why it's so important to have Mycenean genomes from the Bronze Age. Did they arrive in Greece directly via the Balkans, or was there a sweep through northern Anatolia? How much of the Caucaso/Persian did they carry? Then we need to see the genomes of the Cretans of the Bronze Age, and from the migrations right after the Bronze Age collapse and from the Greek migrants to Magna Graecia. In terms of Italian genetics, which is my main interest,
perhaps an additional dose of farmer ancestry arrived in southern Italy through these later migrations and some of it diffused northwards.
I guess part of what I'm saying is that
, in my opinion, people are conflating those issues with the specific one about Etruscan ethnogenesis in 800 BC due to a migration from Lydia.
A specific movement from Anatolia to central Italy around 800 BC doesn't explain the percentages of "West Asian" in the Balkans or southern Italy, where it is even higher than in Tuscans and northern Italians. There is a bigger process in play here, and with all due respect, I doubt the Phoenicians in northwest Sicily or some places in Iberia are enough to explain it. They wouldn't have affected the northern Greeks for one thing, who, without the input from the Slavic migrations, would, in my opinion, be even higher in "West Asian". This would also apply to the Bulgarians and the Romanians.
We need the genomes from these Etruscans. As Maciamo pointed out, there's only so much that a PCA can tell us, and especially one with not very many populations on it, and no other ancient samples. We also need samples from Anatolia from various time periods. We'll have to see how things shake out.
Angela Merkel looks to me like what she is...central European. 
