What I am doing is showing a contradiction between Rand's metaphisics and her epistemology. Her metaphisics say that the only truth that exists is what we may find through objectivist means. Her epistemology goes on to say that one can only know something that is evident sensorily. That creates the conundrum that what person X may perceive as true cannot be believed by person Y, if Y doesn't have that perception. The materialistic constraints that she places upon the reason of man (no propositional reason allowed) does not allow for the universal truth that she propounds.
That contradiction comes by her position that her mysticism does not allow for anything mysterious.
Her metaphisics say that the only truth that exists is what we may find through objectivist means. In actuality, humans using reason are discovering, revising or disproving truths every day; that includes truths that didn't exist yesterday, and revision or negation of some truths that did exist yesterday ("The earth is the center of the universe," for instance).
Ayn Rand simply states that truth is the recognition of reality, that man's standard for knowing reality is reason, that reality is that which exists, and that which exists is concrete.
Truth, as such, is an abstraction; and you are reifying truth when treating it as a material concrete.
reify ... to treat (an abstraction) as substantially existing, or as a concrete material object -- reification: n