Reply #3: following your comments in thread on explosives [View All]

[musette_sf]

in this forum... it looks to me like you want to defend the "official" story for some reason. Don't have time right now to refute your theories in this thread, but suffice it to say that the following thread has an excellent debate on this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x34357

Times Books also has a vested interest in protecting the "official" story. It frankly was kind of creepy to see the virtually identical descriptions of the alleged building/fireproofing "defects" in "City In The Sky" and "102 Minutes". One would think that Times Books wants to make sure that the same (mis?)information is disseminated, over and over again.

On edit: I searched your posts. They are virtually all in the September 11 forum, and they are virtually all defenses of the "official" story. So at this point, I don't wish to engage with you on this any further. I thought you wanted to discuss "102 Minutes", which I am interested in reading, but I see that your apparent agenda is to attempt to debunk any theory save the "official story".

Fortunately, my memory of the (mis?)information in "City In The Sky" spurred me to (1) check out if there were any connecting threads between the two books, and (2) check out if your posts tended to be all of a piece. Answer to both checks was affirmative.