Originally posted by jthomas
It sure looks like you were agreeing with 911 Research's statements.
Really? You mean by me questioning how scientific "more, near, around, about" are? Or was it by me laughing at the idea that they know how hot the fires were because it all must have been by the windows or from looking at the rather small portion of steel visible in photos. Sorry if sarcasm is lost here but I was certain the my opening statement was enough context for you. What makes you think I agree with a "scientific" analysis measured in words like "around" and "about?"
