I'm really sorry that I'm leaving that impression. To my mind, the thread has simply shifted from my original question about what you read, to the follow-up question I asked in the OP:I highly suspect that Thomas is just trolling Metabunk at this point.
Aren't we mainly on topic in that light? (I grant there have been a few detours.) But we seem to be mainly working together to imagine what effect a good book like this might have on conspiracy theorizing.My follow-up question is: in the absence of such an account, how reasonable is it for someone to claim (after years of trying) that they don't understand (the "official" account of) how the collapses happened? (The conspiracy theories are, I would argue, easier to understand, if harder to believe.) Has the absence of a good popular science book about the WTC collapses given room for conspiracy theories to flourish?
We don't agree about it, hence the discussion. But I don't see how it's outside the scope of the questions I began with, or how I've somehow redrawn the boundaries of the discussion ("moved the goalposts") or pushed things along just to get a rise out of you (which is how I define "trolling").