:::::::::::::You make a good point. I think the difference is that 9/11 was investigated, and so there's a credible story about what happened. This wasn't investigated: no bullets or fragments recovered at the scene, or at the hospital; no ballistics tests; no report about the boy's injuries. Nothing. Then there's the correspondent's statement about having cut the final death scenes, which turned out to be non-existent; and the cameraman's inconsistent comments about who picked up bullets, and his laughter about it during that interview, and his talk of "secrets." That places someone like Richard Landes in a stronger position as a source than Scholars for 9/11, because he's the only one who appears to be going through the evidence systematically, whereas the 9/11 group is trying to compete with the FBI and CIA for credibility, and so clearly looks inadequate by comparison. I take your point, though, about him being self-published and not an expert in the field.