<p>OK, finally, you have offered something intelligible. The landfill is a valid point. Does it account for all the anomallies? I doubt it, but that would be an interesting discussion.</p>
<p>However, you continue to miss my point. My point is that you have it all neatly figured out in your mind, and are not open to the fact that there are many, many, MANY discrepancies in the official story. </p>
<p>I have never claimed to have all the answers. I have only claimed to have questions. There are many others who have offered theories about motive. But motive is secondary to evidence. Evidence must be viewed objectively, and THEN, based on the evidence, a hypothesis for motive can be formed.</p>
<p>There are many books on 911 out there, Not all of them good.</p>
<p>The most scholarly works are by theologian David Ray Griffin:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847/sr=1-1/qid=1167843373/ref=sr_1_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=books[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847/sr=1-1/qid=1167843373/ref=sr_1_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=books</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529/sr=1-1/qid=1167843469/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=books[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529/sr=1-1/qid=1167843469/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=books</a></p>
<p>and physics studies by BYU prof Dr. Steven Jones. You will find Dr. Jones’ peer-reviewed work along with many other scholarly works here:</p>
<p><a href=“St 911 - Scholars Truth Ecological Improvements For Homes”>St 911 - Scholars Truth Ecological Improvements For Homes;
<p>Griffin in particular does offer explanations of possible motive in the abovementioned books. Dr. Jones, otoh, is a scientist and does not get into the motive debate but sticks to scientific research. He is a conservative who started questioning the official story because the ‘facts’ did not add up. He has some very valid things to say. You can see video footage of both of these men in this video:</p>
<p><a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782[/url]”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782</a></p>
<p>If you were to actually watch the video in its entirety, you would see that these are rational, respectable people, not ‘whackjobs.’ WAKE UP!</p>
<p>I REPEAT: I am NOT trying to convince anyone of ANYTHING except that there are enough valid points to warrant an open mind and further research. I find it reprehensible that so-called intellectuals can do no better than call someone names rather than take an honest look at the issue.</p>
<p>There were some people who offered some valid counter-arguments on the ‘Controversial Topics’ (parent cafe) and the ‘Seeking Physics Scholars’ (college confidential cafe) threads. If you were truly open-minded, you would read those threads. Read the posts on both sides of the debate. UCLAri and kluge offered the best discussion in favor of the official story. Read their posts and click on the links they provided. But do the same with my posts and the links I provided. View this as something to be looked at objectively, instead of having your mind already made up.</p>
<p>If you are NOT interested in the debate AT ALL, then the mature and courteous thing to do is admit that your mind is made up, but have respect for someone who is still researching the matter. Calling them names is very juvenile behavior. Just because someone disagrees with you on something does not make them delusional.</p>