You Can't Go Back, Jon
There's a long and interesting argument over at Truth Action about whether Controlled Demolition arguments are hurting or helping the 9-11 "Truth" Movement. In general the Truth Action folks try to avoid "evidence-based" arguments in favor of "warnings" and "the families' questions" and "air quality" arguments. However, no less an eminence than David Ray Griffin has recently pronounced LIHOP dead and only MIHOP as acceptable, now that the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust has been "proven".
Jon Gold writes:
It's not a prerequisite. It would be nice if the movement came to terms with the fact that focusing solely on Controlled Demolition, when the masses have been saturated with hit pieces, documentaries, and media pundits saying how crazy the idea is, is not the best course of action in my opinion. It is STILL the #1 roadblock I come across with people. "You're one of those nuts who think there were explosives in the buildings." Just happened to me yesterday.
I have some sympathy for Jon on this point, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The fact is that almost all "Truthers" push controlled demolition as a major part of their argument. Steven Jones and Richard Gage have no other focus. If you read that post, you'll see that even the people who are defending Jon on this point almost all agree with the CD hypothesis.
To me, the movement seems to be growing right now because of the scientists, engineers, etc who are behind demolition and have risked or lost their careers to do so.
I endorse controlled demolition but I do find it best to, at the least, refrain from mentioning it until I've hit the more solid and documented evidence.
Zombie Bill Hicks:
Ok, be careful there, because I've never spoken out against CD or said that I don't believe in it. Ever.
I'm particularly amused by the CD true believers, like Pavlovian Dogcatcher, who thinks it's truth inviolate:
You don't need anything but a high school level understanding of Newtonian physics to accept the fact that the official story in regard to the buildings coming down contradicts long understood and consistently demonstrable laws of physics. You really don't even need any formal understanding of the physics, particularly in the case of WTC7, just a reasonable grasp on reality.
So denying that "Truth" is synonymous with Controlled Demolition is a lost cause. It's nutty, but then everything the "Truthers" believe is nutty.