Stalkers for 9/11 Truth

Jon Gold responds to Pat's post earlier today. Apparently he thinks Pat "quote mined" him, but I am not quite understanding his complaint, so I will let him and Pat duke it out directly. Jon, of course, can post openly here and does quote often, while debunkers are immediately banned from any Truther site, so I am curious as to why he didn't just complain in the comments here.

In any case, I wanted to respond to Gold's further comments:

I have [thought about it], and I wish I knew how to find out where a person gets their money, what business affiliations they have, etc... and so on. But... I don't. Nor, is he worth the time as a worthless human being.

Scratch a Truther, find a fascist. Yes Jon, I know you wish we lived in some Orwellian society where you can find out anything about anyone so that you can harass and punish those who disagree with you, perhaps put them up on the Kevin Barrett-like scaffolds for their crimes against the 9/11 Truth Movement, but I for one am glad that we still live in a society which respects personal privacy and civil rights. I am glad that you don't know where I work, or who I associate with, as I don't want you nutjobs harassing and threatening them.

And people wonder I don't post all my personal info on this blog.

Hey Jon, Here is a Quarter, Buy a Clue.

Pat made a couple of posts earlier on the article in a Philadelphia paper profiling Jon Gold. The article wasn't that fascinating, however, the entertainment continues. Jon is now all upset because 911 Blogger, a site that he helped start, won't run the article in a blog post:

Cosmos, the founder of the "Eleventh Day of Every Month Until Justice" action, as well as one of the founders of www.911truthnews.com, posted the CityPaper's article to 911blogger.com. For some reason, the post has not been allowed through. Cosmos sent an email asking why, and has not heard anything from anyone.

It's ironic that an article that made the front page of Philadelphia's largest weekly newspaper, that just happens to mention me, a co-founder of 911blogger.com, is not allowed to be posted on 911blogger.com today.

I think the truth hurts.

Hey Jon, why are you surprised? This is what happens when you have a movement based not on reality, but on a paranoid ideology and emotional fervor. One of my professors once told me that the difference between conspiracy theory and science was that science allowed for good predictions, and guess what, this was entirely predictable. In fact if you want to know how the psychology of such movements go, people have been writing about it for centuries. I suggest reading up on the French Revolution for starters, or you can try one of my favorite books.

Jon Gold's Excellent Commission

Buried in a long profile of Gold in a Philly "alternative" weekly:

"It has to be away from the government. There has to be subpoena power, people have to be put under oath, which George Bush and Dick Cheney refused to do. I don't know, maybe an international body of some kind. It can't take place in D.C."

Well, now we know why Jon and Brian never answered the question in a recent thread of what sort of new commission would satisfy them. Don't you just love that? Here's a guy who's dedicated 10 years of his life to a movement and when asked what he wants he has only a vague idea. "I don't know, maybe an international body of some kind."

Here's a clue, Jon. Subpoena power and under oath mean the government, because each comes with an explicit "or else" attached: under penalty of arrest and prosecution.

I'll allow comments on this thread.

The Big Man Makes a Big Promise

Frequent visitor Jon Gold is all excited about some big Troofer related announcement tomorrow:

This Thursday in Colorado, CPT12 is going to show 9/11: Press For Truth. They are also going to have Director Ray Nowosielski, Co-creator John Duffy, and the creator of the 9/11 Timeline, Paul Thompson, on to discuss the film. During this showing, Ray and John are going to reveal something explosive that they have been working on. When I say “explosive,” I mean it. I believe that it might finally be that “foot in the door.” I believe that it will be something the media will have a hard time ignoring.

On the Truthaction forum Jon adds a little taunt:

I'm waiting for the true believers and debunkers to see their reaction. I'm sure they know "something" is happening, and are waiting to do something diabolical.

Oh, yes, I am in the bunker conferring with Dick Cheney and Queen Elizabeth as we speak.
















I have my doubts about how earthshaking this really is though. A couple of weeks ago Gold made the following post on Truthaction:

Hopefully a nice surprise in the coming weeks...

Did Larry Silverstein turn himself in to the FBI? Was Manny Badillo named the new human rights commissioner for the UN? No, not quite that exciting unfortunately.

Here is part of it...

PAUL THOMPSON IS BACK!!!

Be still my beating heart. A blogger that only truthers care about has resumed blogging. I follow them more than 99% of their own movement, and I didn't even know that he left. I don't know why that didn't push the budget negotiations off the front page...

How Do I Critique a Book Based on the Title?

Jon Gold wonders why I'm ignoring the above book. To answer:

1. It just came out two weeks ago.
2. I haven't read it.
3. I haven't read any substantive reviews of it.
4. I'm not going to buy it.
5. The local public library doesn't have it on order.

Now, Jon Gold himself doesn't let a mere thing like not having read the book hold him back from reviewing it:

Kevin Fenton has been a contributor for years [...], and the "Complete 9/11 Timeline." He has provided countless pieces of helpful information for anyone concerned about the "official account" of 9/11. I highly recommend this book.

So Gold's review boils down to, "I like Kevin Fenton and therefore his book must be good." Like I said, I haven't read any substantive reviews.

Update: Gold claims to have read the book; you'd never know it from that ridiculous "review".

BTW, that's Jon Gold's second review on Amazon. His first? Back in 2006 for a Grifter book:

Years From Now Dr. David Ray Griffin will be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, and Ghandi(sic).

Hey, I mention them in the same breath all the time. David Ray Griffin is a moron who led a bunch of other morons off an intellectual cliff, unlike Dr Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

The publisher does provide some information:

Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that intelligence officials repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing individuals associated with Alec Station, the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, as primarily responsible for many of the intelligence failures, this account analyzes the circumstances in which critical intelligence information was kept from FBI investigators in the wider context of the CIA’s operations against al-Qaeda, concluding that the information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States. The book also looks at the findings of the four main 9/11 investigations, claiming they omitted key facts and were blind to the purposefulness of the wrongdoing they investigated. Additionally, it asserts that Alec Station’s chief was involved in key post-9/11 events and further intelligence failures, including the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora and the CIA's rendition and torture program.

Bolding added for emphasis.

So it's a LIHOP book. We don't talk about LIHOP much around here, but it seems to me that's even less tenable than MIHOP. Why? Because at least with MIHOP, the plotters can choose whom they let in on the conspiracy. With LIHOP, the people who have found out through their work about the terrorist attacks all have to be trusted without any prior selection by the elements who allow the attacks to happen.

Gold Admits He's a Crackpot

Jon Gold decided to tackle Matt Taibbi. The headline on the piece is about Taibbi admitting that we've been lied to about 9-11 (not exactly Earth-shattering news), but I find it more interesting that he managed to paint Gold into a corner where he started having to admit his crackpot ideas. Jon doesn't usually do that; he's Mr "all about the families and justice and accountability" without actually revealing anything about what he thinks happened on 9-11.

Matt Taibbi: The fact that the government failed to prevent a terrorist attack through incompetence and, on some level, corruption, is simply not high on my list of outrages, at least not compared to other things that have gone on.

It is a very different thing than causing the attacks to happen, or being part of their planning, which is what the 9/11 Truth movement continually asserts. Moreover, it continually does so in a supremely intellectually dishonest way, charging complicity and then retreating into these nebulous calls for answers to questions about the official story, when asked to produce evidence of said complicity.

But I take it you are conceding that there is no evidence of US complicity in these attacks. Can you answer that question directly?

Jon Gold: 9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime. That’s how I answer your question of complicity.

But hey Matt… thanks for admitting that “of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11.” I’ll remember that the next time you take a shot at the only movement that has been supportive of the families seeking justice, and the 9/11 First Responders seeking health care.

Matt Taibbi: Again, I would be completely on board with calls for more investigation into the official story, if the movement would only stop with these childish insinuations that Bush and Cheney were somehow behind 9/11. It’s asinine and an incredible distraction.

Moreover the government’s failure in 9/11 was, comparatively speaking, a rather small-scale screwup, compared to its intentional invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its failure to police Wall Street. I’m with Noam Chomsky on this one. If you’re looking down the list of US Government outrages, 9/11 doesn’t crack the top 100.

Jon Gold: Childish insinuations? I don’t think it’s childish at all to point to suspects of a crime. Especially when there is MORE THAN ENOUGH reason to think so. What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about attacking a movement that represents a cause he knows nothing about. I think it’s cowardly, immature, and irresponsible. For a “journalist.” Please.

As you can see, Jon is one of those people who believe in the awesome power of ALL CAPS to prove his point. That's because he doesn't have strong arguments. I gotta love the part where he challenges Taibbi to "read" his 9-11 Troof starter kit:

Here is the 9/11 Report. I suggest you read it, and ask others to read it to understand the “official account.”

After that, I suggest you ask people to watch “9/11: Press For Truth“…

Then I suggest you ask people to watch the companion DVD “In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families“…

Then I suggest ask people to you watch then former Rep. Cynthia McKinney chair the 9/11 Omission Hearings that took place not two months after the release of the 9/11 Report in New York City on 9/9/2004…

Then I suggest you ask people to watch then Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s 9/11 Congressional Briefing held in Washington D.C. on 7/22/2005…

Yep, of the first five things Gold wants Taibbi to "read", only the 9-11 Commission Report is actually written down; the rest are movies.

Brit Troofer Busted In Gold-Inspired Stunt

The actual details aren't that interesting, but you gotta love that picture of them dragging him away. Typical Troofer story about friends and family:

The effect finding out about 9/11 had on my relationships with my friends and family was definitely a challenge. Initially I found talking about the issue a demoralising and mostly unsuccessful venture. Their rejection of the information hit me pretty hard but I knew I lacked a strong grasp of the subject matter.

So he took a three-month course in Troofology....

Hat tip: Paul W in the comments.

Jon Gold Handcuffs Himself to Fence; World Yawns

Gotta love that he claims there is no justification for anything that happened as a result of 9-11; sort of puts the lie to his "just asking questions and demanding accountability" BS. What he means is that he's not going to be specific about his crackpot ideas.

Gold's rather breathless account here.

One of the police rode their bike up to where we were sitting, and parked. He stood there for a minute or two, and then said, “are you Mr. Gold?” I responded, “Yes, that’s me.” He asked, “are you still planning on chaining yourself to the fence?” I said, “that is my intention.” He said, “I wish you wouldn’t.” To me, it was clear intimidation, but lucky for me, I am one stubborn individual.

The fascist bastard! How dare he say, "I wish you wouldn't." How intimidating! Lucky for Jon, the stormtroopers let him give his little speech before taking him to Guantanamo Bay.

Jon Gold to Risk Life and Liberty

A couple of weeks ago, I would have laughed this off as a silly publicity stunt:

9/11 Justice activist and researcher Jon Gold has announced his intention to chain himself to the White House fence this coming Monday, January 31.

But that was before the media and law enforcement had an opportunity to see what 9-11 justice activists could do:

We know that Jon's harmless, but do they know it?

Update: The video:

A Big Honking Plate of Stupid

It's hard to say what part of this interview between Roseanne Barr and Jon Gold (with Coleen Rowley) is my favorite. Is it when Roseanne says, "Thank God for Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone?", apparently unaware of what Matt wrote about the 9-11 Truthers? Is it when Roseanne's buddy calls in to suggest that the Truth Movement is a CIA plot? Is it when he goes on to suggest that the Truthers should drop their focus on 9-11 and instead concentrate on campaign finance reform and Jon Gold agrees? Or is it when Gold himself suggests that the vote be banned for whites and males for a couple centuries? Correction: Idiot Jon Gold stops by in the comments and says it was not he who suggested banning the vote for whites and males, and listening to it again I can hear it was Roseanne's buddy. My apologies to idiot Jon.

No, for me the best part is that Coleen Rowley sits there contributing to the conversation, and doesn't once seem to realize that she's talking with a bunch of insane people. I've known since her participation in the Treason in American Conference that she was a few slices short of a loaf, but still it's a bit jarring to realize that Time Magazine's co-person of the year for 2002 is so clueless.

How Paranoid?

Jon Gold, on his upcoming trial for the heinous and no doubt capital crime of crossing a police line gives us this breathless update:

My personal psyop is threatening to show up to this. Why is it most of my "enemies" are those who claim to fight for truth, accountability and justice for the 9/11 attacks (even though they don't)? I bet this has something to do with it.

Well, Jon, first of all I'm disappointed to hear that I'm not your personal psy-op. Crap, who have we got on you? Oh, her? But she's one of the--forget I said that.

Not to fear, someone's going to be there to protect Jon:

I'll be there with video camera- HQ wants me to keep an eye on Jon Gold

Yes, and then be sure to pull that black button that makes sure you get the best shot at him. Errr, I mean, of him, of course.

I mean, seriously. Does anybody really think that Jon Gold is somehow a dangerous individual? If you buy the Troofers' theories for a moment, who is most dangerous to the "official story"? Generally, Griffin, (Steven and Alex) Jones and Gage, I would say, with arguments to be made by Avery, Fetzer, Sofia, Hufschmid, Meyssan and Meserlian. But on any sane scale Gold is way down on the totem pole. Of course, to the paranoid that is precisely the problem; they are not prominent enough to garner attention if they are murdered but they are prominent enough that their deaths would silence others, nay, have silenced others.

Pinheads at Ground Zero

Oh, boohoohoo! They don't sell 9-11 Press for Troof!

Cindy Sheehan Tells the Story of Her Arrest

It's a lot more interesting than anything the Troofers are doing today:

I began to plan a way to join Matthis and Elaine when I went to the front of the barrier and saw my dear friends, who have always been there for me, lying on the sidewalk by themselves. Just as I was figuring out how to get over the barriers, the section I was at collapsed onto the sidewalk and I took the opportunity to step over hoping that dozens, if not hundreds, would follow.

Well, you can probably guess how that turned out; neither dozens nor hundreds followed.

Why, when the barrier was compromised, did more people not follow us to actually put their beliefs into higher relief than merely marching in a circle on Saturday? While we were being (tightly) handcuffed and loaded onto the hot paddy wagon, the crowd of on-lookers chanted, “This is what hypocrisy looks like.”

Indeed. She whines about the food, she whines about the cell, she whines about her fellow protesters not joining her. And she closes with a common slur about police officers:

Three of us went to pick up our property this morning at the Park Police station and as we were being jacked around, an officer named Thomas (Badge number 628) told me that if I “stopped getting arrested” I wouldn’t have to go through all of this.

I said: “when the wars stop, I will stop.” He actually then told me: “The wars will stop when we nuke them and take their oil.”

I wonder why they are called “pigs.”

Cindy never mentions Jon Gold. Jon's story is over at Troof Action:

From there, we were placed into a truck that had a VERY cramped sitting area. I am somewhat claustrophobic so it was hard for me to get in. I did. On the way to the jail, we were talking about how we should have been let go, among other things.

After we arrived at the jail, they took off our plasticuffs, and they frisked us. Then we were placed into what can only be described as a human kennel. The cells were SMALL, and comprised of steel walls, steel beds, steel sinks, and steel toilets. The bars were made up of big bars, and a steel mesh that kind of looked like this from Star Trek TNG. It was easily 85-90 degrees in there, with one big fan blowing. There was very little air circulation. My shirt became my pillow, and I put my socks in the water, and wrapped them around my head Rambo style in order to cool off.

Cindy's cell was too cold, Jon's was too hot. I like this juxtaposition though:

We all plead not guilty, and have a trial sometime in June, but one of the more interesting things to happen was a request from the White House to create a "stay away" area around the White House that if we were to enter, we would get an automatic sixth months in prison.

And:

I was often asked if I would do it again. My answer is without hesitation.

And yet he didn't go for the six month tour?

This Is Dedicated to the One I Love....

Jon Gold can't even get busted without dedicating it to the family members.

Reports Coming In From Treason In America Confab

Jon Gold wants us to know that he cried a lot, and was privileged.

Dahlia Wasfi was the second person to make me cry this weekend. The footage she showed of the Fallujah soccer field turned cemetery broke my heart. It also made me angry, and has fueled me for the coming weeks with Cindy. Thank you Dahlia for coming, and thanks to Flip for recommending she speak.

Tears for those gentle Fallujahns:

Box Boy Gage got a little long-winded:

Richard Gage gave the longest speech, and I didn't get to see all of it. He did have some technical problems unfortunately, but everyone applauded him as well. Thank you for coming Richard.

Jeez, Jon, wasn't it just last week that you renounced all of the controlled demolition fruitcakes?

There will apparently be some reporting on this conference on ABC News' Nightline tonight:

From Katie at ABC News, today, Monday, 3/8: "I just wanted to let you know it looks like the story will be airing tonight (barring breaking news, of course). You can look for it on ABC News Nightline, which airs at 11:35 on the east coast, but sometimes earlier in other parts of the country. So tell folks it’ll be on ABC after their late local news." SPREAD THE WORD!"

I suspect the focus will be on the Pentagon shooter, with Dylan and Korey (and possibly Jon and Betsy) appearing only briefly.

Here's some video of the Truthers eating at a restaurant.

Black shirts, check. V for Vendetta mask, check. I love that immediately after Gold they show Gage and say that he's the only "credible source" in the movement; I imagine that didn't go over well with Jon.

Who Is Payday Monsanto?

Or, it just wouldn't be a Troof-fest without Jew-bashing. One of the "acts" scheduled for Jon Gold's upcoming "Treason in America" event is Payday Monsanto. As you can probably guess, his music is the usual paranoid stew that we see from the kooks every day; chemtrails, the New World Order, etc. And yes, the requisite "anti-Zionism". Here's just a sample:

Or this image:

The World Without Zionism was the title of a conference held by that great humanitarian, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Payday's friends on MySpace include the trifecta of stupid: Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and Jesse Ventura:


He's what we could call a crapper:


I wonder if Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2002 knows the kind of people she's going to be associated with at this confab.

Kudos to our commenter, New Yorker, for pointing this out. Great find!

Such a Deal!

Jon Gold promises to forgive the mainstream media for the way they've treated the 9-11 Troof Movement. All they have to do is put Troofers in primetime for two weeks solid. Personally I think he should ask the media to put Richard Gage on at halftime of the Super Bowl, instead of The Who.

My Response to Kevin Barrett

I was rather amused as to how Kevin Barrett quoted me (without identification of course) in his rant about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that Pat cited below.

The traitor doth protest too much! Anybody with the faintest understanding of psychology can see that these lines are intended to PREVENT truth-seekers from supporting KSM's obvious and demonstrable innocence, by ridiculing the idea in a manner designed to play on truther insecurities and foster inaction. Anybody who thinks that this anti-truth propagandist really wants us to join Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in a free KSM movement, and thus impede the sanctifying of the 9/11 big lie in the history books, is of questionable intentions and/or intelligence.

I posted the following response to his statement, although I do not know whether he will post it, since in typical truther fashion, he does not have open comments.

A salam alikom Kev. Sorry to disappoint you, but that quote you cited of mine, was not part of some reverse psychology secret gambit, it was my actual opinion. Sorry, it is not that complicated and nefarious. I am simply not that clever. As I have argued for years, I find the disingenuous nature of the self-styled ”9/11 truth movement” to be rather bizarre. I obviously don’t believe the US government carried out the 9/11 attacks, but if I did, I would be raising bloody hell over the issue. I and my comrades would be out in the streets. To the contrary, the vast majority of this movement seems to treat this matter with all the seriousness of a minor policy disagreement like the health insurance debate, content with an occasional post on a forum or the ubiquitous YouTube videos. This actually somewhat understates the matter, in that the recent healthcare debate has resulted in hundreds of angry protests involving tens of thousands of people, as opposed to the events of the truth movement, who have trouble breaking into the double digits in attendance with bored advocates rambling incoherently about put options.

Now Mr. Barrett, I would have to except from this comment. He actually seems to behave the way most people should behave if they actually seriously believed this stuff. Now I still think he is a complete
nutcase, but at least he is an honest nutcase who stands by what he believes. Jon Gold seems somewhat saner, although this is a rather low bar to clear, but he rather cowardly refuses to take a stand on virtually anything, taking this whole “just asking questions” game to an extreme in a movement hardly noted for its courage in the first place. I find the accusation that Gold is somehow working for us to be hilarious, especially given the outright scorn I have treated him with for years. But hey, I guess in a world where you believe even hobbyist blogger software engineers from Seattle are covert CIA operatives, anything is possible.

So to summarize, yes, I really do feel that if the “truth movement” really believes in what it says it believes, it should publically defend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Anything else would be hypocritical.
You guys have been demanding an investigation and a public forum for years, insisting that the truth should come out in the courts. Now that there will be a public court hearing, filled with scores of top-notch Ivy League educated lawyers on both sides, retreating from backing up your public statements because somebody might call you names would be pathetic. Not that such a response would be much of a surprise from this movement.

Troofer Wars

Now personally I think both Jon Gold and Kevin Barrett are one taco short of a combination plate, but Barrett has got to be one of the most arrogant and obnoxious people on the planet. In any case Gold posts an exchange that he had with the former part-time professor turned full-time quack radio host. I swear, these guys hate each other more than they hate us.

Jon,

The problem isn't that you're pugnacious. Nor is that intellectually, you're utterly mediocre, and that's being charitable. Nor is it that you're pro-Zionist. Lots of my friends and colleagues support a Jewish
state in Palestine, and that's their business.

The problem is that the combination of your stupidity, Zionism, and pugnaciousness makes you a huge waste of time, and a drain on the resources of the 9/11 truth movement.

I have never once in my life attacked anyone in the 9/11 truth movement if they didn't attack me first. Why not? Because it just leads to a time-wasting flame war.

But you...all you DO, besides posting moronic home movies that even your dog wouldn't want to watch, and idiotically predictable commentary that even your mom wouldn't want to read, is attack people (mostly people who are at least 50 IQ points and oodles of education ahead of you) and start flame wars. The internet, which puts everyone--morons like you and erudite geniuses like Tarpley--on the same level, has contributed to your developing a wildly inflated opinion of yourself. Like the F student who protests the hardest against not getting an A, you're too dumb to realize how dumb you are.

If you aren't an op, you might as well be. My best guess is that you're just an intellectually-mediocre pugnacious Zionist lihopper who has somehow come into enough money to spend your whole life wasting the 9/11 truth movement's time. You and Brian Good are each other's evil twins. Maybe you two should get together and wank each other while you fantasize about the 9/11 truth leaders you love to hate.

Over and out.

Kevin

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.

Victronix:

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.

Arcterus:

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.