(pulling foot out of mouth, ready to insert other one...)
First, let me apologize for not taking the time to get a better sense of this site before making some of the perhaps poorly worded comments above.
Second, let me say that I have great respect for JohnA and Jules (I assume that is you , Jules, yes?) and I did note that Victoria comments here in my obviously too brief tour of the site. I work with her when I am lucky enough to and have great respect for her, as well.
Third, any perceived divisiveness is most regrettable and I apologize for whatever words I used that came across as divisive. That is the last thing I want and I don't have any loyalty tests for those in the movement, unless someone is intentionally promoting disinformation.
I think I was primarily reacting to someone posting under the name "Mark" who seems to have the worst understanding of basic science of anyone I've ever encountered on a serious 9/11 truth site. Your tolerance of him is commendable, as is the general civility of this site. [I stumbled on a thread where he was claiming that hydraulic fluid temperature allowances on heavy construction equipment proved that there was no molten iron in the piles while trying to find my way back to this thread (easy to get lost here, for me anyway...)] His assertions about the absurdity of thermite claims and leaning buildings on this thread are completely without a factual basis and thus are merit-less, yet this clear disinformation is tolerated here, why?
I would also agree that anyone who states that "Bush blew up the towers" is not doing the movement any favors and this is something I always make quite clear. The fact that the media tries to put up this straw man should not dissuade anyone from making the relatively obvious case for CD, however. The msm's ability to use the CD argument against us is only as easy as we let it be, imo.
The fact that more Americans don't instantly recognize a clear CD (WTC 7) when they see one speaks more to the general failing of science education in this country than anything else and, since public education is the primary mission of 9/11 truth at the moment, this is being rectified on an ongoing basis (perhaps not as well as you or I would like, but that speaks more to the lack of adequate training for 9/11 truth activists, something else that needs to be addressed proactively and not simply bemoaned).
[ I should add here that if you can give be a plausible explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 that does not involve some form of CD, I'd love to read it]
It's also worth noting that many, if not most, Americans have still not actually seen the video of WTC 7 going down, so it is very worthwhile to put in front of them as often as possible.
I also agree that we need to be very cognizant of how the msm frames 9/11 truth and work diligently to not reinforce the traps they set. One of the things I do a lot of is monitor what I call propaganda push back, so that I am able to better counter the constant spin we face in public.
I think if you carefully re-read what I wrote above (esp. paragraph four) you will see that I think there should be greater emphasis placed on the non-CD aspects of 9/11 as I strongly suspect that that part of the operation was completely compartmentalized from everything else and that most of those involved in the actual placement of charges will never be found or be completely oblivious to their role in it (assuming much of the nanothermite was sprayed on as a fire retardant or installed as part of ceiling tiles or something, both scenarios being highly plausible, imo).
Now, with all that said, the fact of the matter is that CD is the point of the truth spear right now (like it or not) and we have to work with that as best we can until all the other avenues of 9/11 research bear more useful fruit and can gain greater currency with the public. CD is a smoking gun (one of many, I grant you). CD is sexy and sex sells. This may be a situation where we will just have to agree to disagree. However, I am a strategic thinker and would very much like to read what you think are better strategies for the 9/11 truth movement. Are there some threads here I should read where this has already been discussed?
Finally, in my own activism I use all the credible information I know when making the case against the Zelikow narrative. Generally speaking, my first approach is just to ask people what they think about 9/11 and if they have any questions about the events of that day. This usually provides me with an opening to address their questions directly, draw them in and more often than not win them over. Thus, I take my cue from them and if they are interested in put-options or NORAD's absence, that is what I talk about.
Everything I am seeing is indicating that 9/11 truth is growing, that we are gaining ground every day. What is it that you are seeing that is telling you otherwise?
[I will make sure to wash my feet before checking back on this thread]
I hope that you and yours are well.