"That seems to happen when one is more interested in telling people not to work on something they are inspired by, then simply going off and working on their own issue, what inspires that someone, and seeing if others will join in."
I hardly think that's the case here.
No one is saying "not to work on something."
This forum has always been a place to examine strategy. Vic & Arabesque - you both remain quite outspoken critics of various different factions and strategies associated with the 911 Truth movement. CD - like everything else - does not - and SHOULD NOT - get a free pass from scrutiny.
I have seen the activism of WeAreChange discussed. I have seen 'techniques' for gaining attention discussed. I have seen the disruption of bill Maher's show discussed. i have seen people's 'words' examined (as they should be). i have seen affiliations put under the microscope. i have seen actions debated - and in some cases condemned for the simple reason that they 'resonate' the wrong public message - no matter how sincere and well-intentioned they may be.
Vic - you have always been front and center in these discussions. and i respect that.
well - i would ask that you respect that others may simply not agree - in absolute terms - with your conclusions on CD.
to be perfectly fair - i do get the sense that CD has somehow been converted into a holy-relic of sorts that must not be touched and/or questioned. Good activists like Jon Gold have taken a ridiculous amount of 'heat' for declaring their doubts. I have seen the loyalty of activists questioned simply on the basis that they will not sign a blood-loyalty oath to the theory. I myself endured quite a bit of personal accusations from a group that has now been banned from TruthAction, who post voluminously about how Gold and myself are proven agents of Larry Silverstein. Other groups like WingTV and Les Jamieson became defacto spokesmen for the theory - and i can attest to the fact that it was the final straw that divided NY911Truth (at least as far as i was concerned).
no one should be afraid or intimidated into stating that it is "a theory." It is simply NOT akin to the theory of evolution, and no amount of redundant declarative statements will elevate it to that level.
If you read my one and only post on this thread - on the subject of CD (that someone else brought up) - i in no way impugned upon the veracity of the underlying science.
but - like everything else - the subject is fair game and still open to debate.
One of the moderators here asked if there was any value in debating it.
i would say 'yes.' Because - if we create "off limit" theories that must be accepted - without question - we become no different than 'other researchers' who have fractured the movement by created untouchable theories. and we know who THEY are.