When I first became engaged in 9/11 truth, I didn't give the CD research much credence. My first video was "The Truth and Lies of 9/11". My first book was "The New Pearl Harbor". Both make it quite clear than the problems with the official story are diverse in nature. And Ruppert consciously steers clear of the physical evidence, setting out the basic outlines of our probable cause to suspect government complicity utilizing only documentary evidence.
In the last year or so, CD has come to prominence in the movement, as reputable scientists have come forward to question the means of collapse. Despite the bias of coverage, every major study of the collapse has actually bolstered the movements assertions.
The NIST report is a perfect example. They generated three primary results based on a range of conditions. The first was best case, with the plane going slower, having less fuel, and causing less structural damage to the towers. The second was the most likely scenario based on the evidence present. And the third was a worst case scenario, with the plane have all its fuel, going really fast, and causing a great deal more damage to the towers than likely occurred.
The towers did not suffer damage capable of causing collapse in any but the third scenario!!! The conclusion of the report did not place more weight on the third scenario, except in that it corresponded to observed events. And yet the media, industry pundits, and mainstream society, spun the conclusion to suggest that it validated the official story. Once again, the primary conclusion of the NIST report is that under the most likely conditions present, that the impact of the planes would NOT have caused the building to collapse.
That was the point at which I was sold on CD. And yet, to my surprise, and frustration, it has seemed that many in the movement didn't entirely separate the spin from the science. We don't need to debunk the NIST report. It supports our position. We only need to counter the misinfomative spin that seeks to mischaracterize the conclusions of the report.
At this point, with wtc7.net, stj911.com, and ae911truth.org, etc... CD research has become a prominent, and very compelling part of the information that we promote suggesting some degree of government complicity. As this research engages the natural common sense of the viewer in their examination of photographic and video evidence, it serves as a strong psychological bridge for many of those we hope to reach.
However, another large group of those we encounter in our community, are far more convinced of complicity upon examining mainstream documentation, like that you would find in "The Terror Timeline." This is an important demographic for the movement. Here we find those who simply want answers, and those among other progressive causes who are beginning to recognize the Truth Movement principle that we all share an investment in informed consent.
Basically our approach is to try to encourage anyone to be more skeptical, regardless of their understanding or ideology. If they appear more mainstream or conservative we just make the strong assertion that the Commission Report has been proven to be biased and inaccurate, and that we should all want to know what really happened. If they appear to be more skeptical, we get more specific, and often get to talking about CD, as this is a familiar subject to many. We try to encourage their interest in other concerns as well.
Unfortunately I have heard many argue, starting with Victor Thorne of WingTV back in '05, that CD is the keystone of 9/11 truth. Recently someone relatively prominent among the reputable research community made a similar claim. I don't believe that this is a responsible assertion. For many people whom we hope to reach, this is simply not the case. Means, motive, and opportunity regarding the attacks can not be adequately established with only this field of research. Its engaging. Its an essential element of our promotional effort. The data overwhelmingly suggests CD, which is a huge conclusion for the movement. But however well established the theory, it remains one element in a bigger picture.
TruthMove has had a strategic concern about overly emphasizing the lines of inquiry used most prominently by the MSM to marginalize the movement. Yet we certainly stand behind our representation and respect for this field of research, and those who promote it. I suppose this all boils down to a 'no smoking gun' argument. The case for complicity is a collective one, and we should not be putting too many of our eggs in one basket.