Controlled Demolition in activism

One of the most widespread issues in the movement is the controlled demolition hypothesis: that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings, including WTC7. This position is endorsed by the majority of the movement. Some raise the issue, however, of how effective it is as a promotional tool. Before I even begin to address this, I'm going to clarify a few things.

A) I endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis

B) I view difference between what works in street action and what works in other venues, such as film, which is why this essay will primarily refer to controlled demolition in street action and why controlled demolition will remain a point in 9/11 Anomaly.

Now having said that, I tend to agree that promoting ourselves through factual evidence, documented evidence, and all-in-all non-debateable evidence is better than promoting ourselves through something less conclusive like controlled demolition.

Compelling as it may be, the controlled demolition hypothesis is still just a hypothesis. It cannot, scientifically, be deemed proved. There is a vast difference between evidence and proof, and proof could only be feasibly and legally obtained via a new investigation for the proper clearance.

On the other hand, we have information at our disposal that is completely out of the realm of dispute. The failure to defend the skies, people responsible for said failure being promoted, NORAD giving 3 contradictory accounts of what happened that day, etc... the list goes on. This is more than enough for a new investigation, as the 9/11 Commission did not look into such things. But instead, we bullhorn that the towers blew up when none of us know 100% what happened that day. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.

More importantly, controlled demolition has been used to demonize us. The media has turned the issue into another nutjob belief like "no-planes" by associating it with such theories and not with the adequate supporting evidence. We are mocked by the extraordinary theory itself before we have a chance to validate it. At the very least, we should open up wth the fctual evidence that appeals to common sense before he mention of something that people are more likely to have an instnt negative reaction towards. Back when I lived in Washington, I often would talk about controlled demolition on the street and had trouble getting people interested. Later on, I started discussing the documented and indisputable evidence, and found that I had much more success in this way. Not only that, but when I talked about controlled demolition AFTER mentioning the solid facts, they were much more open to it. Since then, I have continued with this form of street action, and have had success every time.

Furthermore, although proving controlled demolition would certainly prove government complicity, it is not necessary to prove government complicity. How they did it is not important as long as they are proven responsible. We can prove government complicity without controlled demolition, so what is the point of making it such a focus?

Although the controlled demolition hypothesis is certainly compelling and a worthwhile subject to research into, it is clear that our focus on it has been handled poorly, and consequently become detrimental to the movement. We should put more of an emphasis on the factual and documented evidence, and learn to handle controlled demolition more responsibly, as our current promotional strategy is clearly having a negative effect.