I often hear people saying that such and such a theory -- usually one questioning whether Boeings hit WTC 1 and 2 -- will discredit the "9/11 Truth Movement."
This is ridiculous.
I found a comment by a Frederic Rice at Portland Indymedia that says it quite well:
"The fact that some 911 conspiracy kooks believe that the jet aircraft were computer generated doesn't mean that they're not 911 conspiracy kooks. It just means that their willful ignorance and occult stupidity is just a bit different than the willful ignorance and occult stupidity of the other 911 conspiracy kooks. "
I couldn't have said it better myself.
If someone is open to considering controlled demolition, they are not going to stop just because of some other theory they think is crazy. To say so is insulting to people's intelligence. People can assess individual arguments on their merits.
If someone thinks that anyone who disbelieves the official 9/11 story is a kook, they are not going to believe controlled demolition or anything else that suggests government complicity.
I read an article in which the author suggests that New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer did not open an investigation because some unnamed "disinfo" site made Spitzer fear for his reputation if he opened an investigation. This is not plausible -- Spitzer either was willing to open an investigation or was not, and would not choose not to just because of some website.
The article also suggests that Democracy Now did not want to be associated with the author's group and would not do a show on 9/11 because they were receiving disinfo emails. This again is not plausible -- Democracy Now was either willing to do a show or not, and Democracy Now of all media would likely recognize a disinformation campaign.
Since some will consider me a kook for questioning 9/11, regardless of whether I stay within certain "reasonable" bounds , I might as well let my kookiness run free.
Said another way -- I will make any inquiries I think reasonable, and do not want to be attacked for doing so.