require extraordinary evidence. aren't we told that a lot by would-be "debunkers"? well, it's true! If some extraordinary claims are exempt from this, then something is very wrong in the world of skepticism. That said, in outreach to the public I believe strongly in using as a hook the most compelling claims, for which we DO have extraordinary evidence--the demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

The prejudice (a very good word for it) of some users at 911blogger who treat the official claims as true until proven false is much less effective at preserving the truth movement's credibility than at preserving the credibility of the official hijacker narrative. Whether this is "in effect, or intent" is open to debate, but either way I don't buy the argument that because the topic is "divisive" in some people's view it should not be discussed. It's been shown that "controlled demolition" was once divisive and is now the accepted viewpoint among the vast majority of "rank and file" truthers. Where would be now if we had listened to the Sander Hicks, Kyle Hences, and Michael Rupperts among others who insisted such a focus was detrimental to our cause? And why should we not classify as "divisive and off-limits" things like the $100,000 wire transfer allegation--sorry, I mean the pork chop transfer?

Double standards abound both in the world of the OCT, the would-be debunkers, and some elements in the truth movement, and this cannot in my view be an innocent coincidence.