You mean in terms of labeling us conspiracy "theorists"?

If that's it, I see the point. But I don't think correcting terms in such a manner is going to break through all the filters.

If you are sticking with facts and not "theories," the claim that 9/11 is an "inside job" is a "theory" - not a fact. So it's difficult to separate out the theories and to purify the movement in this fashion. Even "controlled demolition," which Richard Gage advocates is a theory at this stage - not a fact.

Here is a fact -- the "Official Story" of how those buildings fell is physically impossible - that's a fact. I do like to stick to facts more than defend theories - which places one on the defensive on an engineering/scientific subject that the average layperson is not going to comprehend/accept in a short introduction.

And I have a slightly different take on NIST. When I assert my claims of "fact," and someone tries to say that "well NIST or the government scientists reached a different conclusion" - my reply is "No they didn't." I assert a simple scientific fact - it defies the laws of physics that the top of the two Towers could, with the aid of gravity alone, crush the bottom structures of those massive buildings the way that occurred. I then make it clear that NIST did not provide an analysis that the planes, fires and gravity brought about the destruction of those bottom structures - there's no way it could - that's completely impossible. That's another very useful fact - NIST punting that part of its job, which in a way make the The Two Towers a stronger case than WTC7.

But we are in agreement on your main point. It's just a function of who is making the point and who the audience is. Richard Gage has done great work in support of a controlled demolition theory and he needs to stand by his work. I may speak in favor of that theory, depending upon my audience. But if I want to stick to cold hard facts with no meaningful contradiction of any kind - then I focus on the bottoms of those Towers.