A severe criticism made of this paper is that it has no hypothesis and is therefore not a scientific paper but an opinion piece. Whether this criticism arises from a hasty reading or a desire to denigrate a conflicting opinion I cannot tell but will assume it is the former and will endeavour to provide clarification. The paper has in fact a major and a minor hypothesis.
The major hypothesis is that various groups within the 9/11 truth movement are strongly asserting contradictory views and thereby weakening the credibility of the movement as a whole. The damage is exacerbated if the supporters of these views not only disagree but also continue to attack one another.
The best way to avoid the development of contradictory views is to scrupulously adhere to the scientific method and to promote to the public only those concepts which are shown to be soundly based. Multiple views will cause confusion which will be apparent to the target audience, the public. Many will conclude that the case for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 is weak if proponents cannot agree on significant issues.