Why can't we have climate truthers and 911 skeptics?

What idiot coined the moniker '911 truth movement'? The name suggests truth is a known thing to communicate to the wider world. That seems to go a little too far to me. The key message of the so-called 911 truth movement ought to be that we don't know the truth, and never will, that the truth has been suppressed. And that what we think is the truth, the findings of the 911 Commission, is far from the unchallengeable certainty touted by the MSM. The common thread of so-called 911 truth is skepticism of The Official Story.

On the other hand running through the heart of climate skepticism is the belief that truth about climate science has been suppressed, that the wider disinterested public is being misled. I know they don't like to be called deniers so how would our climate skeptic friends feel with the label Climate Truthers?

It's a point I've been meaning to make for some time, and was spurred on by watching this excellent documentary about the scientist Steven E. Jones who has published peer reviewed work strongly suggesting the twin towers were brought down by explosions. Now theres a hell of a crossover between science and politics in his field. Science. It's like a candle in the dark.