Your comment is so reminiscent of the time, not that long ago, when people argued the same way about not pushing the idea of demolitions at the WTC - even if most of us agreed there were. If I only change a few words of your post above, I think you can see what I mean:

"Even if the whole truth movement were to come to 100% unanimity at this point on the WTC demolitions, what makes you think we won't have a huge uphill battle to convince the general public of this theory, particularly when even the blatantly obvious LIHOP evidence indicating foreknowledge, insider trading, Saudi connections, etc. "took many years for some people to come to the only logical conclusion" [i.e. of 9/11 as more than just an attack solely by Muslim fanatics]...

That sounds like something Jon Gold would have said! (and would still stay, from what I can gather)

And the same sort of juxtaposition could be made of your second paragraph:

"Actually, to many people, the fact that no 757 flew into the Pentagon was obvious from the beginning when they first saw photographs and video of the buildings facade immediately after the event. To others, when they are shown expert pilot analysis of the many aeronautical improbabilities in the official story for the first time, in the proper context, they have no problem grasping immediately what happened. Perhaps there are a certain small percentage of people who were only swayed by definitive, corroborated eyewitness testimony to finally come to the logical conclusion while the photos and videos alone did not persuade them, but it seems to be the case that most of the people who are still unwilling to conclude that the plane flew over the building even after seeing the corroborated eyewitness testimony are not going to be persuaded by the photos and videos and science/calculations to come to the right conclusion."

Ultimately it comes down to whether one thinks the PR battle to convince the general public, as huge an uphill battle it is, ought to take precedence over the battle over truth and justice for the many crimes of 9/11. The Pentagon evidence of a flyover is significantly more devastating to the official story than the WTC evidence, when you think about it, by also falsifying the entire Flight 77 hijacking story - and hence casting severe doubt about the authenticity of the other flights, whereas even proving demolitions at the WTC still leaves that part of the narrative unchanged. And CIT's eyewitness evidence does not require a degree in (or even an understanding of) physics or engineering - something the WTC perps are using to the best of their advantage in fooling the public about the events in New York.

In contrast, everyone can understand what it means when a dozen+ eyewitnesses all point to the same direction in the sky, or on a map, and easily figure out how what the witnesses describe can not have produced the damage we see in all the photos and video - it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

I'd rather not be part of a 9/11 truth campaign if that means going along with a critical part of the official story - even if we know it to be false - out of some misguided public relations concern, and letting the specific perpetrators of the murderous attack on the Pentagon walk free - do you?