Diane in Panic Mode?

There's an interesting blog entry over at blogger proposing a civil suit against the security companies at the WTC, which reads, in part:

If the family members of the victims who died in the collapse of the towers and building seven sued the security companies for negligence in civil court, this would be our foot in the door of the legal system and set the stage for criminal proceedings in the future, as well as treason charges. Civil court has the advantage of having to only prove the probability of the defendant being guilty, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court. So, if we were able to present a case which showed the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11/01 was PROBABLY due to controlled demolition, then the security companies would be liable due to the fact they did not prevent the explosives from being planted.

Definitely check out the whole thing including this comment from "avid":

This proposal is one of the best strategies to come to my attention in four years of personal 9/11 truth study. In complex legal cases, such as Enron, it is usually customary to build a case from the bottom up by taking sworn testimony from the lowest relevant echelons first. In my opinion, too much energy has been dissipated by focusing on the top brass. We needn't try to keep the pyramid upside down and balanced on its apex. The above proposal has matters in absolutely correct perspective and deserves solid support from the movement. Thank you, Michael Lukas, Shumonik, and your coworkers. This idea is splendid, sensible, workable, practical and effective.

Now, it can certainly be argued that the security companies are not the ideal target, compared to, say, the insurance holder(s). But notice the freakadelic response from Diane over at Truthaction, which goes something like:

In my opinion, this is WAY premature. We are NOT yet anywhere near ready to prove any such thing in a court of law, not even in a civil case.

Too many people in the 9/11 Truth movement think we can prove CD of the WTC buildings via "looks like a CD" arguments plus folklore "physics." Nothing could be worse for us than to go into a courtroom with those arguments, against a defense attorney who could produce much better expert testimony plus a bunch of photos and videos showing pre-collapse bowing of perimeter columns and (in videos with audio) an absence of explosions loud enough to be demolition charges.

Again, worth checking out the whole thing, titled, just a bit condescendingly, Time to Get Serious About Scientific Evidence.

Scientific evidence, as opposed to "folklore physics." I'm sorry (no, I'm not) but WTF is "folklore physics"? Diane's argument for fire and gravity induced collapse AS OBSERVED that was "assisted" (maybe) is fairytale physics, in which the tiny column fairies come to spirit away any resistance that would be offered by the undamaged lower parts of the buildings.

As always, I'm torn between the Professional Cynic response to a character like Diane, and the more sympathetic, pitying suspicion that she is just a few tacos short of a fiesta.