From the above article: "In Bozeman, 131 people showed up, and 39 were either unsure or believed in the official conspiracy theory beforehand. Afterward none did. 100% again." seems to me whatever you are trying to achieve here is either totally ineffective or largely going unnoticed.
It seems to me that the significance of this is that, in Bozeman, there was no dissenting voice available, When an audience is exposed only to one side of a debate, it's hardly surprising that they can be convinced that that side of the argument is the only side that has merit. It's the classic cult approach. The problem for the truth movement is not that it is unable to convince people of its arguments when afforded the opportunity to present unchallenged propaganda to a captive audience; it is that, when it tries to take the debate out into the real world, where there are counter-arguments to be heard, it turns out that those counter-arguments are the ones that actually fit the evidence.
I think by trying to undermine people because they accept the possibility that something is true (which is the right of everyone) using derogatory remarks and generally demonstrating that mature debate is beyond your capabilities will prove in the long run to be extremely counter-productive
This is a reasonable point, and one that's a major subject of dissent in the debunking community. The problem is, quite simply, human nature. When faced with a movement that starts from demonstrably untrue premises, and responds to sensible criticism of this by - in effect - accusations of complicity in treason; that makes false claims, admits these claims to be false, then reiterates them repeatedly; that attempts quite openly to censor any dissenting point of view; and that even makes accusations of treason against its own members, then it becomes a little difficult to take that movement seriously. From the point of view of convincing the undecided observer, ridicule can be highly effective, and when that ridicule takes the form of a reductio ad absurdam - which is quite commonly the approach used - it is even a valid line of reasoning. What it isn't likely to do is to change the minds of those who are already convinced there was a conspiracy, but since rational argument is unable to do so either, what exactly has been lost?
I'll be blunt - these people have a high public profile, you do not.
Well, no. At least, not on my side of the Atlantic. The most visible manifestation of the 9/11 truth movement in the UK has been in the form of the two BBC documentaries on the subject, both of which clearly concluded that the MIHOP and LIHOP flavours of conspiracy theory were entirely without merit, and that the only possible conspiracy was an after-the-fact one to cover up incompetence.
I would suggest your energies would be better directed to proving your patriotism by helping instead of arguing semantics with those who, by your own admission, are beyond help.
Two points here. Firstly, the debate rarely leads to the conversion of the faithful (though, as I've pointed out many times before, that conversion seems to be a one-way process), rather to the rejection of the truth movement by the undecided, who are clearly not beyond help. Secondly, what exactly is your basis for assuming that members of the debunking community do nothing to help those who need help in other areas? Do you imagine that posting on this forum is the only thing any of us do?
I would be interested in your mature responses only.
From your reaction to some responses that are clearly mature but do not agree with you, I suspect that you're being a little disingenuous there.
Dave
