Lets not forget your side is defending a Conspiracy Theory. The only difference is it's the Official Conspiracy Theory and derives all the benefits of being on side with all the money and power. My side, which believes in an Alternative Conspiracy Theory is the under dog and suffers all the disadvantages that come with that status.
With respect, one of the reasons that LCF et al are the underdogs (if you will) is that there is no cogent theory; it is fairly obvious, even on the LCF site, that the death beams and the no-planes theories are no longer considered plausible but some of the other leading lights of the movement do continue to endorse them. Even though they're obviously bunkum.
The second main issue is a failure to present evidence in a manner which most people would consider plausable or rigirous. Let me give you a simple example, and one which I don't think you would disagree with.
The susceptibility of iron and then steel structures to even normal fires has been recognised since the mid 19th century. Since the WWII we have seen many studies across the world testing the fire resistance of steel assemblies and developing fire protection systems. It is an issue covered in depth in the building regulations since long before I was born.
Yet a constant argument we see is that steel cannot be damaged by normal fires; that heat is wicked away too fast; that it doesn't in fact weaken at quite modest temperatures.
Now it's fairly obvious to the man in the street and the professionals that this fire hypothesis is rubbish. But the Truth movement keep marketing it as damning evidence, stopping only to refine the definition - "high rise steel building" is the current cathcphrase. And when the argument is rebuffed, they don't go out and get detailed reports which show that steel is impervious - they simply shout the original points, but much more loudly!
You will see that I made a similar point on LCF regarding the damage in the basements. Okay, damage occurred and LCF think it is indcative of a bomb. But what kind of damage? Where is it? Are there other plausible interpretations based upon the evidence? How were the lift shafts constructed and is the movement of the fuel possible? And so on. There is little attempt to interrogate the theory, and hence ensure it is robust, before it is presented as another damning coup.
[sigh]
