That term, sadly enough, reminds me too much of badly schooled opponents.
I would propose they abandon the term "Debunker", and use the more precise and effective word "Opponent".
Have a good look at the rules of engagement for British parliamentarians.
They use the term "opponents", even the words "my honorable opponent", when addressing the other parties arguments.
At least they hold up the appearance of decorum.
And decorum keeps any online discussion well mannered and capable of searching for both far ends of an argumentation, how seemingly far fetched the
arguments will seem to be for you, the membership.
And thus, fairly consequently, finding a common base for all involved to conclude and adhere to, a solid man in the middle opinion, regarding any
specific part of 9/11.
There will always be people who will keep a steadfast opinion which seems far-fetched to most of the others, however this should not be met with such
hostile, vitriolic and sarcastic opposition like we saw the past months.
The gentleman or lady will gather much more, and better quality responses than the scoundrel.
Lets introduce again, the common friendly tone in counter-argumentations, and show some respect to your opponents research efforts, whatever fiery
resistance his or her opinion may introduce in your mind.
Any effort should be answered with RESPECT for the effort, and not with excessive aggressive behavior.
There was lately a massive inflow of new members, eagerly searching for enforcement of their particular views on the events of 9/11, thus from both
sides of the aisle, pro and contra the principle idea alive in this CONSPIRACY forum, of a staged event.
The majority of these new members show in their first postings, a fairly small collection of arguments to base their particular standpoint on,
regarding the events of 9/11. This is normal, and no basis for aggressiveness, these people are at the start of a long and winding road to ultimate
My dear fresh and worn off members, please bear with me, and keep in mind, that there is a fair amount of long time members in this particular forum,
who have intensely researched all they could since the 9/11 events, and are extremely knowledgeable with most, if not all of the known real facts of
It is wearing off and showing sometimes in their online behavior, when they feel the pressing need to address for the umpteenth time, the same old
arguments, fully researched already in many threads in this forum.
But these defenders and attackers of the official explanation of the 9/11 events who have grown a fanatic behavior because they are so utterly
concerned with the implications of a staged, or non-staged 9/11, do feel they have to honestly inform a new member, again and again, after all these
Have patience with them all, they honestly feel that they know better than you, the new or old member, and forget sometimes that a new member can have
very fresh and pioneering new ideas and thesis.
The members who know my attitude, know that I honor every opponent who holds on to decorum, and know that I strongly support the idea of honorable
Without them, this forum would end up as a very happy, (far too happy even), online club of mutual friends, who however lack any form of opposition,
and thus will definitely lack a lot of necessary research skills, and will quickly develop a firm tunnel vision concerning all subjects of 9/11.
There are many very honorable opponents in this forum.
And they show very good research skills.
Sadly, there are also, luckily only a few, opponents who aim solely at the badly schooled masses, with sarcastic ridiculing posts, knowing well that
the overwhelming majority of the "silent majority" will gladly listen to their far too simple arguments, copied from the well-known swallow
mass-media outlets, and certainly not tend to listen also too well, to thoroughly thought out ideas and propositions from others, based on extensive
literature and online research.
These are the members, who could be working for the propaganda arm of the military, which we know by now, have heavily infiltrated all major news
outlets and online forums.
Thus a friendly advice to our 9/11-Forum moderators, to concentrate on sifting-out the ridiculing sarcastic vitriol from these participants in
especially this sensitive forum, where pro and contra are convinced after so many years that their arguments are the only right ones.
Personally, some opponents have convinced me by good argumentation that they were right in important parts of the events of 9/11, by bringing up solid
sources which could be cross referenced by myself, based on their sources.
As a closing example, one of these was the argument brought up by several sites, that there existed a former scar in the ground at exactly the same
spot where Flight 93 crashed in the soft soil. This proved to be wrong, that second older scar was further north.
Still, there is the anomaly of fresh grass growing in the crash scar, shown in the same day taken, official photographs.
Thus a counter-argument could be, that the older scar was a test explosion for the "real" scar, since its appearance was very much the same as the
As you can observe yourselves, this kind of argumentation can be interesting, but not conclusive without proof.
That's why we should concentrate on real hard irrefutable evidence, preferably found in purely official sources, longtime known and publicized, so no
dirty magic disappearance tricks can be played out online, by editing or simply erasing formerly online evidence.
See for one of the best hard evidence examples, my clear proof of evidence of external interference, with huge energy sources introduced well before
all three towers collapsed on 9/11 :
The original thesis, posted at the Study of 9/11 forum :
Interpretation of Seismic 9/11 charts from LDEO, compared to
NIST photo time stamp - Studyof911 Board
The ATS forums discussions regarding my thesis, with links to more ATS threads about this subject :
I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)
A few posters in that thread showed exactly the behavior I would like to be changed to the civil side.
[edit on 13/7/08 by LaBTop]