Fighting Ghosts

That's what all 9-11 Denial Debunkers must feel like they're doing. Here's an article at From the Wilderness, which shows one of the problems Debunkers face:

Weinberg was brave enough to invoke the name that others now steer clear of, but he did not seriously challenge our case at all. Instead he focuses on minor disputes that he had with FTW’s Oh Lucy! timeline four years ago. These points are not in anyway central to the case against Dick Cheney as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.

And:

Instead he uses Alex Jones’ extremely flawed and inaccurate analysis of the 9/11 war games as a straw man, easily knocked down. It is simple to win a debate on fact checking against Alex Jones, (Prison Planet) who has continually co-opted FTW’s investigation into these matters without ever mentioning our work or representing it accurately.

Inevitably, if you debunk some aspect of 9-11 Denial, the Deniers immediately swarm around and say "Oh, that was easy. Debunk this," and point to some other aspect of 9-11 Denial. For example suppose you deconstruct the "missile at the Pentagon" theory. I guarantee the response will be "no real 9-11 researchers believe that a missile hit the Pentagon". Not of course from Dylan and his ilk, but from another wing of the 9-11 Denial Movement.

THE PENTAGON, in which PM attacks the claim of conspiracy advocates that the Pentagon was hit by an object other than a jetliner, while hiding the position of respected 9/11 Truth activists that this claim is a hoax.

Because there are 1,001 different conspiracy theories on 9-11, no matter what you debunk, somebody will claim that's a marginal position that no "respected" 9-11 activists believe.

This is one of the reasons why I try to keep track of what particular 9-11 Deniers say. There is no sense in debunking the "no-planes" theories if you're debating Alex Jones, and no sense debunking missile at the Pentagon if you're dueling with Jim Hoffman.