What's the first thing you will notice as you look through this anti-truther defence-of-the-official-version site?No comments enabled.No forums.Even the email @ddress is given in the FAQ with "conditions".This guy obviously has his mind so made up he is unwilling to consider the truth movement as anything but a Conspiracy THEORY.There is a difference between conspiracy theory and transpiracy research. Theory is conjecture. You can connect a few dots and come up with a hypothesis that explains how an event took place and what this is to me is a Conspiracy Theory.The better truth-movement folk (Sander Hicks continues to come to mind) are the ones who pay more attention to actual proven fact than to conjecture. Owing to the flexible nature of reality in these times, let me clarify that, to me, "fact" means "consensus reality cannot and does not argue with it." Of course, the PNAC folks and their fan club who are WELL AWARE they can create reality with propaganda, and do so, regularly, argue with it plenty. But they aren't stupid (just very, very wrong) and they know the difference between consensus reality and subjective reality, and their business is to turn one into the other.So often it is ALSO true that the anti-Shrubbery will do the SAME THING - create consensus reality from subjective reality. It becomes OUR business to do this because the enemy is doing it, but if we are to have more credibility than the enemy we have to be careful about how and when we do this.I feel it is very important to not do this in the truth movement. One does not NEED to do this to create a solid case for US involvement in 9/11. The behaviour of the top officials in this administration is the most telling evidence there is. (That, and Able Danger. It's pretty difficult to go on believing the official story when one finds that the Pentagon's own terrorist teams were held up investigating Atta and the NY jihadist cells...this is info that didn't break until 2005-06 so it doesn't get the attention it should. It's some of the most convincing material there is, especially to republicans, conservatives and patriots.)The 9/11 timeline is VERY hard to dispute because everything on it is NOT conjecture. It is agreed-upon. There are people who regularly watch FOX NEWS that cannot argue with the timeline.I find it very telling that this guy refuses to allow debate. EVERY truther site out there allows debate. What does that say for our debunker?It says to me we have a person who really, really WANTS to believe the official version. Which, we should remember, is VERY understandable.No one WANTS to believe the truth about 9/11 or even believe it could be POSSIBLE.I never did. I wanted very much to be proven wrong about this.But the material on the site is unconvincing, and the attitude of avoidance of debate is even more so.