The Art of Debate - Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts became famous over his critique, the Loose Change Guide, a point-by-point critique of the hoax-mongering second edition of Loose Change.

I find it concerning, though hardly surprising, that Mark Roberts seems less than eager to debate with serious, discerning researchers. He likes to debate silly no-plane theories with Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery, the latter of whom seems more willing to analyze their theories, as seen in the Final Cut edition. On the note of Loose Change: Final Cut, I also wonder why Mark Roberts doesn't (or hasn't) updated his site to have a critique of the latest edition. While not completely absent of errors, the Final Cut version is, by far, the most accurate version of the Loose Change project. Mark Roberts claims to have the evidence on his side. So why not write up another rebuttal to the latest version? Maybe because it's harder to debunk since their fact-checking skills have improved since the second edition.

Mark Roberts seemingly debates only with those who fall for all the hoax theories or are ill-informed. I've never once heard him debate with Jim Hoffman, one of the best researchers in the movement I think, or any other such discerning researchers.

Putting it simply, Mark Roberts represents an art of debate that is so prevalent among attempted debunkers. Focus on the hoax-mongers and pay no heed to the genuine researchers. Works like 911 In Plane Site and The Pentacon make it terribly easy to discredit the movement.

This is why I am so adamantly opposed to any mis - or dis - information prevalent among the movement. By having so much as one hoax theory being circulated, especially if by leading figures in the movement, you not only discredit the movement, but you paint a target on what to focus on, so it becomes even easier to discredit.

One of the reasons that the Loose Change Companion Guide was so popular was because, for most of it, it was highly accurate. No, Flight 93 did not land in Cleveland. A missile did not hit the Pentagon. A.K. Dewdney makes a crap argument about the cell phones. Etc... Loose Change is so riddled with errors and, arguably, the single most effective 9/11-work for attracting people to the movement, that it becomes a massive target. One that towers over the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and consequently taints us with its shadow.

One of the big flaws with Loose Change is that they make such bold assertions on such flawed analysis. Having said that, the Final Cut is a big improvement, and let it be known that in no way do I think Louder Than Words is a disinformation campaign. There is a significant and noteworthy difference between disinformation and misinformation.

Regardless, Loose Change represents just how easy it is for the debunkers and defenders of the official story to discredit the movement. One needs to look no further than the infamous Popular Mechanics article to see an example of using hoaxes in the movement to defend the official story.

To Mark Roberts and any other aspiring debunkers out there: If you're seriously interested in the truth, then don't beat a dead horse. Come talk about the real evidence.