Hi Frank, I actually agree on an objective approach. Though I think that people ought to be more angry about the injustice, that people ought to be more involved in seeking the truth for the benefit of all and themselves. But when arguing a point, objectivity should guide our every word.

However, part of objectivity is to point out disinfo, if at some point a person is determined to be disinfo. Calling somebody as such will to a certain extent take a qualitative evaluation. We can't say for example that it takes X years of promoting Arab/Muslim primacy in 9-11 and, X times being corrected that Arab/Muslim terrorists had no way of planting explosives on three WTC buildings to designate that a person is disinfo. I do think that people on this site do not use this label lightly, and most people labeled as such deserved it by a good margin.

This little dip into qualitative is not an appeal to feelings. Take for example how I was first convinced that 9-11 was a false flag. I watched videos of WTC going down. Qualitatively, I knew that this could not have been due to fire, that it was most likely caused by demolitions. But at the time I was not armed with the video by David Chandler showing the exact acceleration of the building, which was free fall equivalent. I just trusted my intuition and experience of falling bodies and layman knowledge of steel structures then to determine that the official story was false. When Chandler's videos came out, it was only then that I had a truly quantitative determination that the WTC were demolished.

When it comes to disinfo, to a certain extent, the experience of truthers also comes into play in determining if a source of info is honestly mistaken or disinformation. The controlling mods at 911blogger and characters such as Jon Gold, as far as I can tell are the later.