When I talk about consensus, I mean like having a regular "top 10 most convincing evidence of our readers poll" in your face on the front page.

It does not stop people from discussing or criticizing the evidence, and it does not stop new argument/ evidence from changing the content of the top 10. It just focuses things for those who might want a shortcut, and strengthens the evidence by allowing the strongest to be attacked/defended.

I am sorry Frank, but I just cant agree with you that negativity ALWAYS reflects badly on the messenger. I have no evidence whatsoever to support such an assumption, and I just don't like rules or 'truths' like this. The situation entirely depends on the particular circumstances, and what exactly is said on each side. Generally good reason and evidence is always given anyway, so I dont accept your non specific assertion that it is just personal insults and not evidential or logical argument. It is a judgement call for everyone to make about what they say. You seem to be clear that we here have overstepped the line, but you cant offer your own solution to the problem. I for one do not agree with you. Also BTW If presentations are humorous ,IMHO it does actually negate personal insult to some extent , and it also is more entertaining for your readers, so I do not accept your rule that it reflects badly on the poster or that it is bad for the movement.

What I think is bad for the movement is trying to embrace people within it who are counter productive to increasing awareness or motivation for 911 truth.

I honestly think the movement would be better off without a
load of so called 'truthers' concentrating on weak unsubstantiated 'facts' that suggest 'Muslims did 911', whilst at the same time without giving any reasons or evidence undermining the best evidence we do have.

If people do that consistently over a long time they should be called out as damaging to the cause, and the more widely known that is the better.

I guess we will have to disagree here.