The short answer is to ignore it. The simple act of acknowledging a fake reality by contesting it immediately raises its mass from 0 to something capable of germinating and sprouting legs. Lesson number 1 in the reality wars is never acknowledge the fake reality unless you have to for some reason, i.e. because it is being acknowledged by enough other people that your ignoring it raises questions. The 9/11 perps, who would like to give the impression that their guilt in their own conspiracy is itself a fake reality tried that for a while and having failed, switched to the less ideal strategy of contesting it. Truthers, who know the OT to be a fake reality, never had the luxury of ignoring it--this is the advantage that goes to White in chess, that of making the first move. Our moves in response to the first move however can realistically involve ignoring some aspects of the OT's fake reality, especially those that are added daily in support of the teetering OT. Some of these are easy to ignore, like the distractions of pedophiles and child murderers. These are tragedies, sure, but they do not rise to the level of national importance that begs for front page coverage. Others, like a new "al Qaeda" tape du jour, are trickier since ignoring them runs the risk of allowing the public to add it, as the perps would like, to the support structure for their own realities that are by now pretty much dependent on the OT. In order to determine whether or not to dignify a piece of disinfo with a response, we should weigh the potential effectiveness of it in the construction of our adversaries' fake reality.

I would suggest that the criteria be something along the lines of "how dumb does someone have to be to fall for this?" The more obvious the lie, in other words, the less need to debunk it. In fact, debunking an obvious lie can backfire not only because it can draw otherwise unlikely attention to the obvious lie, but because it gives the impression that you are worried about the damage a bad lie could do to your case, and if a bad lie could undermine your case then how good is your case? OT supporters risk falling into this trap any time they try to discredit 9/11 truthers by pointing out "no planes at the WTC". Reasonable people will not believe that so many of their fellow citizens could be drawn in by such BS, so naturally they suspect that OT supporters are trying to deceive them. Knowing what a pickle OT supporters are in given that ultimately with a reasonable amount of correct information available their lie will be exposed, and their fake reality discredited once and for all it's not surprising to find many truthers confident about our chances in setting the record straight.

On the other hand, if a fake reality (or the individual lies that support it) is reasonably well-crafted, it must be acknowledged and debunked because the fake reality will then be drawing in not just ignorant rubes, but people who should know better and who will be useful in drawing in others who will help to conceal the fact that most people buying the fake reality are idiots. Seeing the truthing process in this light, we can gauge our progress by noting the sophistication and effectiveness of vocal supporters of the OT. As reasonable people realize they have been misled, the OT has fewer credible spokespeople, becuase their numbers become increasingly polarized between know-it-all liars and honest morons. These two distinct groups will find it harder to cooperate as the number of relatively bright and honest but deceived people decreases and the liars have to begin dealing directly with the morons, which will only hasten the rate at which the bright and deceived figure out they are surrounded by liars and idiots and join the truthers. At this point, then, we as truthers have to be welcoming and encouraging to the bright and deceived, while continuing to do our utmost to expose the liars and avoid getting beat up by the morons.