James... absolutely.
The rabid monomaniacs expect 'us' to devote our free time to refute nonsense that they could refute themselves if they were not victims of either a massive con or their own pathological weaknesses. Their conceit is such they expect people who may not even know of the discussion to pop out of the Internet to fan their ego.
I posted this on another 9/11 thread which then went dead, thought I'd stick it here with typos corrected and a few additions;
The problem with the conspiracist arguments that dispute the official version of physical events is the huge voids in their arguments.
They claim that the towers were demolished using explosives but in addition to no firm evidence do not provide any mechanism for how the charges were put in place; any research will reveal that tonnes of explosives and weeks of very noticeable work would have been required.
They also ignore that the impacts of panes and or collapsing tower debris and the subsequent fires produce the collapses in computer models.
They claim that the planes had explosive pods on them. They credulity of this is quite outstanding; they don't ever wonder why the explosives were not placed inside the plane (there is loads of room after all), instead they claim a pod was bolted onto the outside with poor evidence and no explanation of how this was done or how the planes were able to fly with this massive aerodynamic modification. And they ignore expert evidence that shows the so-called-pod is in fact a photographic artifact (check Popular Mechanics).
They insist a plane didn't hit the Pentagon when there are dozens of eye-witnesses on the Freeway who saw the plane fly over their heads seconds before the impact.
They don't address these and other legion faults in their arguments that are splashed all over the Internet, the cunning and deceptive nature of conspiracist websites, the partial and selective argumentation.
The pathological nature of their beliefs structures is such that even WITH a perfectly adequate factual and scientific explanation for what hit what and when and why what happened next happened next, they insist SOMETHING ELSE hap pend, which they cannot prove and which often requires a massive leap of faith and presupposition to believe in.
And of course, there is the egotistical elitists posturing that they are of an elite 'in the know', and everyone else is an ignorant dupe.
As their belief patterns are so deeply pathological reasoned debate is largely pointless; the only people it can help are those with no firmly fixed opinion who have been deceived by the conspiracies propaganda and the attractive elitism of the argument. By reading discussions between the conspiracists and those with a more reasoned and evidential argument they can see that the conspiracists have NOTHING to disprove the physical events of the day.
Please note I do separate the competence of the US government, the possibility of deliberate negligence, the definite use of terrorist attacks to justify existing political aims, whole-sale deception of the public through disinformation and stealing elections from the physical facts of 9/11.
All of the last paragraph are possible parts of a massive government/industrial conspiracy. One that would have involved creating public support after the event to bolster a strategic war for control of energy resources that was already seen as desirable through disinformation, and the desirability of a war to delay a recession in the US during the Bush regime. Had enough and quite believable.
But planes with real passengers and Al-Qaeda terrorists in them hit buildings and they fell down, another plane with real passengers and Al-Qaeda terrorists in it ploughed into the ground, another plane with real passengers and Al-Qaeda terrorists in it hit the Pentagon, and WTC7 fell down because a falling tower damaged it; no extra explosives required, no remote control airplanes or bomb-pods. To believe otherwise runs against the evidence.
But as the beliefs of the conspiracists nut-jobs are NOT based on evidence, no amount of evidence will persuade them they are wrong.
