One thing that seems especially problematic about the arguments of most truthers is that they start with a belief in a pre-meditated conspiracy by the government and then use evidence to support that.  Let’s say hypothetically that I believe their evidence as is.  This evidence only says  that explosives were used. You can’t jump to the conclusion that because explosives were used, therefore the government planned this massive attack. What about the possibility that the hijackings happened the way we’ve been told, but let’s say that after the fact there were steps taken to demolish the buildings in fear of them tipping over and doing a lot more damage?  Or for some other reason?  I will again say as an aside I don’t believe that our government committed genocide against its own people.  Further, even if one believes in gov’t conspiracy, I see no reason to demolish the buildings at this point with people inside.  The point would already be made.  Why do you need to demolish the buildings to get your policy agenda to work at this point?  After the  planes hit the buildings, you’ve done all you need to do.

I would find the arguments by truthers to be more compelling, basically, if they were more modest and precise with their claims. They are starting with the motive (they distrust the gov’t and therefore, suspicious evidence means there must have been a gov’t conspiracy).  But what they should be doing, if they want to be more credible, is to simply say that there is suspicious evidence and we would feel more confidence in our government if further investigation was undertaken.  Don’t assume a pre-meditated motive — it just gives more weight to the criticism that they’re evaluating the evidence with a bias.  Present the inconsistencies and ask that they be investigated further.  If you do this, you’d be a lot more likely to get your investigation.