from his article; "One requirement for arguing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that you have to like the discussion process. Most people, myself included, believe conspiracy theories like the 9/11 conspiracy are ridiculous. But if they are ridiculous, why isnt it easy to prove it? If one knew what the problems were in proving it, perhaps more plausible suppositions could be easily disproved. Here are some ground rules for arguing what people consider as far-fetched contentions. Beyond the broad methods of argumentation, the 9/11 Conspiracy theory has a great variety of arguments, with many of them based on science or engineering. Scientists and engineers rarely have the patience to sort through them, but I think that doing so is interesting. Some say that it is pointless to argue conspiracy theories because you cant win. But how many arguments of any kind are winnable? You may get an immediate victory in a discussion of where to have lunch, but that is only because there is time pressure involved. On anything substantial, the chances of a debate opponent conceding on the spot are slim. You can, however, accomplish four things: you can plant a seed of doubt that may ultimately flower, you can convince silent spectators, you can sharpen you understanding of logical processes, and you can learn interesting facts related to the subject. There is no better way to fully understand a subject than to argue it. Its better than teaching. Arguing extreme claims of any type forces you to examine the fundamental issues about how theories are formed, tested, and sustained. I have learned a great deal by arguing against holocaust denial, scientific racism, world Jewish conspiracy, Creationism, and, especially, 9/11 Conspiracy. Here I present some rules of the road for arguing extreme claims. Trust me, Ive learned these first hand." continued here; FactsPlusLogic: Why Argue Conspiracy Theories?