I can understand your feelings.  Except that we've been duped about the truth of things in the past, haven't we.  I guess the real question is whether our government could ever be that sinister.  In our own country.  Probably not.  But, notwithstanding the NIST rebuttal I read this morning, I'm still wondering whether the attack was indeed a real surprise but nevertheless the buildings were somehow wired for controlled demolition in the event of an attack?  Is there some way to reconcile two sets of truths?  The NIST has completely ruled out controlled demolition, but I'd love to see an independent (is there such a thing?) academic group read both sides of the argument and comment on the validity of their points.  I for one don't want to believe our government is sinister, but I think there's ample evidence of sinister behavior abroad - so is it really such a stretch that we might wonder what they are capable of?  I really hate thinking this way and to some extent it may not be very productive and it might involve areas of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment for reasons of "national security."  In other words, it might not be possible for a robust debate on the engineering questions so what's the point in arguing this to begin with.

But as for whether all of this talk is stupid, I don't think so.  "Loose Change" tries to show the possibility of missiles.  NIST refutes this but again, where's the independent analysis?  The photos of the undersides of the planes in "Loose Change" apparently don't match what the planes normally look like.  Is this simply fancy tap-dancing with the facts or is there something there?  I for one don't really know.  And I wish I could be so darn sure that our government could never, would never do something this outrageous.  But, look at the characters behind the Iraq war and you know, the mind wonders just what they were willing to do to make the Iraq war happen?  From what I've heard, the plan to invade Iraq started before Bush was elected.  And we know that there is ample reason to think that the election in 2000 wasn't a square deal either.  So, I certainly don't think raising the possibility of these seemingly outrageous suggestions as being out of line or crazy.  I do think they merit calm, accurate rebuttal that can't be argued away.  All it really takes is highly credentialed people - but then I guess one could argue that whatever they say can be labeled as "biased" or "politically slanted."  In which case we come back to the point where indeed, under those circumstances, any inquiry seems pointless and stupid.