What people choose to believe about this or that line of evidence always follows directly along the line they have already decided to give their support to...which is typical of all such arguments.

The only question here is whose set of basic initial assumptions about 911 is the most nearly correct one. The arguments pro and con will go on indefinitely, regardless of the evidence and people's interpretations of the evidence, because their interpretations are directly shaped by their bias...every time.

The people on one side or the other will never be able to quite believe that the other side doesn't have the sense to see it the way they do, and they will probably make dismissive and testy remarks to their opponents that cause the argument to get worse. They may get downright insulting. They may get mad and walk out in a huff.

A lot of wars have been fought over that kind of thing. Like the War Between the States, for example. It lasted several years. I wonder how long this argument will last? Probably even longer, unless something really unusual happens.

I mean....really unusual. It would have to be big.