What I 'accept' is the clearest explanations I can find that do not seem contradictory and do not require complex, unproven speculation.

Most/many 9/11 conspiracy theories have been traced back to Stephen Jones, whose data gathering is random and self-serving. (all posted and explained before)
These theories are de facto assertions, and assertions require the asserter to provide convincing evidence, not just circular reasoning using 'facts' which are often just-plain-wrong.

(and yes, I HAVE read the purported 'evidence' in detail, and also the careful refutations of those faux evidence fueled theories. Many of those I debate with have NOT tried to absorb any facts which do not support their suspicions)