I personally strive to stay radically moderate in all ideas, but I find it hard not to come to the obviously plausible theory seriously when all the information is considered as a whole.
What troubles me is the fact that we cannot at this point in time, come to a conclusion that is not wildly debatable due to the immediate and (deliberate?) complete destruction of all substantiatory evidence, let alone in such an ambiguous manner which goes completely against almost a century of the scientific forensics of the exact details of what happened such as out ability to scrape crashed airplanes parts from the bottom of the sea and fully reconstruct agreeably exactly what happened, buildings collapsing from a fire, etc.
Wouldn?t all that information be crucial to future proof all our buildings, or at least find a way to reinforce existing targets of opportunity?
We instead are left with the 2 common theories, (Pancake Theory, Explosive Theory) one taken as proven, the other a conspiracy, yet both are proven false by the information we have, which shows how subjective and poor the response truly was. Identifying possible motives and possible groups is the core in these 2 theories, one of course being Bin Laden, the other 'IT/Bush/etc.'
What I find personally compelling drawing all these rational conclusions is any attempt at explaining the motive for destroying all analytical evidence of the incident, when it would only help to reinforce your given position, without even a single scrap remaining to be analyzed, stored historically, etc.
Additionally adding the context 5 years gives and then viewing suspiciously the response of each suspected group has further drawn me to one side considering what side actually gained in the end from this attack, let alone the obviously encouraged current state of affairs, and altered foreign policy (Patriot Act, etc) which were fought quite fiercely for and obviously would probably not have passed without such incident.
Am I a crazy tinfoil-hat wearing American for thinking things may look at least peculiar here?
Also note that any argument using the declaration force of 'conspiracy' is in itself a fallacy of argument and doesn't debate the topic on hand, but instead shifts the debate to a value of precedent, in which there obviously is none in this matter.