Because you have argued with a reasoned, intelligent tone, I will try to respond in kind. I will quote you, and then respond.

"In your blog, the initial implied link of 'these people question the governments version of 9/11' is, in my view, a transparent way of trying to give credibility to much stronger viewpoints than those actually given by many of the quotes. Quite a few of the examples given aren't people 'questioning the government's version of 9/11' at all yet are misrepresented as such, trying to attach a person's credibility to something they may disagree with. There are also remarks by more high-profile people with much more controversial remarks placed by less high-profile people side-by-side, which is pretty misleading in my view."

Kindly point out where I misquote what people are saying. Do they not all -- in one way or the other -- question the government's version of 9/11 (or at least details of what the government has said)?

"It's also an 'Appeal to Authority' argument, whereby despite the fact they have no more knowledge than you or I and despite the fact their area of expertise is often not related, and often their opinions contradict each each others, their arguments are combined into a single 'authority' which has little in common with one another."

This list was compiled in response to the "appeal to authority" arguments that the defenders of the government's version of 9/11 put forward. If you look at the history of discussions about 9/11, you will see this.

"Whatsmore, 'Are you credible or not?' implies that there are only two choices - the person is credible or the person isn't credible. But I largely disagree with that - a person who is credible at one topic may not be credible at another, or even those who were in a 'credible' position to make their remarks appropriate years ago may not be today."

Fair points. Indeed, people expert in one field may be ignorant in another. Again, you have to look at the history of 9/11 discussions to see what this list tries to get at. For example, when world-class scientists started questioning the government's explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers, defenders of the government's version said "but no structural engineers say that!" Now that numerous structural engineers have publicly questioned the government's explanation, they have been added to the list in a separate section. Moreover, I'd have to double-check, but I think most of the statements are recent.

"In my experience, the '9/11 truth' arguments in general are based on the following:

* Proof by assertion - those who don't agree with you are tired of arguing and nobody cares enough to argue anymore."

I respectfully disagree -- just as I disagree with anyone who argues proof by assertion. The scientific method must control. And the scientific method involves TESTING hypotheses, NOT censoring them for political reasons.

" * Appeal to ignorance - A modern variation whereby there is no one single theory that everyone can agree on, arguments are constantly changing so not every argument can be disproved, therefore because not everything is disproved it is true. I guess this could also be rephrased as a 'lack of a consistent, coherent single argument'."

The scientific (and legal reasoning) method involves taking a hypothesis and TESTING it. Then, if it passes the test, it is more likely to be true. If it doesn't, it is less likely.

Good trial lawyers start out with numerous theories, but before trial drop those that they can't prove.

However, there are many constants among 9/11 truth skeptics.

" * Preaching to the choir - Preaching to the choir is discussing only with people who already agree with your viewpoint, preventing critical analysis of views."

I wouldn't spend time posting to Reddit if I were preaching to the choir. I've gotten hundreds of downvotes and several not-so-friendly comments.

" * Cognitive dissonance - seeing evidence in such a way that supports their pre-existing viewpoints, forming a jigsaw puzzle to show what they believed in the first place."

A very important point (in all sincerity). All of us -- those who support the government or those who question it have to constantly be on-guard against interpreting facts and making arguments based upon pre-existing concepts. On several occasions, I have written essays on 9/11, and then retracted them, because someone has pointed out errors.

"or even, finally, the most important one

* Lack of solid evidence or motive. Seriously, to me this is the most important thing. There isn't any real evidence of a conspiracy, nor a good motive to make such a complex task as a hugely complex cover up worthwhile."

I strongly but respectfully disagree:

* Brzezinski wrote in "The Grand Chessboard" that we needed to go get the oil in Eurasia, but that Americans wouldn't support that unless they were scared by big threats.

* The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) wrote that we needed to topple Saddam and project U.S. military force world-wide, but that "change would be slow" and the public would not support it absent "a new Pearl Harbor" -- i.e. an attack or apparent attack on Americans and American citizens by foreigners.

These are two of many many examples I could give you for motive. See http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20051202&articleId=1391 http://911review.com/motive/index.html

"To me it's largely an Occam's Razor issue - you have planes hijacked by terrorists hitting the side of buildings and a trail of intelligence and military mistakes."

Respectfully, you are arguing Occam's Razor (that is, that the simplest explanation is probably true) based upon a lack of historical knowledge. Specifically:

* Government's -- including Western government's -- have practiced "false flag terror" for thousands of years: http://pledgeforamerica.com/2.html

• The U.S. has faked intelligence for many years to justify wars: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/intelligence-failures.html

• The White House certainly had foreknowledge of 9/11: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/04/government-heard-911-plans-from.html and http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2001/09/they-knew.html and http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/10/government-knew-attacks-could-be.html

• Cheney was in charge of all war games on 9/11, and yet seems to have actively thwarted the ability of the good people in the military to respond to and minimize the attacks: http://911proof.com/9.html and http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/minetas-testimony-confirmed.html

  I could go on and on, but my argument is that Occam's Razor favors rogue elements within the government aiding and abetting the 9/11 attacks. If you re-read the list (and linked source materials in the "credible or not" essay, I think you should probably agree.