How does that prove the official story is "constantly changing"?
Holmgren says that "For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes", for instance, then says when confronted with this people suggest they used false ID, which leads to other problems etc. Trouble is, he's just making that up. Only the Inside Job movement says that there were no Arabs on the plane, everyone else says that's untrue. No changes required here at all.
He then says that "the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes", and so has to invent excuses as to why they're completely vapourised. But guess what? Only people peddling straw men say that. It's not something claimed by anyone else.
Then we get another straw man about the jet fuel having to melt steel (not necessary), and a truly laughable claim that 100 degrees C is enough to destroy DNA. There's the fiction about Flight 77 crashing through 6 walls before exiting, a suggestion that there's a problem about the lawn not being scarred (there isn't, it didn't hit the lawn), and on, and on, and on it goes. Endless straw men and debunked nonsense. You're right, it's unfair to insist on newer articles, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for better ones. Because I really don't think that one does a good job of arguing your case.
