You misunderstand me. I am explaining to you here why it is unreasonable to post a flood of links and then expect others to post point-by-point rebuttals of everything in those links.
Kevin, I am trying really hard to understand you, however it seems fit for you to disregard any point I bring up with documentation saying I am asking you to comb through thousands of words of text, and that it is too difficult. I had initially only posted 5 links. You only needed to read the wiki article because it has every argument you have stated, and every counter argument to them written there for you. If that was too much to ask...sorry.
So then I am asked to produce something of more substance...hence the hundreds of newspaper articles that seem to suggest to everyone but you guys apparently that something was amiss that morning.
If you can or will not take the time to synthesise the content of these floods of links into something intelligent, why should anybody else take the time to address everything you link to?
I have already explained this several times, apparently my answers aren't good enough for you. You have said already that none of this is new to you so why even ask this question anyway? You should already know what the synthesis of the content of those articles is....in case you haven't guessed yet they are refutations of your claims and investigations into the circumstances leading up to 911 and after...something that I suppose doesn't have any bearing on your logical process.
If you can find enough ambiguity in the available evidence to fit a coherent conspiracy theory into, roll it out and let us take a look at it. If not, all you have is ambiguities, not evidence of a conspiracy.
This is the easy part, one that you don't seem to notice has been done for you. There are literally 3000 books, and hundreds of movies finding ambiguity in the evidence. The simple fact that no true investigation into anything was done is enough ambiguity...then there's the building collapses which despite what you and your skeptical witch hunter friends say is mysterious...and this is what baffles me about all the responses so far...
A building is hit by a plane, and falls in 85 minutes in defiance of every known law of physics. You all argue it by chopping it down to the plane hit it and weakened the steel and the building collapsed.....is over simplification a requisite for skepticism?
Besides, the biggest clue is that the Commission report, FEMA report, and NIST report all contradict each other and you guys... If you have read them you would notice they don't credit jet fuel, but the burning office contents as enough of a fire to weaken the steel. Which is impossible...
Then there's the fact that white smoke is coming out of the hole the majority of the 85 minutes suggesting a weakened fire, not some raging inferno....
and there is of course the pyroclastic flow of smoke that wafts down...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow
The way the buildings have collapsed has been analyzed a million different ways, and each time there is never an explanation why the center of the buildings falls first. It's like somebody went in and removed an 8 foot tall section of all the 47 steel core beams and then magically made them completely disappear in three buildings in one day.
There's not so much a "line of logic" as a methodology. If the evidence shows the official story to be false on an important issue then there's cause for concern, but you admit yourself there is no such evidence. If there is no reason for a rational person to think that the official story is false on any important issue, then it's irrational to believe in conspiracy theories until such a time as evidence emerges.
The official story hasn't even been proven may I remind you. It is a conspiracy theory itself.
It's ok for you to believe a poorly supported conspiracy theory about 19 highjackers(even though it is 15 now)who made it through every international, national, and state investigation agency, and every terrorist counter measure our nation, and the international community has to offer. Then after getting here are able to plan and carry out despite numerous warnings from government agencies, as well as international intelligence agencies the deadliest attack on our nation...with the aid of every concieveable coincidental catasrophic failure there could ever be....
but it's stupid of me to assume they maybe had some help???
There is more than enough evidence supplied in the news articles you haven't read to make this a valid concern. In fact, it's really only americans who don't question the official story...just about everyone else in the international community thinks it was an inside job as well.
You have heard it now. There is simply no reason (right now anyway) to believe that the essentials of the "official" story are false on any point
Yes there is, I have been demonstrating it for you. Just read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Conspiracy
also, what are you terming "essentials"? Is this your way of accounting for all the inconsistencies that you find when you compare the three official explanantions?
(You know I'm kidding, dude.) 
