Some of these people know how to play chess and they're already on the next move.
I think you're giving them way too much credit there.
It always seems to me that the fundamental flaw in 'truther-think' is that they don't.
They always appear to be reacting and making it up on the hoof.
Take the remote controlled planes issue:
For 'truthers' it can't have been fundamentalist muslim extremists because-
a. They don't have the wherewithall (read: Intelligence) to attack the worlds only superpower
b. There mustn't be anyone other than the evil 'NWO' with a motive for the attacks
c. It's too scary to believe that a fanatical religion could create individuals capable of such acts, whereas it's kinda comforting to imagine an all controlling, all powerful, shadowy elite which could carry out such attacks and blame others for it, just as with their own lives when they find things go wrong or they themselves fail/suffer through their own incompetence/laziness/lack of intelligence, it can actually be pinned on this evil 'NWO' and they can abdicate any responsibility.
But, the shadowy, evil 'NWO', being of a non-religious persuasion, can't actually get any operatives to sacrifice their own lives for the cause, so
if planes were flown into the buildings on 9-11, those planes must have been controlled externally.
Further to this, in typical 'truther' mental gymnastics, if the plane which hit the pentagon was being flown in a manner which could be described as 'odd' then it follows that a pilot couldn't have flown the plane so it must have been remote control (ignoring, of course, the fact that if the plane could fly in the manner described it doesn't really matter whether it was a pilot in the cockpit or a pilot in a room on the ground; the plane did it therefore it must have been possible in either circumstance).
Chess players?
