Bart Sibrel, a staunch believer in the moon hoax conspiracy, answers the following question:

QUOTE

Q: What about all of the people refuting your accusations point-by-point?

A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination.

"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong." - - Harry Segall

END QUOTE

We can analogize this to 9/11 as follows: "Given the horror of the thought that the US govt was complicit in the attacks, and the psychological difficulty of having to shift an entire paradigm of reality and revise a personal view of the world, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim."

Now, I don't know where I stand on the moon hoax, but one thing is for sure: Common sense tells me WTC 7 was demolished professionally.

Naturally, since us 9/11 Truth Seekers are "asking questions, demanding answers," there must exist material to "rebut" us. Then, NEXT 9/11 anniversary at Ground Zero, some counter protesters can hold large signs saying "Your questions have been answered over and over! See 911myths.com!"

On the Randi Rhodes fourm, myself and other Truthers have engaged in some back-and-forthing with an official story believer and regular poster at JREF.. One of his claims is that Truthers are religiously devoted to "inside job" and will not visit the JREF forums and pore over the numerous websites that debunk our claims. He does however claim that a few Loose Change forum people have visited JREF, seen the light, and "thrown out the whole inside job nonsense."

Let's not go to JREF for a second. Let's keep the discussion right here and stick to WTC7. There are scientific (or "scientific," in quotes, you be the judge) sites which claim to prove (or "prove" in quotes, you be the judge) how WTC7 did indeed collapse from debris damage and fire. One such page contains lots of text, photos and one scientific diagram showing 'spheres' of debris damage. I'll post that diagram here, with the link to the whole page below it:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

So, an appeal: Would anybody like to look at the above link, and then go on the record that it's convinced them that WTC 7 collapsed from fire?

Or is this a classic example of the type of "rebuttal" Bart Sibrel was describing in his interview?