Nick, your point is very valid, but as you can see, in a well developed culture there are bound to be "explanations" for every unwanted anomaly. Thus, the "conspiracy-minded" can say that humans unconsciously agree with those who are more powerful (higher in the pecking order), hence the thousands of engineers and architects who do not agree with the controlled demolition fantasy are simply "sheeple", followers of authority who lack the conspiracy fan's determination to challenge authority.
Beyond a point, this sort of argument has no possible endpoint. Especially if I have had occasion to vigorously defend my position in public, I am much less likely to change it. That is why it is important to join the argument: the point is not to sway the committed voters. Its to warn those (many many) people who may vaguely buy into the conspiracy theory but are not yet publicly and irrevocably committed....those people see such an argument and become less likely to take a publicly committed position of their own...that leaves them open to later gradual shift to one side or the other...
Naturally, I hope they will come over to my side. But in any case, the nature of human discourse being what it is, such an effort is still necessary.
Beyond a point, this sort of argument has no possible endpoint. Especially if I have had occasion to vigorously defend my position in public, I am much less likely to change it. That is why it is important to join the argument: the point is not to sway the committed voters. Its to warn those (many many) people who may vaguely buy into the conspiracy theory but are not yet publicly and irrevocably committed....those people see such an argument and become less likely to take a publicly committed position of their own...that leaves them open to later gradual shift to one side or the other...
Naturally, I hope they will come over to my side. But in any case, the nature of human discourse being what it is, such an effort is still necessary.