What I think isn't really the issue.What do you think actually happened then? Did a plane actually hit the World Trade Center?
Do you still think the facade was 'mostly glass'? After all, it's quite a basic distinction. If you got that wrong, given the abundant evidence to the contrary, do you think your judgment might have failed on some of the (only slightly) more complex bits of the argument? Like, for example, the veracity of the Purdue simulation? The animation that resulted in Purdue being rewarded with a Homeland Security Institute grant.
By far the more important question is: Where does the burden of proof lie?
Also, I thought this quite apposite: A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. Saul Bellow 1976