This was pointed out in the comments earlier. Here's a terrific interview of a 9-11 Denier by Ronald Wieck, who absolutely demolishes him. Kudos to Wieck, who cites 911Myths several times and Mark Roberts (the master debunker). He clearly did his homework and indeed seemed quite a bit more familiar with the topic than Les Jamison, the other side of the debate. You can see that Jamison is somewhat conflicted--should he go full out nutter or not? He pretty much decides to swing for the fences, and so we get Tim Osman and the John Ashcroft not flying commercial planes routine--one place where Wieck did not rebut with the best argument, which is that even Michael Moore changed Fahrenheit 911 when he learned that Ashcroft had flown twice in the months before 9-11 on commercial planes on personal trips.
Also note the obnoxious smirk ever-present on Jamison's face. He repeats the ridiculous canard that the standard procedure called for the planes to be shot down if they refused to land after contact by the fighters. Wieck comes back with the point that everybody who criticizes Bush now for not having the planes shot down would have been the first to call for his impeachment if they had been shot down on 9-11. Perhaps a better point to make is that if this was all so automatic, why are there no cases in history where US fighters have shot down a hijacked airliner?
Still, a terrific job by Wieck, marred by some occcasional sound problems. Predictably, the 9-11 Denial crowd thinks they won this.
Update: Part II of the interview here. Wieck keeps up the tremendous work.
Update II. Perhaps I was too hasty in saying that the 9-11 Deniers thought they won this debate. Although some of the commenters here liked it, most were dismayed.