The really ironic thing about your concept is that it would be a guaranteed hit if someone had the testicular fortitude to bring this idea to prime time television. The curiosity factor alone would attract everyone to watch the drama unfold, regardless of their preconceived bias.
Imagine the excitement created every week as people anticipate which way the argument will turn or what new evidence will be produced, when they tune in the following week.
Imagine the office water cooler debates that would ensue as a result.
Imagine the spin masters in high (read low) places scrambling to react to new revelations.
Imagine politicians and journalists having to choose between ducking for cover or stepping up to claim their previously harbored suspicions.
Hey. I can dream can't I?

Yah, science is fine, but people don't shift worldview over the melting point of steel. They'd rather live in illusions. I'm sorry to break the news.

If we don't provide a viable political/psychological 'frame' in which the scientific facts could have happened, then proof does 9-11 Truth no good. The main resistance to 9-11 Truth is psychological, not scientific.

So I commend this effort, but sideways insults at other analyses are self-defeating. It's tiresome hearing 9-11 bloggers parrot MSM airhead agitprop terms expecting admiration for it. Just do your thing and contribute your part.