A couple of contentions from 9/11 truthers never made much sense to me:
Firstly, why would the government plant explosives/thermite/whatever in the buildings? Flying planes into buildings would be enough pretext to start a war on terror, if that was the intention. You don't need to ensure they collapse with additional explosives.
Secondly, why would they use a missile rather than a plane when targeting the pentagon? If you're planning to make the public think a plane hit the pentagon, why not just use a plane?
One suggested explanation for the first point I've seen is that it was to limit damage to the surrounding areas in case of an uncontrolled collapse. I don't recall any evidence being presented for this claim though, and it doesn't strike me as particularly plausible, as it doesn't seem worth complicating the plan to such a degree for seemingly little benefit.
The use of a missile rather than a plane has never made any sense to me - one unexpected photo, or even a plausible witness account, gives you a problem, despite there being an obvious way to avoid it. It also invites questions if the result is inconsistent with a plane crash in any way.
I'm no 9/11 truther but I'm fascinated by the subject at the same time. It's such a complex subject and there are no easy and simple answers. There are many angles to take into consideration. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle as with most things these days.
I thought this video was interesting since it doesn't really seem to claim anything. It's asking difficult questions though:
Beware of false equivalences though. Some facts are black and white even if parties are trying to muddy the water, retain secrets, or whatever. Eg, flat Earth: there is no middle and by humoring the story tellers elevates them to credence they haven't earned.
Firstly, why would the government plant explosives/thermite/whatever in the buildings? Flying planes into buildings would be enough pretext to start a war on terror, if that was the intention. You don't need to ensure they collapse with additional explosives.
Secondly, why would they use a missile rather than a plane when targeting the pentagon? If you're planning to make the public think a plane hit the pentagon, why not just use a plane?