Wobbler, interestingly I find myself heading in what may be the opposite direction to you. I basically came to this site because of WTC7, which looked so much like a controlled demolition to me. If it was, then clearly there was a conspiracy in which the government was almost certainly linked. I hoped after 5 years that some answers were available on the internet that were not in the mainstream media.
Instead I find that:
1. Regarding WTC7, there is no more real evidence available now than the day it went down, but people who claim to be looking for truth are prepared to twist Silverstein's "pull it" remark completely out of context to try to pretend he said something he didn't. The motives suggested for a CD are quite unconvincing. The firefighters report more extensive damage than seems to have been photographed and thought it would collapse, but on the other hand NIST still cannot explain the mechanism of the collapse. Demolition experts on the scene did not think it was brought down by CD and thought it would collapse. A Dutch demolition expert viewing it on video thought it was CD. I am leaning to the view that a collapse due to the fires is more likely than CD.
2. There is in fact no hard irrefutable evidence that any part of the official story is wrong.
3. The one thing there seems to be consensus on here is that the towers were brought down in a CD using thermate. This is utterly implausible, given than thermate is never used in this way in professional demolition, it supposes that a form of thermate could be used that would be explosive, the idea of placing it on every pillar on every floor is ludicrous, and protecting it from the aircraft impact and fire prior to detonation would not be feasible. Prof Jones' investigations are plainly designed to get the results he wants.
4. I am surprised to find that there is no sign of any coherent narrative emerging from the truthers' side. Indeed everyone has their own particular interest and theory but it does not seem to be regarded as at all important to establish any form of agreed narrative. The theories themselves range from the plausible, such as Flight 93 was shot down, to the totally barking "no planes" theory, from those for whom the internet has totally replaced reality.
5. The contributors to this site, despite its name, do not actually seem to be looking for the truth, they are instead protecting their beliefs. One administrator has as his signature "Ask the tough questions, folks" but asking the tough questions of the truthers on this site mostly produces abuse and labelling as a shill. It is more like a cult than an enquiry, where questioning the belief system brings down punishment on your head. The lies, distortions, evasions and half-truths come almost entirely from the truthers, and the facts and reasoned arguments mostly from the critics.
Setting it down has clarified things for me - count me among the critics now.
