The cause of the complete collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001 has been analyzed, organized, and presented. For an objective analyst (not one who enters into every subject of debate with a decision made in spite of propenderence of evidence), the discussion of the collapse is thorough and sound in engineering analysis. The arguments I have read to the analysis are generally incorrect, poorly developed, or simply red herrings. For example ... one "engineer" claimed that the building couldn't have possibly fallen under the heat of jet fuel (and therefore, it must have been thermite) because ... jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to _melt_ the metal used. Simple response, phase transformation of metals can occur well below its melting point.
I can't decide whether that story is incorrect, poorly developed, or a red herring. The implication that metal must melt in order for a structure to fail is assuredly a red herring. However, it could have been engineering ignorance (as opposed to willful deception) which led to this vein of conspiracy theory.
In short, taking the position that every terrorist act in recent history was perpetrated by no one in particular while maintaining that it is all in the government master plan leaves your grounded in only one respect ... you are solidly a nutcase.
Granted, just because it's a conspiracy theory doesn't make it untrue ... however, it still leaves you a paranoid nut.
1981 C&C 32