Building 7, and the maneuvers that the AA77 hijacker made, are the two biggest areas that are insufficiently explained, as far as I'm concerned. Everything else is a red herring and not worth discussing.
i guess you havent seen the videos of the HUGE chunk of the tower falling into WTC7 and the videos of the fires shown from the side that was hit
I've seen them. In my elementary knowledge of metallurgy and physics, and my more detailed knowledge of fire as a former volunteer FF, I know that smoke like that is indicative of an oxygen-starved fire that is not strong enough to weaken the steel reinforcement inside that building. Of all the videos I've seen of building 7, I've only actually SEEN actual fires burning on a few floors. The rest of that smoke is highly indicative of smolder, which absolutely will not weaken that much steel to the point of collapse.
This doesn't mean I'm claiming conspiracy, just that the explanations given seem insufficient to me. I don't just believe it because it's said. Even FEMA and the NIST admit it's inconclusive, which along with what I already know based on what I see with my own eyes, is enough for me to maintain skepticism. Just because I'd rather it not be the government who plotted it, doesn't mean I'll look for whatever answer would clear them. The jury is still out on the issue of building 7 as far as I'm concerned.
I'm also highly skeptical about how the AA77 hijacker was able to make the kind of maneuvers he made, considering what we already know about his insufficient capabilities of flying even a Cessna, according to his flight instructor. Seasoned military pilots themselves have questioned it, as well.
There's nothing wrong with having questions about this subject, it doesn't make you a loon.