I would agree that there are some unanswered questions regarding the building collapse, and that it deserves much more scrutiny than it has been given. I don't think I buy the idea that it was controlled demolition though, or that there was a deliberate conspiracy outside of Al Qaeda to destroy the towers.

There's issues with the controlled demolition hypothesis itself, but then there's also the larger, much more insane question of "why?" Gage gives a nice slippery non-answer to the question fairly early in the video, but there's too many obvious questions about why would you want to organize a controlled demolition. You already have planes hitting the towers, why do you need to demolish them too? To maximize destruction? If you're trying to maximize destruction, why make it a controlled demolition rather than uncontrolled? If it was part of a conspiracy, why involve the large number of people needed to orchestrate a demolition rather than just skip it? Why WTC7? Etc.. In a practical world it seems like the least likely possibility.

I might instead buy the idea that, rather than a conspiracy, the was gross incompetence and a series of massive fuckups that made it worse than it had to be. From intelligence, politics, and communication to engineering and code violations that point the blame at some top brass and powerful individuals. I could see the government not wanting to scrutinize it too hard and shine the light on those problems.