Bernice: This statement hits the nail on the head with respect to convincing anyone about anything.  You have to have something you can chew on to get you started.  Glenn Beck calls it "The One Thing."  What is the "One Thing" about 9/11 that is worth thinking about? 

Most of the long videos (and they are worth watching if one has the time) give you so many details that it's enough to make your head explode.  Some of the ideas presented are connected to other "circumstantial evidence" and without the connection, they don't seem important.  But you don't need all the information at once to be convinced that "something is up."  You need "The One Thing."  The "One Thing" is like putting a stone in one's shoe.  It's there to irritate to the point that you have to deal with it.  Just a small stone is needed.  It is meant to be bothersome to the point that the person has to find that stone, and deal with it once and for all.

For me, the one thing is how the towers fell, and how building 7 fell.  In the history of skyscraper fires, never before 9/11 or after, has any building fallen due to fire.  The towers crumbled.  It's important to understand the construction of the buildings to see how this seems impossible.  You don't have to know the answer, you only have to arrive at the question: Why did the towers fall in the way that they did and why does WTC7 look exactly like a professional demolition?

In 2005, a skyscraper (In Madrid) burned for over 20 hours!  And after the fire burnt out, the skyscraper was still standing.  In fact, in any skyscraper fire, the building always stayed standing.  Only the towers fell.  Why?  Forget the official explanation, I want to know the science of it. 

Since the structural integrity of the lower part of the towers had 100% its strength, why did the buildings crumble all the way to the ground?  Each tower had a huge reinforced steel core that stretched from the top to the bottom of the building.  How did this huge core simply crumble.  It should have been left standing.

Finally, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a plane.  One scientist said that if a plane were to hit the building, it would be like putting a hole into a steel reinforced netting.  Only the area around the hole would be compromised.  The rest of the netting remains at 100% its stength. 

That's the stone in my shoe.  That's my "One Thing."  And what is my conclusion?  Simply this:  Something's not right with the picture.  There's more to this story than we are being told.  If I can't get past why and how the building fell in the way that they did, that alone can be enough to make me start to question the rest of the story.

BTW, just because I have questions doesn't mean that there is in fact a conspiracy.  It could simply mean I don't know enough about the facts of building construction, particularly the construction of the towers or WTC7, to make any kind of judgment at all.  And in the end, my doubts prove NOTHING.  For example, just because fire has never brought down a building doesn't mean it's not possible. Some experts say it is possible.  Others disagree.  Some experts who have studied the 9/11 tragedy for years have concluded that the towers fell due to fire.  Other experts say this is impossible.  It could very well be that the official story is the correct one. 
;)