I'm not really invested either way and I don't really care all that much, but I think that the usual conspiracy maxim applies, that is that anyone clever and powerful enough to pull this off would not leave gaping holes in it and/or would not let a bunch of conspiracy theorists tell the "truth", but whatever...
(Occam's razor: Do I think it's possible someone in the US government knew ahead and either failed to do anything or worse - willingly did so? Or that someone in the US government could have been somehow connected to Al-Queda or whomever? Well, yes, that is possible and if the conspiracy people took this route, well, OK then (BTW it's really hard to prove or disprove such thing, so there you go). Do I think a huge plane is able to bring down a skyscraper? Yeah. Do I think there was some other influence necessary? No. But again, I digress)
What I wanted to say is this - doing the job I do I'm used to the fact that it never fits. Whatever the case, whatever the story, there are always inconsistencies. That's why us lawyers (and judges) concentrate on the cold hard evidence and try to make a reasonable guess based on that. Everything else is just dancing around. (A little hint: based on the evidence at hand, saying some clandestine power group blew up the WTC in order to get to the oil in Iraq or whatever would not be considered a reasonable guess).
Let alone the fact that even then you do not know the truth, you just have an idea what might have happened. Everything is subjective. The witness said he saw a blue car, but it was actually red - either he saw it in a bad light conditions, or he's colourblind and ashamed to admit it, or he's deliberately lying. The videos are often inconclusive or tampered with.
(This subjectivity of senses and evidence and everything is actually one of the reasons I find faith and religion very important, as well as one of the reasons I love When the Wild Wind Blows, but I DIGRESS AGAIN)
The fact he said missile in the video is no evidence, sorry to say. He could have been thinking about a Steven Segal movie. He could have been thinking about Swiv 3D (where the 4 year old me learned the word "missile").
Hell, the definition of "missile": "an object or weapon that is thrown, shot, or otherwise propelled at a target", so in this way the terrorists really used the planes as missiles, let alone the definition
adj.
4. capable of being used as a missile.
Just saying the video is a bad proof, that's all.