The thing is, I was thinking about the wording of an answer to the question which indicated that the voter didn't think any of those things were that significant, but I came up with a problem basic to the question.
One could quite easily say that one was suspicious about a certain aspect and didn't think it had been properly explained, or that indeed the official explanation was false. In fact I'd consider anyone who thought that the explanation for their actions that has come out of the US and UK govenrments was true to be very deluded.
However, there's a subtext to this, which is considering "the official story" to be an entity that one either accepts wholeheartedly or rejects for a completely different explanation. This is something that I've mentioned before. It's not a single entity, it's a composite, and thinking "hmm, that thing with the passports, I don't like that" doesn't mean anything when considering whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon. Yet a question like "what makes you suspicious about the official story?" suggests that one is having doubts about the entire "official story" if one has doubts about any part, which I suppose is to be expected from a question from a conspiracy site. Something like "which aspect of the official story are you most suspicious about?" would be a lot better.
As a thorough-going sceptic I've become immensely infuriated by the efforts of conspiraloons to hijack any dissent as support for their alternative reality - a simplistic assumption that either one accepts the "official line" completely or rejects it utterly - and while I'm not accusing the thread starter of trying to do such a thing, I think the question itself has an element of that.