Comment: I understand your reasoning

(See in situ)

I understand your reasoning

I once argued as you do, in fact. The narrative, as presented by NIST, MSM, and others has a dose of physics and reality. If that were indeed designed, I would expect it to coincide with the physics of the scene as closely as possible.
There is ample evidence to me of explosions occurring where and when none was warranted by a plane impact.
The story of William Rodriguez is not that hard to find, and his MSM interview which was only an excerpt of his real words, and purposely rearranged to suit the narrative. A quick Google for his name will provide all you can stand. ;)
I also highly recommend Barry Jennings story.
In summary (which doesn’t sum it up at all, please treat yourself and watch) there was a massive explosion in tower 7, which was not an oil tank, according to Barry, before either 1 or 2 fell, and after both planes had already hit them.
Also, Professor Steven Jones has published information about the dust from the scene, and has not yet been refuted in any reasonable way. He is personally attacked, to be sure, but, the scientific evidence he presents speaks for itself. I have looked at the debunking sites as well, but most simply try obfuscation, misrepresentation and personal attack, often in the same treatment.
If the physics were closely duplicated, the stories from boots on the ground can help clear up some issues.
And, in my view, the towers and the pentagon cannot be seperated, and that story is too full of holes all on it's own for me to swallow. Just some of my thoughts.

Just open the box and see