Questions for people who believe the official scenario

I've watched a couple of attempted debunking videos about the controlled demolition theory. I won't claim to have seen all of them, but I've noticed that one common characteristic of all the videos or theories that I have seen which accept the government's plane collision scenario, is that none of them accept or mention eyewitness testimony of explosions immediately prior to the collisions of the planes.

The ones that I've seen, seem to rely almost entirely on hypothetical scenarios, computer generated models, and theoretical extrapolation, rather than listening to the accounts of actual people who were on the ground at the time, and saw what was going on.

I'd first like to know why you think that is, and secondly, if you know of any theories, videos, or web sites which refute controlled demolition, but which do include eyewitness testimony in support of said refutation, if you could please provide me with links to such.

I want to try and be open to both sides of this debate, but up until this point, I haven't really seen any "skeptical,"/non-truther scenarios put forward, that I've felt were as credible. The pancake theory almost was, but I believe that it's true that if it occurred, we still would have had central beams left, rather than the whole building going down. I also don't personally believe that jet fuel by itself would have been able to cause that much damage.

i cant wait to see the responses on this.

the os is so weak and full of holes, i really enjoy people trying to stick up for it.

especially the pentagon and wtc7.

why would the biggest event in our time have so many holes lies and contradictions?