I watched samples from it. All concocted. Street people declaring what they saw, when they saw only the effect. Some idiot with an eastern European accent insisting that an airplane would behave like a brittle accordion, and that it could not penetrate the building (B-25 vs. Empire State Building to the contrary). Someone referred to the video of one airliner passing over building tops and one wingtip seemingly went behind one building (which was in fact consistent with the path of the airplane and the fact that distance perspective flattens out at long distance). Where did the "undoctored" video come from, and what is the certification that it is "undoctored"? There was a fireball from the first instant of the collision, which is unremarkable considering the airplane was fully fueled and a collision would be guaranteed to create sparks or adiabatic heating in a fuel space with ullage. People in this country have become conditioned to think that a cloud of fire signifies an explosion because Hollywood finds it more convenient to simulate them with propane than with explosives.

So, prove it. Arguing "it might have been" or "it could have been" is only fantasizing based on an ignorant view of the mechanics of such an event. The planes were commandeered and were driven into the Towers, the Pentagon, and the countryside with all passengers aboard. They are gone, and this obsession with a fantasy is a morbid trivialization of their deaths.