Your argument suggests a refusal to accept the possibility of conflicting eyewitness accounts and emphasizes the need to examine all evidence. However, the volume and consistency of the eyewitness testimonies that confirm planes hit the towers are overwhelming. Thousands of people, including professionals such as pilots, firefighters, and journalists, have corroborated this event, and their accounts are supported by video footage from multiple angles, forensic evidence, and independent investigations.

To illustrate this point, consider the sinking of the Titanic. Some witnesses reported that the ship broke in two before sinking, while others believed it went down whole. Those who thought it sank in one piece were typically at the ends of the ship and couldn’t see the break, whereas many near the middle witnessed the split. This discrepancy didn’t mean the Titanic didn’t break; it highlighted the limitations of certain vantage points during a chaotic event.

Similarly, the accounts of people who didn't see a plane and only observed an explosion do not negate the presence of the planes. It simply indicates that their angle or position prevented them from seeing the impact. The overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses and video recordings clearly show planes hitting the towers, and these accounts have been verified through extensive forensic analysis.

Examining evidence critically is essential, but dismissing the robust and consistent body of eyewitness testimonies, supported by video and forensic evidence, in favor of less substantiated claims does not provide a stronger standpoint. The burden of proof lies with presenting verifiable evidence that can withstand scrutiny, and so far, the most credible and substantial evidence supports the fact that planes hit the towers on 9/11.