In atleast two of the planes a pilot managed to change the communications over to broadcast before being removed from the controls.
Ive not heard that detail, unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding that can lead people to believe in anything. Many people refused to be believe Elvis was dead, it was highly improbable but also he took drugs and its reasonable that he passed away in the way recorded but I dont blame people for thinking otherwise.
The moon landings also are highly improbable from a laymans perspective but NASA was mostly about the cold war and rocket technology development more then scientific exploration, the moon has little reason to go there. The space race is parallel to nuclear power stations imo, its a precursor to world war 3 that we hope will never happen.
I dont blame people for doubting the moon landings, it might be improbable if the military aspect were not there as obvious motivation. Theres no big jump in logic required to recognise the correlation in progress between those two branches of government
I think the 9/11 failure was incidental to the crashes and that is perhaps why we get more conspiracy theories. What is being overlooked and needs to be underlined to prevent repetition is mistakes not deliberate sabotage
Mains can't supply enough. Ordinarily you'd have a tank however we have a river.
The twin towers are right next to a large water source like that. The main thing misunderstood on the towers collapse is about the removal of asbestos from the steel girder structure, I've read both that fire protection was removed in more recent years but also that asbestos was removed during construction. Either way the building was not able to resist fire, it should not have been used while vulnerable and I would like to hear engineers discuss that more but I rarely see any scientific discussion in that direction.
Asbestos is a fire protection (in recent years its not used due to cancer fears) required to stop or slow the weakening of the steel under heat, hence the famous meme about jet fuel not being sufficient to cause total failure. It doesnt have to cause total failure, just partial weakening was enough and the building was not fit for use is not a conclusion I've ever heard but seems it is key to why it failed in the way it did.
The terrorists probably didnt even calculate this part, an immediate effect from collision is my estimate of their plan but I'm not sure whether they had researched or realised events would gain the most momentum after the crash. The goat herder line is ignorant, Afghanistan and many other countries, their populations are far older then how they are currently caught in civil wars. They have more then enough intelligent people in the middle east to envision, coordinate a plane hijack plan and the basic violent plot is not far past other instances but the final part with the missing
fire resistance even now is understated which is unfortunate.
Theres nothing wrong with discussing the failure but always human nature and mistakes are possible even by otherwise intelligent people, that will always be what must be disproved first
https://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_integrity_and_failure#World_Trade_Center_Towers_1,_2,_and_7
tl;dr Im not an engineer but I'd like if a few of them discussed these details ad infinitum pretty much, the whole subject is continually relevant to any city population imo