But just step back for a moment and ask yourself who in the hell had the power to do 9/11?
Anyone who took some flying lessons? Because pilots were trained to follow a terrorist's orders, similarly to how bank tellers today are told "no heroics, just give a robber the cash; we'll round him up eventually".
And FYI the idea literally was written into a Tom Clancy novel years before (although IIRC it was Japan that attacked) so the terrorists did not even need to be creative.
That same novel put forth the idea of combined physical/economic warfare as well -- crash the stock market just before you attack.
Chomsky's confrontation with a truther idiot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6KncBtw, I debated Chomsky in email several years ago before my Multiple Sclerosis symptoms had become severe (meaning I was more mentally complete ... I'm sure you notice my prose is often missing words and this is due to fatigue and trying to write too much with this illness).
I have all the copies of the debate. Maybe I will publish them in this forum someday if I can justify the downtime to dig them up (I did publish already a small portion at goldwetrust.up-with.com).
I remember we got off into existential philosophy and what could and could not be proven. My appraisal of the outcome is it was a draw. He is extremely smart (impressively so at his advanced age) but he did meet his match with me (which is why I think he was compelled to debate me and also because I did show him respect and appreciation). So that will give you some clue into my logic capabilities. The computer and I were destined to be one since I think like one.
Btw, Chomsky is a gatekeeper for the establishment (perhaps unwittingly). That doesn't mean I dislike him. He was very cordial, empathic, and willing to debate an unknown person.
I don't have time to watch that video above, but I am quite sure he can not win a debate against me about 9/11 because I will focus only on the irrefutable physical science arguments and not the circumstantial innuendo that most Truthers blabber.
An example of circumstantial arguments is, "why was the steel rushed off to China for melting and under such intense security?". I believe that data point adds to the probability of understanding, but I wouldn't use it in debate because someone could attack me on that point. Another example, "why did Donald Rumsfeld announce that $3 trillion was missing from the DoD budget on the eve of 9/11 and the next day all of the documents and investigators were destroyed by whatever hit the Pentagon and just that one section of the Pentagon".
Or another one, "why were all of Armstrong's voice recordings of the manipulations the banksters were doing in the markets destroyed at the WTC, as admitted in a letter to Armstrong from the SEC?".
So many circumstantial points taken together form a nexus of improbability of an unplanned event.
But I don't need to revert to those arguments because most people can't correlate holistic probabilities (and debaters use this disingenuously and/or unwittingly). They study issues piece-meal only. This is also why they can't assess the holistic design failure of Bitcoin.