Sorry krashy but that kind of answer doesn't help you argument.
You conspiracy theorists are very good at honing in some small inconsistencies and making that the reason to reject the whole story. Which when you think about would kind of be expected in a once in a life time (perhaps once in history) event - how often have we seen a skyscraper hit by a jet plane collapse? So we don't have any reference point to compare the way it collapses.
But when pressed about your alternative account you guys just draw a blank, and we are left with enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence.
