Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

It's another basic critical thinking test (and covered in the video I posted, Reuters sent out a mistaken wire, which the BBC repeated)

You're plotting a big inside job, why would you phone reporters to tell them what time a building will fall at when they'll all just report when it falls anyway. What is there to gain from that? (apart from alerting reporters ahead of time that it's an inside job)

versus

It was a reporting error. These aren't uncommon. Especially on 9/11 when it was a highly chaotic news day with speculation running rife (I watched it on the day, at one point there was a report that there were up to 8 planes hijacked)

Which sounds more plausible? (bonus: one of them is backed by straightforward evidence, the other is backed by a further rabbit hole of vague conspiracy innuendo involving the BBC)

Okay let's go with that. Let's say Reuters were handed a schedule of events by the CIA or whomever. In the conspiracy spirit of question everything, lets apply normal questioning:

Reporters will report events as they happen, why do they need a schedule? The fact that they would be handed a schedule automatically blows open that it's a plot to them (known in advance) and it doesn't benefit the plotters in any way.

Think about it from your own perspective, you're the CIA, you're going to treasonously murder 3k Americans. The more people you tell the more your plan is at risk. Why take the extra step of telling the press when it doesn't benefit you or your plan. On the contrary it jeopardizes it. It's a completely pointless risky extra step.

If you want though I can make up a rationalisation to convince myself: Here goes. The CIA told Reuters because, let's make something up, e.g. they threatened Reuters and wanted to make them complicit in the plot, so if the CIA went down, Reuters were also going down for being involved. Complete nonsense of course, but it's a rationalisation that might work for someone.

Just because someone can make up a rationalisation (like I just did) for something in their head - doesn't mean anything. This is why we look at the evidence. All the evidence points to it being a reporting error on a crazy news day.