Beam Weapons at the WTC: Truth, Psy-Op or Both?

There's no doubt that the theory that beam weapons were used to disintegrate the WTC twin towers seems far-fetched and even "kooky" at face-value.

Without getting into a discussion of the precise merits of beam weapons now (since I have done that in the past), I would like to explore how this "kookiness" factor might actually relate to manipulating people's opinions regarding beam weapons.

Now, either beam weapons were used on 9/11 or they were not.

A) Let's start by saying beam weapons were NOT used. What would be explanations or rationales for promoting the beam weapon theory? Now the theory may honestly seem like a good idea, or even the best explanation for the events, to certain proponents of the theory, despite the "kookiness factor". At the same time the beam weapon theory might actually be promoted by "agents" specifically to make 9/11 skeptics look kooky, and would be an effective distraction to keep people from looking at what really happened at the WTC on 9/11.

B) Now let's say beam weapons were used. In this case, the obvious reason to promote the beam weapon theory is that it is the truth. But how does the "kookiness" factor play out? Well, it keeps people from looking at the theory too closely-- as they come to it prejudiced and then worry it is too "far out" and "kooky". This "kookiness" factor can thus be exploited by agents in order to shield the truth from the public. Thus, someone like Judy Wood is lured into a trap where she is made to look "kooky" and she can therefore effectively turn people away from the truth.

I'll let everyone make up their minds about what makes the most sense.