Why not? Because it was advanced technology, the witnesses and newsbroadcasters did not have the words to describe the phenomena.
Except: unbelievable, incredible, impossible, unheard of
Nobody could believe their own eyes and ears because what they were witnessing was magic to them (i.e. sufficiently advanced technology).
Analogy: Imagine you go back to the year 1000 A.D. and shoot somebody to death in a small village in rural England. If you were to be given the task of determining the mode of death, do you care what the villagers say happened (in terms of possibly being an accurate description)? No, because they don't know what they need to know in order to describe the situation. They don't know what a gun is, or bullets, or what a bullet wound looks like. Given what they do know, they might come up with any number of ridiculous reasons how the person was killed, but every one of them would be false, except by unreasonable chance.
Conclusion: We should pay attention to the news reports, but very carefully analyze them for editorial comment. If they say the building "collapsed", for instance, you can accept their testimony and analyze it for content as long as you fully realize that the building did not collapse and that no amount of saying it did makes it so.
The buildings were fuming and smoking for a while and then turned into dust. After they turned into dust, most of the dust fell to the ground. The buildings did not collapse. Saying the buildings collapsed without mentioning that they turned into dust first isn't really a description of the events, and is very misleading.
These people didn't deliberately mislead us. They were witnessing advanced technology and did not have the words to properly describe it to us. Heck, I don't blame them. It's almost 9 years on, and I still struggle with the words to describe what happened. I just knew at the time it wasn't a plane that did it. I didn't know what did do it or even that the whole plane thing was a hoax.