The Shulchan Aruch says that we don’t say tachanun and we don’t do nefilas apayim on Tisha B’av because it’s a moed. The Rema adds several things, among them that we don’t say lamenatzeach. As to whether or not this is also because it’s a moed, you may be right and truthfully I should have expressed my point in a better way which is as the Mishnah Berurah says about Lamenatzeach ????? ?? ???????? ?’ ??????? ????? ???’ ???? ???? ???? ??. In other words my point is that Tisha B’av is like Shabbos in the inapplicability of the pasuk from which the inyan of semicha is derived (even if it is for a different reason) and therefore it is possible that if you hold that you don’t need semicha on Shabbos then you would also hold that you don’t need semicha on Tisha B’av. (I say possible because it’s also possible that the differences in the reasoning [if there are] could translate into differences in halacha.) Also this was all pretty much l’pilpul b’alma (even though I know you will then object to this thread because I hold that pilpul is assur) because even regarding shabbos, the Rema paskens that one should be machmir to be someich on Shabbos unless it’s b’makom tzarich (and the Beis Yosef holds that you do need semicha on shabbos).
Menu