Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information, page 6

I have always believed (though I distinguish between belief and knowledge) that something other than what we have been told by various examples of officialdom pertaining to 9-11 happened that day.

That said, my line of thought goes something like this:

Which of the following two is easier and/or more effective?

1) Using holographic airplanes in conjunction with controlled demolition at the WTC, involving large numbers of operatives (however compartmentalized and unwitting they may have been) in order to set the explosives under the cover of an elaborately executed ostensible purpose, launching a guided missile at the Pentagon, and creating the appearance that an additional aircraft crashed in another state. Potential risks include technical faults in the holography that might make the plan obvious to witnesses, witness sightings of the missile (sure they could be silenced, but that's more work and more risk as well,) failure of the explosives, and the greater probability of leaks with the increased number of operatives, however compartmentalized or unwitting many of them may be. Benefits of this plan include absolute control of the timing and execution, provided all can be carried off without a hitch.

2) Subtlety and with reasonably plausible justification reducing the nation's air defense posture while seeing to it that elements of or associated with the same forces the country had already covertly funded and armed since the Cold War obtain funds and passports, and then allowing those who already want to attack us to finally achieve their aims in one fell swoop. The risks of this operation are less than those of #1, and even if discovered, could be made to look like - at worst - gross negligence and/or poor decision making, should the need arise. Benefits are that plausible deniability is more easily achieved under this scenario, and that timing isn't as critical a factor because someone else is doing the wet work. All you have to do is let them get away with it for a change.

To me at least, the second scenario just seems more plausible. I'm not saying that's what happened, however. I'm 100% open to other, more exotic possibilities. That technology exists to at least make them feasible under the right conditions is certain in my opinion.

It's just that things like the Gulf of Tonkin incident mean that the second scenario has precedents in history, and that actual operational proposals such as Operation Northwoods (look it up; it was real and the documentary proof can be found in the library of congress among other sources) mean that this kind of thinking and planning has gone on in the past.

Just my two cents, all of which is opinion and/or belief and not fact, because I don't know for certain what happened that day. I hope we all do, someday.