A drone seems to make sense. But, why not just crash a plane? Why risk having the “hijacked planes” narrative compromised by taking this approach?

I’m trying to wrap my mind around how this was planned and thought out.

“Yeah, we don’t think we should send a plane. It’ll cause too much damage and the logistics are going to be a son of a bitch to pull off. “

“But we have to do something! Taking down the towers isn’t going to be enough to convince people to want to go to war! There has to be no doubt that America is under attack!”

“Calm your tits. I’m only saying that it doesn’t have to be a plane. It’ll be easier if it wasn’t. Look at the flight path, no way we can keep within such a tight margin of error. Not going to happen.”

“… Well, we have to hit something else other than the towers. What are you thinking instead?”

“How about sending a drone? It won’t be causing a lot of damage but it will get the point across.”

“A drone? That’s ridiculous! People are going to see that it’s not a plane and how are we explaining a hijacked drone? It’s bad enough that we’re pushing three hijacked planes in less than an hour!”

“No one is going to see anything. We’ll have men in standby ready to scoop up surveillance footage right after it happens. These things travel quick. It will only look like a blur.”

“But the damage won’t look like a plane caused it!”

“Don’t worry about it. People are dumb. We can preemptively explode part of the building before it hits to give it more of a dramatic effect. Do you want to target the Pentagon or not?”

“Fine.”

“Good. Quit being such a worry-wart. You leave the details to us like your daddy told you to.”

“And what will I be doing when this all happens? I don’t want to be hiding out in a bunker like Dick is.”

“We’ve got an easy assignment for you. Have you ever read ‘My Pet Goat’?”