And what of the plane that supposedly slammed into the Pentagon? No debris, no bodies, nothing, not even a wing. Not a shred of evidence, WTF?? Ya, no sign of a coverup there. We don't even have any footage of the supposed plane slamming into the building. If you look at the hole in the side of it, it didn't even match the width of the plane fuselage. Any plane crash always leaves some debris left behind, a wheel, a wing, some luggage, something, it doesn't just vaporize.

While the hijackings definitely have some odd things about them (Passport in the rubble? What?), I don't understand this particular theory.

If you are an evil government looking for a reason to start a war, sure, you might rig the twin towers to collapse because that benefits your goal. But in this case, why not crash the actual plane instead of making it disappear and firing a missile to simulate a plane crash?

Doing it the hard way would insert many points of failure into the process, from the ATC to a random tourist with a camcorder, for seemingly no benefit over flying the actual plane into the Pentagon. No?