Here is the book which discusses this idea: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The net of it is that, to quote Robert de Niro in “Ronin”, “if there is any doubt there is no doubt.”
9/11 clearly facilitated goals which preceded it.
The potent wartime authority granted the White House in the wake of 9/11, he says, dovetailed with the administration’s pre-9/11 desire to amp up executive power (diminished, Mr. Cheney and others believed, by Watergate)
Imagine laying awake every night worried about a nuke going off in Boston, or an anthrax attack at Grand Central Station, or any of thousands of other possibilities. Imagine becoming convinced not only of the inevitability of such attacks, but that you were completely helpless to prevent them. Imagine coming to the conclusion that absent a major push, no amount of arguing would EVER convince Congress and the American people to take the aggressive steps needed to prevent attacks which could kill millions and permanently alter the trajectory of all American lives.
Logically, a few thousand lives would be a small price to pay to save millions. One could justify it in the name of patriotism, and taking care of the nation. This is a scenario that makes sense, if you make everyone involved more than a bit psychopathic. War for Halliburton, War for a pipeline: I hope these scenarios are ridiculous, but if you make folks fully psychopathic, they come back into the realm of the possible.
It does bother me that Marvin Bush was a principal in the company that provided security for the World Trade Centers.
Regardless of who we point blame at, there is NO DOUBT, NONE, that those towers were prepped with explosives before they were hit by airplanes; and that very few people understand this blatantly obvious and ineluctable fact.