>>>>My take is that a more probable explanation would be that they just let it happen, and used it.
>>>
>>>Why would they knowingly let it happen (other then that Bush is an evil human being)? :)
>>
>>Maybe they didn't know exactly what is going to happen and where exactly, so the size turned out to be miscalculated. But look at the benefits.
>
>WHAT benefits? There were no "benefits" from the death of 3,000 people and the destruction of several blocks of NYC.

There are HUGE benefits if you are high in government.

All you now have to do to placate "we the people" is to convince them that armageddon would be right around the corner if it wasn't for the fine job of security you are doing.

There was a time, you will remember, when elected officials had to satisfy the needs and wants of those who elected them. Now they've got everyone convinced that security in the only meaningful need/want. They are now selling the nightmare when they used to sell the dream.

Every now and then they throw out a case like the current UK situation and the rest of the time they say little things like "I'm not at liberty to say how many attacks we've thwarted", usually followed pretty quickly by "we've only got to make one mistake and bad things happen".

The payoff is declaring war and assuming the (alleged) powers that brings to the President's office. Now they're spying on who knows, taking people off the street without due process, etc.