Bushco engineered 9/11

Overview

There is a conspiracy theory that the events of 9/11 were allowed to happen not by a series of unfortunate and coincidental (but well-documented) mistakes on the part of the Bush II administration, but were in fact a desired goal for which those "mistakes" were carefully planned.

Conclusions

We do not take this theory completely seriously, but it can't be fully laid to rest until there is a believable explanation for the anomalous events of 9/11.

The Theory

This one is a perennial favorite among the fringe of the 9/11 Truth movement, which the media loves to put on display as if it were the whole story. The theory goes something like this:

• Bushco needed a "Pearl Harbor" (or a "Reichstag fire [W]", or a "Gulf of Tonkin Incident [W]") to galvanize America and gain support for a number of things:
  • the war he planned on Iraq (due to statements by Bushco, many Americans still believe Saddam was behind 9/11, or that Iraq had WMDs, both of which are completely wrong)
  • increased power for the president – the "strong executive" theory (which goes completely against the separation of powers set up by the founding fathers in the Constitution)
  • Decreased civil rights, increasing government intrusion
  • Increased freedom to spend money however he wanted (e.g. "no-bid" contracts for war-related projects), without oversight or accountability
• As a result of this need, Bush somehow encouraged or knowingly allowed 9/11 to happen; presuming that Bush actually paid attention to the pre-9/11 warnings he received (rather than ignoring them, as he outwardly seemed to do) and realized that an attack of some sort was imminent, possible scenarios include:
  • Bush quietly removed roadblocks so the 9/11 terrorists would succeed
  • Bush covertly provided aid (Iran-Contra-style) to the terrorists, so that they would succeed
  • Bush had agents take over the operation, with the idea of using evidence of the original operation as a decoy -- who would think that the US government would do something like this on US soil? Only wacko conspiracy theorists, of course.
• There may not have been any foreign terrorists on the planes; the four planes hijacked were of two different models (Boeing 757s and 767s) known to have an "emergency come-home" computer installed which allows ground control to remotely control the planes in the event of a hijacking. The fact that these come-homes were not used (or even mentioned) is suspicious enough in itself; it also removes the need for a suicidal gang of hijackers to somehow enter the US, somehow get through security, and somehow take over the plane with the limited weaponry (box-cutters) they supposedly smuggled through security, because the "come-home" could have been used to fly the planes into buildings instead of its intended purpose of landing the plane safely.
• The collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 were merely the finishing touch, to give the appropriate "shock and awe" effect
• The collapse of WTC7 may have been to hide some key pieces of evidence; the most popular theory is that the planes were being remote-controlled from Rudy Guiliani's specially-hardened "emergency command center" in WTC7. After all the planes had been crashed, the team blew up the command center -- and then had WTC7 "pulled" (and the wreckage rapidly removed during rescue operations, even though the building was known to have been empty of survivors) to hide what would have been a suspiciously isolated explosion in an otherwise largely-unharmed building. It also may have destroyed incriminating evidence which certain parties wished to have destroyed, and thereby gained the silence and cooperation of those parties.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to this theory, or at least indicating strongly that the administration had something serious to hide; some more details are in the "Further Investigation Needed" and "Circumstantial Evidence" sections of the 9/11 anomalies page.

Variant: Additional loss of life was accidental

In this scenario, the demolition of WTC1 & WTC2 was supposed to happen hours later, after all surviving occupants had been successfully evacuated. However, something went wrong in WTC2 – maybe an explosive charge got triggered by the fire, or maybe the fire damage really was significant enough (although the engineering evidence seems to go against this possibility), in that one building, to start a collapse.

With tenths of a second in which to make a decision, the charges to demolish WTC2 are set off. Whether or not this was a good decision depends heavily on the actual motives of those in the conspiracy, but it doesn't have to be a good decision in order to fit the theory; it was made in haste.

Having pulled down WTC2, the conspirators now had to decide quickly (though in minutes rather than split-seconds) what to do about the other tower. Should they allow WTC1 to finish evacuating, or does it need to collapse as well in order to maintain an appearance of physical causation, and not leave suspicious inconsistencies? Their decisions may have been based on moral/rational considerations, although I can't think of any that don't have huge holes in them, but they may have instead been based on expedience: "Aw hell, we were gonna try to avoid killing anyone else... but damn, that tower coming down looked really good. Let's do it again, and really scare the crap out of everyone! It's for the good of the country." In other words, "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- which would seem consistent with the mentality of the "suborned" conspirators in the main theory.

Note: The start of WTC2's collapse makes much more sense, from an engineering point of view, than either of the other collapses: one corner had clearly been hit the hardest, and the building visibly starts to topple (presumably towards that corner... verify!) before the explosive charges begin the main collapse. The toppling soon stops, however, and the tower proceeds to explode downward -- which can only be explained by controlled demolition.

Links

• ERROR: 'Inside Job Implies a Vast Conspiracy': 9-11 Review doesn't find the governmental conspiracy angle all that implausible
• 2005-07-26 Kay Griggs - Sleeping With The Enemy talks about military assassination squads; she says, among other comments about 9/11, '"After what I heard all those years and now putting it into prospective after 9/11, I think they are trying to destroy America. Their whole game is all about war, selling weapons and creating a militaristic society. I know first hand from listening to my husband, they will do anything – I mean anything including murder – to get what they want." ... Although Griggs said her husband never mentioned anything specific about 9/11 during their marriage, she claims he hinted several times that "war-gaming and airplane crashes" were necessary elements to control and manipulate the American population.'

Flaws

The most obvious flaw in this theory is the large number of people (at least a large handful), including a number of non-political and people (technicians and engineers) who would need to be involved.

This objection is partly overcome by the extreme vehemence of much of Bush's support during the peak of his power -- dissenters being called "traitors", for example, and (more significantly) the many right-wing statements effectively wishing for another 9/11 to take place. Could this vehemence perhaps have convinced a roomful of people of the need for a terrible calamity to "strengthen the country"? Especially if those people were hand-picked believers hoping to hasten the second coming of Christ by starting an apocalypse. Apocalyptics have always been among Bush's strongest supporters, and the feeling seems to be mutual.

Another counterpoint is the degree to which the US military has come under religious control: history shows that combination of religious zealotry and military discipline will enable a soldier to follow even the most heinous orders. Military from the most-religious branches could easily have done the engineering and technical work, under direct orders from "God in the White House", George W. Bush.