Ok, (edit: not new. Idk why I said new.) New conspiracy theory: the attacks were allowed to happen (not intentionally caused, just allowed to happen, or perhaps just not worked quite as hard to prevent) in order to get public support for further government powers.<p>It&#x27;s known that governments have had plans as to how to get support from a tragedy if one happens. Is it that far fetched that preventing tragedies which are more likely but have a benefit to them for the government, would be considered at a somewhat lower priority than one which is less likely, but does not have any side benefit for the government?<p>Now, I&#x27;m not claiming that this is the case, not really, but it is something that comes to mind, and the most likely version of it does not seem that absurd?