I can't believe I'm debunking my own "evidence" here but, yes, it's quite possible that he meant "he saw (that) an airplane (had) hit the tower. It's kind of like saying "I
heard an airplane hit the tower", while explaining to someone you heard the news over the radio.
That being said, I am still 99% certain that America was behind it, and 100% certain that they would be capable and willing to do something like this in order to rally support for an all-out drive for the world's last reserves of oil and gas.
People who doubt this probably don't quite understand how important this last depleting source of energy is to the global economy, and that by not taking such action could prove to be much more costly in the long run.
This was enough to convince me that a government's use of "pretext incidents" does not go unprecedented. It was also enough for me question past wars and perceived threats/aggression.
The so-called war on terrorism is drilled hypnotically into the public mind as the imperative reality of realities. Washington insists all other values and projects must bend to this quasi-religious be-all and end-all, a template for our lives.
Leaders, confident that few will dare question this Western jihad, use it to traffic in fear. "Terror" goes undefined. But the "war on terror" is actually a war of terror--and deceit.
Without the invocation "Remember September 11th" as a sacred refrain, this crusade would be a much harder sell. It is the "Official Story" of the event of September 11th that constitutes the linchpin for today's "war on terrorism".
Why else do you think they would evoke such an arbitrary and absurd measure as a color-coded "terror alert" meter, and feed us unspecific details like "increased chatter". What effect could this possibly have other than scare the living sh!t out of us?
You're supposedly masters of a "game of incomplete information". So approach this like you would poker. Put your emotions a side for just one second, and look at it rationally. What seems more probable? What I am suggesting, or that a group of Muslim extremists miraculously pulled of the biggest "terrorist" attack ever on American soil, because they don't approve of our way of life, at precisely the same time the U.S. was in desperate need of support for their upcoming invasion and subsequent seizure of Iraqi oil? (Most of you can't deny that America's "W.M.D.-turned-spreading-democracy" story is pretty weak)
You need only watch but a few minutes of CNN with an open mind to see a big fat hidden agenda shining through a transparent veneer of fear-mongering.
Edit: By the way, if what you think I'm suggesting is overkill, think about the fact that they also needed support for Afghanistan (Caspean Sea oil reserve/pipeline), our potential war with Iran, and possibly even North Korea.