It's not. The Reichstag event was either a false flag operation or the act of one person, willfully misrepresented as a Communist plot. In any case, we know the Nazi penchant for false flag operations, such as pretending Poland had attacked them.
- There is no doubt the Nazis were not being honest about the actual danger to their state.
The WTC attack was an actual attack, with large loss of life, by Al-Quaeda, who explicitly claimed responsibility.
- The US government had ample justifications to take measures of some sort, although opinions about the measures that ended up being taken may differ. I am not arguing on the merits of what the Bush administration did.
Now, we could debate Patriot Act vs Nazi power grab, if this question really was about the legal measures taken by both governments, rather than casting doubt on the circumstances of the WTC attack by associating it with a known false flag incident or at least often perceived as such.
There is a whole industry of conspiracy theorists who claim that the WTC attack was not, in fact, an actual external attack, but rather somehow organized by shadowy actors in the US government or at least US-based. Like the Nazis, those conspirators would then be able to manipulate legislation having fooled the gullible into supporting them.
That is the comparison that is being made in this question: equating a possible false flag, and certainly misrepresented, Reichstag to a claimed false flag WTC. The OP denies doing so, but then goes right into 9/11 Truther mode on Tim's answer:
OP: What about the WTC building #7?
Conveniently, that sentence can be looked right up.
Furthermore, when challenged about his position on the Truther movement, the OP innocently claims not to know anything about it, but then is able to recite usual Truther talking points perfectly.
While engaging very little on the actual political analysis of legislative changes in either answer.