There’s an arguement that 9/11 was setup in order to provide an excuse for the US to invade the middle east and secure oil reserves.
I personally don’t know how plausible something like that is, but if we genuinely were running short of oil like some commentators suggest, does this make such conspiracy arguements more plausible?
If a country ran short of oil, effects would include:
– Mass unemployment and recession (companies and industries can’t afford the increasing oil/fuel prices and so most have to downsize – leading to a knock-on effect for demand in other sectors).
– 10,000’s of elderly and poor die because they can’t afford to heat their homes in winter due to high energy prices.
– Crime would soar as people sank into poverty.
It all relies on the axiom that we’re running much shorter on oil than we’re being told, but with Bush now investing heavily in alternative & renewable energy, is it not more plausible an arguement than it first seems?
I wouldn’t dare to suggest that sacrificing people in 9/11 is acceptable in anyway, or that this is any more credible than any other explanation given for the events in 2001;
I just question whether the risk of millions losing their jobs, nation-wide economic depression and throngs of people dying through poverty related means would be enough for a government to consider faking 9/11 and securing oil until they had developed suitable alternatives?
