reply to post by paulpaulpaul
I'm not sure I agree with you.
Pre-9/11 the US economy was in post-dotcom boom dire straits. War, particularly the one we have now, which is global and seemingly perpetual, has
been a massive boon to the US economy.
Further, we were about to enter a global crossover event in that the Middle East will be producing more oil than the rest of the world's oil
producers combined. This is an event Cheney was talking about when he was CEO of Haliburton before becoming VP. In fact, he argued that up to two
thirds of the world oil will come from the Middle East by 2020.
With the US's traditional oil suppliers about to experience peak rates of production, it was strategically vital for the US to gain access to the
The rapid industrialisation of China, which is expected to double its rate of oil consumption from ~6 million bpd to ~14 mpbd over the next few years,
provided further motivation.
If world rates of oil production remain broadly stagnant, this increase in demand will threaten US access. With oil required as collateral to help
maintain the US economy, and with the US demand around 25% of total world production, it's easy to see just how critical this consideration is.
Now all of this is a gross oversimplification I know. And perhaps, before jumping to conclusions about what I know or the extent to which I've
looked into the historical backdrop to 9/11, you would be good enough to read 5 fairly lengthy articles I wrote, which were an attempt to set out the
9/11 conspiracy "why?" to someone new to the subject. Thus some of it will be a little well-worn for those who have spent time looking into the
alternative theories, but it does bring together a number of historcial and contemporary factors and shows how they are intricately woven together.
Click here for Part One
. You can navigate between consecutive
articles from there.
Rather than comment on this post directly, maybe you could challenge the material contained in these articles once you've read them.