Critical_Mind, I hope you weren't referring to me. I was simply offering my opinion, not trying to be disrespectful of Khebab (who's work I not only respect, but thoroughly appreciate.)

I was just responding to a comment... I thought that's what the comment section was for. Comments and discussion. I hate to be smug, but I think I'm right (like most people).

Sometimes when someone responds to a comment I've posted I feel the need to engage the person's comment further so as to expound my analysis and/or position. And I think I have done so, now let my text speak for itself.

There is a disconcerting tendency for people that accept peak oil being a reality to concurrently hold unfounded conspiratorial beliefs about 9/11.

This is a problem for the TOD community, and the "movement" as a whole as it discredits much of the hard work that you are imploring us to respect. I humbly believe it is important for anyone who takes peak oil seriously to vocally distance themselves from the the so-called "theories" of the 9/11 truth meme. It needs to be stated that 9/11 may have been taken advantage of (to invade Iraq) on dubious premises, but that does not in any way somehow implicate Dick Cheney in giving Mr. Atta the "go" command (and don't ask my opinion of Cheney...) It needs to be stated in somewhat arguably-important venues that this is uncalled for, and damages not only the Left, but peak oil awareness as well. A quick google of "peakoil" and "9/11" will come up with some pretty discrediting stuff and is a superficial and easy (yet effective) way for propagandists to filter and diminish *critical* thought when it comes to "energy and our future", as the TOD masthead says.

I do preemptively apologize for adding yet even more clutter, but this is the goddamn internet--give me a break!

Grey: Neither topic is appropriate here IMO but most 9/11 bloggers do specifically relate the events to fossil fuel depletion (necessitating Iraq oil grab).