Thank you for the valuable info! Puts things into perspective.

Dash it all, I hate to make myself obstreperous by taking on Our Esteemed Host, but I think a few correctives are in order.

1. First of all, 9/11 was not a lie. It was not an inside job, and it was not perpetrated by the United States government. It was a terrorist attack carried out by militant Islamists, like the sort who are currently gaining the upper hand in Libya (I'll get back to that in a minute). The US government is a criminal organization that has deserved deposition many times over, but its guilt in the 9/11 massacre extends no further than, perhaps, its legacy of negligence and foolishness. They didn't do this one. We may justly accuse people only of the crimes of which they are actually guilty, not of every malfeasance under the sun. These rash accusations only make us look ridiculous and lessen the credibility of anything else we have to say.

2. Concerning the "lie" about Middle Eastern oil imports to the US, it is rather a strange sort of lie that is told by nobody and believed by none. You've cited a list of the top 10 nations exporting oil to the US, and you did well to do so. Apart from the fact that the link you've provided denies me access when I try to click on it, and that some of the totals are not correct and the relative rankings of the countries needs to be juggled, I take your point that the Middle East does not supply a majority of US oil imports. But do I really need to point out that anybody who is even moderately conversant in economics, or in physics and engineering, or who works in the oil industry or its subsidiary fields, or is merely interested in global trade patterns, already knows this stuff? The information is not secret at all. Millions of people all over the world pay very careful attention to the oil industry. Petrochemicals, being a both a primary source of energy and a raw material for the production of diverse consumptibles, is one of the keystone industries which are necessary to the operations of all the rest. All those bankers and financiers and industrialists whom Traddies seem to hate so much, are ever aware of the state of the oil markets, because their capital and the fate of their enterprises are bound up with them. Do you really think that the CEO of an airline or a shipping company does not know where his fuel is coming from? Are oil refineries ignorant of the source of their input streams? Does he who purchases a contract for the future delivery of such-and-such an amount of oil, not know with whom he has contracted to fulfill the delivery? And what about all those drillers, truckers, stevedores, construction workers, mechanics, geologists, engineers, accountants, lawyers, and those of sundry other trades whose work supports the oil industry -- do they not know who they are working for, or where? Do oil exporting countries not want to sell oil abroad, and therefore advertise the contracts they are able to fufill (which is quite a different matter than being perfectly candid about one's recoverable reserves)? Are there not numerous national, international, industry, and private groups who make it their business to report facts concerning world energy resources (and from every point on the ideological spectrum, nonetheless)? And if all this weren't enough to let the diligent researcher impart some small amount of transparency to the murky underworld of global oil trades -- an underworld so murky, moreover, that the contracts for its primary product are tracked in real time and made public by numerous commodities exchanges all over the globe -- we have the additional benefit that these facts and figures are already printed in every almanac, every encyclopedia, every web site and trade publication pertaining to this line of work. Just do a bit of websurfing, and you'll be deluged in information like junk from a cartoon closet. Yes, the "lie" of Middle Eastern oil certainly has snowed a bunch of people, but only those who do not spend much time dealing with reality. Some of the correspondents to this forum might want to try that once in a while.

Oil is fascinating stuff. Once you've taken an interest in it, you'll be in for a lifetime of satisfying study. Whether you like the geology of oil fields, the organic chemistry of hydrocarbons, the intricate process of oil refining, the role that oil has played in the history of our time, the geopolitical intrigue attending oil production and consumption, the sheer difficulty and scope of building an international oil pipeline, the sociological effects of the automobile, or whatever else it is, there are few subjects which encompass the entire breadth and depth of the modern world quite like oil. But you must confine yourself to the facts, which are the only really interesting things anyway. Conspiracy theories are cheap, shallow, and boring; being the mirror of ourselves, they can't be otherwise. The facts are the mirror of a much larger world in which it is possible to have real adventures. Enjoy the ride.

3. Concerning the Libya connection, it seems to me that once you've digested the information that the Middle East does not supply the majority of US oil, it actually redounds to the undermining of that heuristic whereby you've managed to convince yourself that 9/11 was an inside job. The connection between the two statements is very tenuous to begin with, the dependancy between them anything but absolute; but I've noticed that most people who believe the one, tend to believe the other as well; and in any case, it was you who first drew the parallel. Wtness:

The supply from the Middle East to the USA is lie just like 9/11. And Libya is not even on the lists.

Who has been making the case that the NATO campaign against Khaddafi had, as its principal aim, that of securing Libyan oil exports to the United States? Nobody, as far as I know. If one were truly conspiracy-minded, it makes more sense to say that France and Italy wanted to secure their own oil imports. After all they were very willing to use military force against Libya; and unlike the US, Europe really does receive a majority of its oil from MENA countries. The light sweet crude produced by Libya comports better with the European refinery system and the underlying European consumer base. Light sweet crude produces a heavier diesel cut when refined than does sour, West Texas Intermediate crude. Most European cars use diesel, while most American cars use gasoline. This makes oil a fungible asset, but only partially so. The US refinery system isn't really set up to handle Libyan crude at the prices we're used to paying for refined products. We would basically be buying lemon, but the Europeans would get a windfall. However, what does Europe stand to benefit by turning Libya over to avowed Islamists who are trying to convert the country into a Sharia state, an "Afghanistan on the Med?" Geopolitically this was very dangerous. Someone was being either incredibly malicious or incredibly stupid when they pulled the trigger on Khadaffi. (For what it's worth, I supported Khaddafi and I am absolutely sickened by the way this thing went down. I also find it profitable to recall that he was within an ace of crushing the rebellion before NATO came to the support of these murderous al Qaeda thugs.) Yet whatever the motive was, whoever's the motive was, it could not possibly be the same as the motive the US government had for carrying out the 9/11 attacks against itself, according to those who allege that it did so. The narratives are too divergent. Consider that:

i) The 9/11 Truthers contend that 9/11 was a fαℓѕє fℓαg operation which set up the invasion of Iraq. However, France (and Europe generally, except for Italy in the person of Berlusconi) was rather opposed to the Iraq invasion, while France was the principal antagonist in the strikes against Khadaffi.

ii) Islamic militants were the primary targets in the 'War on Terror' conducted under Bush. This is true on anybody's reckoning. But in Mr. Obama's wars, they seem to be the primary beneficiaries of US assistance.

iii) Mr. Bush alleged that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Truthers guffaw at the very mention of this, considering it to be manifest nonsense. But even if it is nonsense, it is at least telling that Bush brought the most plausible charge he could invent for his fαℓѕє fℓαg operation. No such charge will work against Khaddafi: He willing gave up his weapons programs after the invasion of Iraq.

No, apparently Khadaffi was simply murdered by someone who wanted him gone. But who, and why? I'll leave that for a future discussion, since it is not the subject of the present one. The subject of the present discussion is the manner in which people assign blame and attribute motives to others, especially to large, inchoate organizations such as governments, the banking industry, the Zionists, etc. It seems in this case that these assignations have not been derived from evidence, but from certain global assumptions about how the world happens to work, and who is pulling the strings behind what curtain. Not that this isn't a common human failing; and a failing, moreover, which has so much utility in the ordinary course of life that one hesitates to even call it a failing (I referred to it as a "heuristic" above). Yet "great is truth, and it prevaileth." It is not wrong to arrive at false beliefs once in a while, but we must be willing to modify our beliefs when the facts are against them.

There is, I submit, no good reason for believing that 9/11 was an inside job. There is no reason for believing that anybody lied about the magnitude of Middle Eastern oil imports, especially when the opposite is common knowledge. And there is no reason for connecting Libya to any of this, unless one has simply amalgamated all governments, all businesses and Zionists together in one's head as members of a single, unified, shadowy oppressor class. The very factiousness of the world argues against that move, just as the existence of an oil market argues against lies about where the oil comes from.