I don’t have any figures handy about the cost of such projects. But a couple of months ago, I searched some informations about this pipeline issue, and I can tell you that the planned costs were readily available on many web sites.
Actually, there was tons of different projects to ship this central-asian oil (to Russia, China, Iran, under the Caspian sea, the Oman sea, etc…). The issue wasn’t actually the cost but who/what country would benefit from the shipment. For more or less obvious reasons, Russia, China or Iran weren’t an option for american oil companies. So, there was only two option left for them. Through Afghanistan or to Turkey under the Caspian sea. Considering that the Turkish option was acted upon, despite it meaning that the pipe-line would have to be build under a sea, to cross peaceful places like Azerbaidjan and would end-up in a part of Turkey where separatist movement operates, the risk/costs didn’t seem to have been a major issue.
Once again, I don’t remember any figure. But I do remember that the annual fees which would have been payed to Pakistan just to ship this gas through the country (from Afghanistan to India) in one of these project represented a sizeable amount when compared to the cost of building the pipe-line through Afghanistan. Which hinted at an extremely juicy operation, and let me think that the cost of the pipe-line itself was neglectible as compared to the value of the gas. And helped me understand why one would actually want to build such a pipe-line in the middle of a war-torn country, which was an absolute mistery for me up to this point.
Just type “pipe line” and “Afghanistan” in a search engine, then surf and you should easily find many infos (including infos provided by the oil companies which plan to build such pipelines, speeches by political figures in this region, etc…)
I don’t believe there ever was one to begin with. Perhaps a GD; isn’t that where people ought to go if they must babble about (or just link to) conspiracy theories?
Even assuming the facts in that quote are accurate, so what? If such tenuous evidence is all it takes, I could probably prove that Britney Spears was behind the whole thing.
Ease up. There is nothing wrong with challenging the accepted popular opinion. We may never know the whole truth. BUT…
Let’s just examine the question, and say for argument’s sake it is a possibility. I think if you want to believe that the CIA is up to something sinister, that’s one thing. Whatever motive the CIA may have had, I stop short of believing they would have to kill 3000 of their own people in order to achieve it. Even these “evil conspirators” have GOT to see that this is ‘overkill’ . Sorry for the bad pun.
What do the people/groups accusing the CIA have to gain by attempting to implicate them?
Jesus H. R. Puffinstuff on a stick, is that the best you can do? By the article’s own admission, “Buzzy” hadn’t been at A. B. Brown in four years, when it was acquired by Banker’s Trust, which was itself later taken over by Deuche Bank. All it did was process the put orders, it didn’t actually make any money off of the puts being financially viable, so the nine million dollars it mentions is just hogwash. The article claims that there was no news to justify the put/call ratio, but it was well known that UAL was already having trouble and so a large put/call ratio was to be expected. So, puts were already on the increase, DB had no significant financial motive for increasing the number of puts, and “Buzzy” had no financial interest in DB, even if there was, and so the CIA has three really good reasons why it didn’t really give a damn what happened to UAL on 9/11.
So try this on for size:
Masoud, the Northern Alliance general. was assasinated by Al Qaeda operatives who held Al-Jazeera credentials. Al-Jazeera’s Western counterpart is CNN, which has enjoyed a much increased viewership since 9/11. So, clearly CNN had ties to Al Qaeda and had a motive for the 9/11 bombing, increased revenues. These increased revenues have allowed its parent company, Time Warner AOL to invest more money into advertising its various media distributions including, but not limited to Crossroads, the movie starring one of its musical stars, Britany Spears, who was also due to release a feel-good album later that year, Overprotected. So, clearly she had a financial interest in the event, and there exists a recent link between her and Al Qaeda, something even your article can’t do.
leighanimate–a question: Are you affiliated in any way with the Militia movement?
Because, this sounds like some of the deliberately disseminated anti-US propaganda they’ve been fooling the more gullible members of the public with for the last few years.
I, like some others don’t have the patience to read through all, of the links provided that support this conspiracy theory. But after scanning the OP’s site, titled “CONSPIRACY THEORY 101”, I am inclined to think it is a joke poking fun at conspricaty theorists.
Most CONSPIRACY THEORISTS don’t want to be labeled as one, since it tends to de legitimize there claim as kookie before they even get to explain themselves.
Usually they have their own agenda, and take random coincidences (seeBORDELOND’s post) and twist them to make them suit their needs.
I repeat the last question: What political group are you affiliated with? It’s a free country, go ahead, come on—you can tell us!
Not affiliated with any political group. Neither democrat nor conservative will have me.
It’s called Conspiracy Theory 101 because that’s what it is, a primer about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Not all of them (there’s no “Hunt the Boeing” or “Flight 93 was shot down!” stuff on it, just Carlyle Group/CIA/Li-kashing/Enron stuff. It’s there for people who suspect that there’s more to 9/11 than we’ve been told. There are plenty of people who are curious, this website lays out information for them. That’s all. No point in being deceptive about it by trying to make it look like it’s “not a conspiracy site”.
A lot of people are interested, a lot of people think it’s stupid. To each his own, eh?
