I don't throw that charge around lightly.
This article is a house of cards. It suggests that Bush has some interest in oil in the region and hints that he somehow staged the events of 911 to declare war on Afghanistan for pipeline reasons? PUH-LEEZE! This conclusion is based off the undocumented claims of some lefty French publication, our failure to nab Osama at a hospital, and the kicker, the "inplausibility" of terrorists attacking the US because they only killed thousands of people when they could have killed much more? That is flimsy.
This argument also sucks. bin Laden and his terrorists are not a nation-state. Just a bunch of Western-hating terrorists. The purpose of terrorism is to strike terror in a flashy and dramatic way, not necessarily to wage an actual ground war.
I can just as easily stake out the position that you are parroting what you have been led to believe by the govt and the media, and we all know what reliable sources they are. We may never know.
History, shows us that in many cases of foreign involvement (and domestic matters as well) we may actually know little of the truth. Or maybe we know it all. But, because this govt has been documented to lie to the public on more than one occasion, even what we think we know is just a theory.