The problem with the very tenuous link between M.Ahmad and CIA

[Undesired Walrus]

Don't you first have to establish why you suspect the CIA in 9/11 complicity? Has there been any reason to suspect that department in particular?

 

[Gravy]

Dude, they're the CIA. You know they were up to something.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Apart from not proving anything whatsover, it gives conspiracy theorists more of an excuse to act like they know what is going on in the world. This entire theory must sound very sexy to them, as it sounds like they know something you don't know. When really, they know jack all.

 

[proxywar]

Lmao!

 

[bonkey]

Don't you first have to establish why you suspect the CIA in 9/11 complicity?

I don't think so. Indeed, isn't that exactly the reverse of much criticism offered to many CT theories?

Surely its a case that you should first show a link and then consider whether or not such a link has significance?

For me, the problem with the very tenuous link is that its a very tenuous link. Regardless of whether or not someone is convinced that the CIA played a central role, and why they believe that, the reality is that the evidence of them being involved is - as you say - very tenuous.