Why does Australian Peak Oil authority object to discussion of the justification for Iraq and Afghan wars?

On 18 May 2009 a site visitor objected to the controversy surrounding 9/11 being raised on this web-site.

As that site visitor is considered an authority on the question of petroleum and other fossil fuels and is moderator of the Australian Yahoo Group Running on Empty, Oz (roeoz) concerned with Peak Oil, I would have thought he would have been interested to know that many authoritative people don't accept the version of events used to justify the wars that have ravaged much of the oil-rich regions of the world, but I learnt from his unsolicited post, objecting to my article Why do Larvartus Prodeo, WebDiary and other alternative news sources impede discussion of 9/11?, reproduced below, that he was not interested.

Why do Larvartus Prodeo, WebDiary and other alternative news sources impede discussion of 9/11? How about "because it's a load of rubbish..."

Frankly, I'm disappointed this subject has turned up on this blog. 9/11 truthout beliefs are like religion: you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't. In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other, which is why I too banned discussion on roeoz. End of story. There is ample material on the web to form an opinion with. Google the matter, and leave us all alone...... I'm sick to the back teeth of even mentioning it.

Mike.

As I was on holidays at the time I could not respond until 30 May. I advised him by e-mail that I had responded, but he never acknowledged my response.

Update:23 May 2011

My Google search using the term 'roez', showed up the following:

roeoz is also a 9/11 conspiracy free zone. The matter was dealt with years ago, the US Government took advantage of the incident, ...

Whether that is what Google shows to all Internet users is unclear. The full pronouncement on 9/11 on the linked Yahoo Groups page is:

roeoz is also a 9/11 conspiracy free zone. The matter was dealt with years ago, the US Government took advantage of the incident, quite likely even allowed it to happen in order to launch the wars it was already planning, so that was a conspiracy in a sense, but the conspiracy that they planned the incident or had the buildings demolished by controlled explosions is too far-fetched, unprovable over 8 years and a change of government, and tedious. This is the decision taken by all 3 moderators of this list.

Discussion on whether it is any less 'far-fetched' that three unprecedented engineering disasters all to have occurred on the one day and never before and never again since is as censored on roeoz as it is in the mainstream media.

One recent article, which may have been considered suitable for roeoz, if it were not a "9/11 conspiracy free zone" is the article Why Australia's presence in Afghanistan is untenable. Much of the article describes the grab for oil and gas by US corporations which is being facilitated by the Afghan War. Not surprisingly, it questions the 9/11 justification for the Afghan war, which is forbidden in the "roeoz 9/11 conspiracy free zone".