OK, I like Obama… he looks like a dude you could trust to runa country, and I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here. If he’s not corrupt then he is definitely a pawn for the big corporations.

I don’t understand why he got a peace prize? For taking troops out of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan? That doesn’t really equal peace does it? Especially because doing this is completely self serving for OPEC and other corrupt organisations.

You see, now that they have stopped Saddam drilling his own oil to use for his own country (like he watched the UAE do), they need to secure Afghanistan to allow a oil and gas pipeline to run through the country.

To run a pipeline through the country they need to get rid of the Taliban because they’re not really down with a pipeline. That is one of the supporting factors of 9/11 being a false flag operation. Talks with the Taliban about putting a pipeline through were breaking down before 9/11. A war on terror (and the Taliban) was a perfect excuse to take out those standing in the way of the pipeline. Not to mention the fact that the Taliban had destroyed all the poppy fields slowing the supply of heroin into America, and thus slowing the need for drug war spending (this is bad, the law enforcement agencies would lose their jobs with no drugs/users to confiscate/apprehend).

So back to the point of the of the story… it would seem Obama is sending US troops back into Afghanistan to make sure the Taliban are kept down. This in turn allows for a stable country for a pipeline to carry oil and gas from the resource rich countries north of Afghanistan, down to the sea for American ships to take as they please.

The problem here is that the country is not stable. Even if the Taliban are kept down, the country is in pretty bad shape since America invaded. Infrastructure and housing are needed and all promised aid has not arrived. This makes for desperate people living in poverty, and they are going to grow up angry at America because they dropped bombs on their houses and didn’t repair them.

Which is completely understandable right? If America invaded my country I would be fighting back. Some would label that being a terrorist, but I would label that being terrorized. America are the real terrorists in this world.

So basically it all comes back to greedy oil companies taking valuable resources from smaller countries that can’t protect themselves, with the help of the American Government/Army (aka Terrorists/Bullies), under the veil of The War On Terror. With utter disregard for the deaths of soldiers and civilians – they just want their money.

You got that? The only terrorist threat comes from America… everyone else is just a desperate patriot trying to fight back against the military industrial complex that has targeted their country and is stealing their resources.

Patriots exist in places other than the USA you know…

If no one else has thought about this (heaps of people probably have) then I think that the 911 ‘truthers’ should resort to asking question, no accusing people and telling elaborate conspiracy theories. That is how you get labelled a truther nutcase.

If you ask questions, and the person you are talking to is not just ignoring you and actually thinks about it, then they are more likely to understand why a new investigation must take place.

Don’t push a conspiracy theories onto people, it’ll just push them further the other way.

P.S. You can also use questions instead of statements to convert christians to athiests. It can also turn an argument into 20 questions.

Right… so I was watching a documentary the other night on 911 by the National Geographic, and I have to say I have re-thought some aspects of the whole “conspiracy”.

I’m the guy with “911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB” written across the back of his van, and to be honest, I have had more nods of agreement/thumbs up etc, than I’ve had people look at me and shake their heads or whatever. But more often than not people do nothing.

I don’t actually believe anything definite anymore. I can only guess because I don’t actually know and I am on the other side of the world. Sure I watched Loose Change and agreed with some things but the problem is people go nuts at conspiracy theorists because they have a big conspiracy theory story of how it all played out when there is no way anyone can actually know what happened (especially The 9/11 Commission with their limited funding, limited access and lack of subpoena power).

What I do believe is that there are lots of fishy things surrounding the events of 911. But I’m no longer going to try to make up a story. I’m just going to look at all the things that don’t add up and go “Hmmm, thats a bit fishy. Someone should look into this,” and inform people about the things that don’t add up.

So, here is a couple of things that ARE fishy about 911, sans-conspiracy theories.

1. Where did the molten metal underneath the Towers come from?
2. Why did the 911 Commission only get $12m for the investigation (compared to $65m for Clintons blowjob investigation)
3. Why didn’t the 911 Commission have subpoena power?
4. Why were there reports of explosions coming from beneath the towers, after the planes hit?
5. Why have no other skyscrapers in the history of mankind collapsed from fire?
6. Why do they say jet fuel burns really hot and melted the steel when we saw a crapload of jetfuel explode OUTSIDE the buildings?
7. If the floors in the WTC “pancaked” on top of each other like they said, causing the collapse, how come the center column isn’t still standing?
8. What are the chances of three skyscrapers of two different construction types (WTC1+2 & WTC7), all collapsing from fires on the same day?
9. If there was no jetfuel in WTC7, and burning jetfuel is what actually bought the twin towers down, what made WTC7 collapse?
10. Why is there no wreckage from United 93 in the field in Pensylvania?
11. Why was the video footage of the pentagon crash confiscated when video footage of the twin towers was allowed?

Thats all I have for now. I think there are enough questions out there however to warrant a new investigation into the events to answer the questions that the public wants to know. Who disagrees?

Well, I dunno if its new or not, but I’ve never heard it said before even though I’ve watched the last two Loose Change movies.

Anyway, the guy is talking about it being a planned demolition and shows some stock footage of the some dude cutting into a steel girder with a gas axe (diagonally). The voice says that this is to weaken the steel so that the centre columns of the building will come down with it.

The next thing it cuts to this photo of a steel girder at ground zero after the collapse and there’s a freaking DIAGONAL CUT IN THE GIRDER but nothing left above. I was like HOLY SHIT!!! I’ve wondered how the huge central steel column box on the tower didn’t stay standing. Because the official report said each floor pancaked onto the next one until they all hit the ground. If that happened the central steel columns should still be standing right? Thats why.

Some pics that kind of show it are:

• Maybe the ones between the man and the diggers
• Right middle sun is shining right on one
• Middle

Just look for cut steel girders, they’ll be like a rectangle like you cut a box in half and are looking inside. Also, notice how badly damaged the buildings around it are from fire and trade centres falling on them and they aren’t collapsed..?

Yeah weird.