We've known for quite some time that Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther" (or at least supported by those who are)--one who believes that 9/11 was done with the knowledge or complicity of the Bush administration. Now he's agreeing that conspiracies that have not yet happened will in fact come to pass:
Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.
"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."
He believes that a terror attack will be staged to allow the evil Neo-cons of the Bush administration unimpeded access to attack Iran.
OK, I've had serious issues with Ron Paul's campaign. Besides his hypocrisy on earmarks and other issues, he's pretty much been...well, sane. Now, I'm not quite sure.
Here we have a presidential candidate (sure, one who is polling at 0%) who is saying on the record that he believes the current administration is capable of faking a terror attack, which will kill people, simply to advance their ideology. That's not campaigning, that's in the realm of JFK conspiracy theorists and Heavens Gate.
I was a huge critic of Bill Clinton and his policies -- including his non-action when the embassies and the USS Cole were attacked. I would never, ever, suggest that Clinton was capable of staging an attack to push his policies through. Maybe I'm naive in that assumption about any government official, but for Ron Paul to even consider this -- let alone say it out loud and on the air--is inconceivable to the average American.
Ron Paul's campaign has attracted a large Internet following, one that is boisterous and vocal (watch the comments to this post), but to think that they could defend this is preposterous and downright scary. The thought of the Ron Paul Brigades in tin hats is, of course, amusing though.
Reader Comments ( Page 12 of 22)
166. "Boycott AOL... All Ron Paul supporters who use AOL, cancel out..."
I'm not a fan of AOL, but I doubt they are concerned with losing the 8 people you are urging to boycott them...
Michael at 10:27PM on Jul 14th 2007
167. "The FBI has no hard evidence against him. That's why the FBI doesn't want him for 9/11."
Huh? He's been on the FBIs most wanted list ever since 9/11. And how exactly are you privy to what evidence they do or don't have?
Guess what Micheal? Im tired, i dont have time to knock down all of your lies in support of the "official" fairy tale of 9/11, but heres one until tomorrow when i shred the rest:
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm
OOOPPPSSS!!!!! Why do you shill?
Chris R. at 11:01PM on Jul 14th 2007
168. Oh, and Micheal, since I know you only trust "certain" sources, heres the FBI page:
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.(huh? they dont list 9/11? "other" attacks? thats the best they can do? is that good enough for you shill-boy?)
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Chris R. at 11:02PM on Jul 14th 2007
169. The author is clearly ill-informed, as well as biased. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't make it false. The truth is still the truth whether you admit it or not.
Gulf of Tonkin was a staged event--google it. We had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor--google it. We had prior knowledge of 9-11--google it. The (un)Patriot Acts 1 & 2, and the Military Commissions Act, have decimated our civil liberties--google it.
Out of the possible candidates, Ron Paul is the only Hope for America!
Dan at 11:04PM on Jul 14th 2007
170. It seems that the tactic here is to slander Dr. Paul instead of confronting the facts that he presents to support his ideas. The Gulf of Tonkin is a serious warning to all of us that staged false flag terrorism is the vehicle the warmongers use to push their adgenda. Do you have an answer to that? Are you denying this historical event happened?
Rick at 11:04PM on Jul 14th 2007
171. @Michael at 9:57PM on Jul 14th 2007
Please do some proper research before you engage in misinformation and disinformation the kind which has been repeatedly debunked. You guys should try something new. I must say I was actually surprised though, by your mention of McCormick. Hardly anyone from your side brings that one up anymore.
Remember evidence, not insults and shoddy research, is the key:
>>>Initial reports had OBL denying involvement. He subsequently claimed responsibility on numerous occasions.
Really? When? Where? Besides, conflicting testimony from a suspect renders the testimony inadmissable.
Here's Bin Laden saying he's innocent
http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm
Pakistan said the U.S. must furnish proof of Bin Laden's guilt before they handed him over to the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1543135.stm
They never did.
Besides, you eve heard of a false confession? Google it.
>>>"We know the physics of the Official Conspiracy theory are impossible."
Incorrect. It has happened before, despite your crowds long and loud claims to the contrary.>>"No steel high rise has ever collapsed due to fires."
Incorrect. The steel framed McCormick center in Chicago collapsed from this EXACT scenario in 1968.>
So did the sight and sound theater in Philadelphia>He's been on the FBIs most wanted list ever since 9/11.>"We know 19 amateurs, seven of whom are still alive"
There has never ever been any credible evidence to support this ridiculous claim. Only unsubstantiated eyewitness claims. Don't you think if this were true these men would come out and prove to the world they weren't involved?>"Scattered office fires can't weaken structural steel to the point of global near free fall collapse."
It didn't fall anywhere near free-fall. The camera angle you are looking at is only one side of the building. The other side collapsed first as has been proven. Where have you been?.>"NIST keeps changing its explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2."
Thats how science works. Hypothesis are changed as more information and experimentation is presented.>"The 9/11 Commission contradicts NIST in its claim that the WTC was destroyed in a "pancake collapse"."
Except NIST never made such a claim. In fact NIST stated that the pancake effect was the RESULT of the collapse, not the CAUSE of it. You fellas really need some reading comprehension classes.>>"FEMA doesn't know why WTC7 collapsed in 7 seconds."
Probably because is didn't collapse in 7 seconds.
Uhh, yeah it did. Please go to Google video or Youtube and show me where the WTC7 collapsed more quickly than 7 seconds.
Are you going to show me the footage of the penthouse collapsing first? Then please show me how the penthouse collapse precedes the fall of WTC7 itself. What cause the collapse of the penthouse?
Daniel Richards at 11:13PM on Jul 14th 2007
172. What a sophomoric little hit-job. Are Americans truly such fools to you? Yet, such a shallow diatribe lacks the punch needed to affront at human level. But I'm afraid you have insulted every other species which suckle their young.
You are a rank shill for the status quo. Your pestilent enthusiasm to bring down a real man, Ron Paul, belies a glaring fear of him and the masters who sway your quill. You're a pathetic, insipid, sycophantic wisp and your copy is repugnant.
You Sir, are no patriot. And you, with the assistance of all of the other useless, phony, mainstream-media-groomed, hero-worshiped, corporate-slave "candidates", could not wipe the sweat off Ron Paul's balls.
Remember the USS Liberty.
mike williams at 11:50PM on Jul 14th 2007
173. Well, Scott, you obviously are oblivious to Operation Northwoods and other terroristic acts our own government has either planned or carried out with the purpose of gaining support for wars or to increase poll numbers. Why dont you try READING and STUDYING history--instead of just giving an OPINION. The Gulf of Tonkin incident NEVER HAPPENED. It was ADMITTED it didnt happen----RESEARCH pal, RESEARCH
911truth at 12:15AM on Jul 15th 2007
174. "Guess what Micheal? Im tired, i dont have time to knock down all of your lies in support of the "official" fairy tale of 9/11, but heres one until tomorrow when i shred the rest:"
You guys will grasp at anything and try to make it "prove" your theory. Problem is, another popular theory is that Bush was obviously involved because supposedly George H W Bush was with one of UBLs brothers on the morning of 9-11-01.
The fools you follow set it up so either way they are "right". Either UBL was not involved, "proving" a U.S. conspiracy, or if he was involved then family ties to the Bush family "prove" the U.S. had prior knowledge, thus conspiracy. It's a no lose proposition for you guys. Very cult like.
Next you'll be telling me how Bush Sr. was involved in the assassination of JFK and behind the attempt on Reagan.
Let me ask you this. If there is even a shred of validity to the claims you folks make, why hasn't there been a single legitimate news organization inquiry? Don't you think such a story would be an investigative reporters dream? Or is the media part of the cover-up, too? This conspiracy keeps getting bigger and bigger...
Michael at 12:16AM on Jul 15th 2007
175. Scott is a paid operative. Scott,
Who do you work for?
Who pays you?
Who asked you to write this article?
Here is the link to Scott's web site:
http://www.environmentalrepublican.blogspot.com/
Research this person, you will ultimately determine is real agenda.
In the mean time, don't play by their rules. They are attempting to get people off of the liberty message and on to a defensive posture. Stick to the vision that we all want, don't let these scum take you off track.
Navari at 12:17AM on Jul 15th 2007
176. "Please do some proper research before you engage in misinformation and disinformation the kind which has been repeatedly debunked."
Were you talking to me or yourself here?
"You guys should try something new. I must say I was actually surprised though, by your mention of McCormick. Hardly anyone from your side brings that one up anymore."
I'm not on any "side" but McCormick is a great example that destroys the theory that fire alone can't cause a steel framed high rise building to collapse. I'm from Chicago and that instance sprang immediately to mind the first time I heard the ridiculous theory "Steel framed building can't fall from fire".
>>>Initial reports had OBL denying involvement. He subsequently claimed responsibility on numerous occasions.
"Really? When? Where? Besides, conflicting testimony from a suspect renders the testimony inadmissable."
I see you are now not only the investigator, but also the prosecutor and the judge.
You guys also like to bring up the quote from FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. None of you ever post his quote explaining it, though:
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
No mystery here at all. He clearly states they COULD charge him with 9/11 but choose not to for strategic reasons. But you guys never, ever print this.
Why is that? Simple, that would put CONTEXT to the situation. You guys can't print anything that harms your already shaky theories.
"Pakistan said the U.S. must furnish proof of Bin Laden's guilt before they handed him over to the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1543135.stm"
They never did."
Wow. Just wow. For starters it was AFGHANISTAN not Pakistan. That is a MAJOR distinction as Pakistan has been working with us on his capture from the beginning. For you not to know the difference is telling.
It wasn't the Government of Afghanistan, it was the TALEBAN who insisted on "proof". Being as how the Taleban was an invading force financed largely by UBL there is no evidence in the world that would have gotten them to turn him over.
"Besides, you eve heard of a false confession? "
Is that a joke? You ever heard of a guilty man originally pleading not guilty?
"Uhh, yeah it did. Please go to Google video or Youtube and show me where the WTC7 collapsed more quickly than 7 seconds."
Uhhh, WTC 7 started collapsing 3 hours before the final collapse, why would I try to show it took less than 7 seconds?
Video without context shows nothing. Here's an experiment for you. Go to blockbuster and rent a movie you've never seen. Fast forward to somewhere in the middle of the movie and watch 3 minutes of it. Turn the movie off then write a report on the whole movie.
Michael at 12:18AM on Jul 15th 2007
177. Im responding to Michael from post 122. He said the McCormick Fire proves that a steel-framed building DID collapse once. WRONG. Although the McCormick building ROOF collapsed---it was not a TOTAL collapse of the building like the Twin Towers were. Thats what we're talking about when we say "there has never been a steel framed building collapse due to fire". We are talking about TOTAL collapses. We sometimes site the Windsor building in Madrid that burned in 2005----a SECTION of this building collapsed, but it wasnt a TOTAL collapse like the towers were, and neither was the McCormick Place building. Get your facts straight before posting----you embarrassed yourself. Oh, and the McCormick Fire was in 1967, not 1968--he even got the year wrong! Watch the film of WTC collapsing---you said it didnt collapse in 7 seconds...youre right..it was more like 6 seconds. Then, Michael doesnt provide PROOF of his claim. OUR proof is in the freaking VIDEO of it! Why would you embarrass yourself and say it didnt collapse in 7 seconds when there is VIDEO of it! The twin towers collapsed werent free fall speed? They collapsed in TEN seconds! THERES VIDEO OF IT! Ive seen the films 100 times----its TEN seconds! TEN! If TEN seconds ISNT free fall time are you saying that free fall time is FASTER than TEN seconds? How?? For YOUR information, even the FBI doesnt pin 9-11 on Bin Laden! go to www.fbi.gov----look at Bin Ladens profile---it doesnt mention 9-11 as one of his crimes----HMMMMMMMM, I wonder why?????? NO EVIDENCE---THATS WHY. Bin Laden was a CIA operative. His CIA name was Tim Osman----google it. The official story of 9-11 is a conspiracy. The question is: Which conspiracy do you believe? That 19 cave dwellers outsmarted the strongest and best military, the best intelligence and defense agencies in the WORLD? How could a plane be ALLOWED to hit the Pentagon? The most survielled and protected building in THE WORLD??? You believe our agencies and defense systems were that weak? It takes MORE faith to believe YOUR theory!
911truth at 12:37AM on Jul 15th 2007
178. "Down with corporate media (FOX, ABC, CNN, We The People Are Watching You). You shills will pay one day for selling out the American people.
Hopefully your kind will pay the price in the form of a mass mob of pitchfork wieldin' conspiracy "nuts" that ram down your doors and burn every single fascist, sell-out scumbag institution that dare promote such warmongering, disinfo. garbage like the article we have here."
The entirety of the Media is now in on the conspiracy.
The defense rests.
Michael at 12:44AM on Jul 15th 2007
179. Do realize the sheer number of people that would have to be involved in a conspiracy of the nature you suggest? And you believe none of these people would have talked by now? Or exposed the plan beforehand?
Michael at 9:57PM on Jul 14th 2007
"the sheer number? like 19 guys directed by Osama? that sheer number?"
Um, nope. The sheer number it would take to first pull off a Government conspiracy then the number it would take to cover it up. We aren't talking about a handful of people here. We are talking thousands who would have had to have knowledge of at least part of the plan.
"Your logic is obviously flawed dumbass."
Obviously?
"It took key people in key positions."
Please do name these key positions. Please don't leave any out.
"Osama didnt stage wargames or stand-down NORAD,"
War games are staged nearly daily. Nobody told NORAD to stand down. Where do you people get this crap? Have you bothered to READ what actually happened RE: NORAD?
"nor did he wire the CIA/SEC/FBI/Giuliani office building that was WTC7."
Wire? Are you working from the assumption that WTC7 was a controlled demolition as fact?
Michael at 12:44AM on Jul 15th 2007
180. idiot Michael got that from www.debunking911.com----the idiots website. I notice on that website when they talk about the McCormick Place building and the Sight and Sound building, they show NO pictures of it----and they give NO examples of buildings that have TOTAL collapses like the towers were. They even site the Madrid building as a defense for THEM---when its actually a defense for US, because that building burned for 24 straight hours and the WHOLE building burned, and even after 24 hours of the ENTIRE buidling on fire, only a small section collapsed----understandable since it burned for a DAY STRAIGHT and it was the ENTIRE building----but yet the frame remained and it wasnt a TOTAL collapse---and they have the nerve to use that as THEIR defense! LOL!
911truth at 12:46AM on Jul 15th 2007