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. Who cares if Ron Paul says 9/11 was an inside job?
It's a fact that Osama Bin Laden says he didn't do it. The FBI has no hard evidence against him. That's why the FBI doesn't want him for 9/11.
We know Hussein didn't do 9/11.
We know 19 amateurs, seven of whom are still alive, armed with box cutters, could not possibly have carried out 9/11.
We know the physics of the Official Conspiracy theory are impossible.
No steel high rise has ever collapsed due to fires. Scattered office fires can't weaken structural steel to the point of global near free fall collapse.
NIST keeps changing its explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Currently they are again pushing a variant of the "pile driver theory" coupled with an anticipated investigation into the use of explosives.
NIST's fireproofing being dislodged theory is unproven, pathetic and laughable at the same time.
The 9/11 Commission contradicts NIST in its claim that the WTC was destroyed in a "pancake collapse".
The 9/11 Commission omits the collapse of WTC7 altogether despite describing itself as the fullest possible explanation for the events of 9/11.
FEMA doesn't know why WTC7 collapsed in 7 seconds.
Neither NIST nor FEMA has provided a statistical analysis of the odds of the unprecedented event that three steel high rises would collapse in one day in the same place because of fires.
So if you're not going to buy into the official/Bush conspiracy theory, who might you think had the means and motive to do it? Well that would be Bush and co.
Daniel Richards at 8:28PM on Jul 14th 2007
167. #30 (above) writes:
"Again, if he were a legitimate candidate, he'd have taken the opportunity to slam "truthers" and the idea of a "Gulf of Tonkin" type attack."
Seriously, that is the silliest line I've read this week. Chuckles is arguing that to be legitimate, Ron Paul must insult those potential voters in his audience whom Chuckles frowns upon. Sorry, Chuckles, but Ron Paul is a gentleman campaigning for office. He's going to treat them courteously and encourage them to limit the power of government - the way he treats everyone else. This old joke of blaming candidates for whom they speak courteously to, is just not respectable after having been refuted so often for so many years. As for the absurdity of a "Gulf of Tonkin" type attack, it is named after a real incident. Why is it absurd to consider the possibility that the gang of whores who call themselves government might try the same MO again? All Ron Paul has said is that it's possible, given the nature of the current government. Would Chuckles really like to debate that point?
If Chuckles wants respect he needs to justify his faith in the goodness and integrity of the ruling class, and tell us why he does not endorce liberty, property, peace, and small government as he should.
-Ringmaster
John Howard at 9:15PM on Jul 14th 2007
168. First off, everyone who works or uses AOL is an idiot. Trust me, it shows.
Scott, you believe the official story of 911... That in itself, is a conspiracy theory! So guess what? You got a tin foil hat on your peanut head.
Ron Paul tells it like it is, and simpletons like yourself can't handle reality. So you jump on the simpleton band wagon and support what your pimps tell you to support. Congratulations, you're AOL's bitch!
Fact: 911 commission report supports Ron Paul's view on the true cause of 911, not your old limp dick boyfriend Rudy.
You have seriously made a huge mistake by accusing the next President of being a conspiracy theorist.
I urge everyone to drop AOL for supporting such ignorant employees.
-TGW
truthgonewild at 9:32PM on Jul 14th 2007
169. "It's a fact that Osama Bin Laden says he didn't do it."
No it isn't. Initial reports had OBL denying involvement. He subsequently claimed responsiblity on numerous occasions.
"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?
"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?
"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.
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html
So did the sight and sound theater in Philadelphia
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
"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.
You conspiracy nuts call those of us who are rational, sheeple. I'd suggest the only sheeple are those who read some wacko theory site and believe everything is says without actually investigating it for yourself.
Common sense alone should make you people think twice before spouting these theories. 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
170. You mean there are people still pay for AOL's "service"?
Why would anyone pay a fee to get slower internet service?
If more folks had Macs, this would be a less stupid world.
Oh yeah & Scott,.. you suck buddy.
Hank Murphy at 9:53PM on Jul 14th 2007
171. "First off, everyone who works or uses AOL is an idiot. Trust me, it shows."
Weapon #1 in the ignorant mans arsenal: baseless ad hominen...check
"Scott, you believe the official story of 911... That in itself, is a conspiracy theory! So guess what? You got a tin foil hat on your peanut head."
Weapon #2 in the ignorant mans arsenal: "I know you are but what am I". Check
"Ron Paul tells it like it is, and simpletons like yourself can't handle reality. So you jump on the simpleton band wagon and support what your pimps tell you to support. Congratulations, you're AOL's bitch!"
Weapon #3 in the ignorant mans arsenal: Make an unsubstantiated claim followed by "your a simpleton if you don't know it". Check.
"You have seriously made a huge mistake by accusing the next President of being a conspiracy theorist."
You have as much chance of being the next President as Paul does. THAT is fact.
"I urge everyone to drop AOL for supporting such ignorant employees."
Weapon #4 in the ignorant mans arsenal: Advocate repressing the speech of anyone who doesn't agree with you. Check.
Michael at 9:58PM on Jul 14th 2007
172. Boycott AOL.. Everyone who supports Ron Paul,, Cancel your AOL... Let's show them how this revolt works....
johnny at 9:59PM on Jul 14th 2007
173. Boycott AOL... All Ron Paul supporters who use AOL, cancel out... Let's show them what the Ron Paul Revolution is all about.. Boycott them as soon as you can...Many other providers out there and cheaper I might say... GO Ron Paul Revolution..
Jack at 10:03PM on Jul 14th 2007
174. "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
175. Wow! whats eating you up people,let the congressman defend himself according to this blogg piece.You all are not in unison either,listen to yourselves some says he did some says he didn't while others don't even have a glue.The truth is Ron Paul is too weak of a leader to even consider President of this nation.Get that,go do some more studies about TRUTH versus ERROR it'll enlighten you peoples mind more about our world and the pure reality.All of you sicko defending this candidate are out of touch with realities.Wake up and pour some cold water on your faces.
KaM at 3:22AM on Jul 15th 2007
176. "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
177. 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
178. 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
179. 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
180. 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? Your logic is obviously flawed dumbass. It took key people in key positions. Osama didnt stage wargames or stand-down NORAD, nor did he wire the CIA/SEC/FBI/Giuliani office building that was WTC7. You havea weak mind, we understand, but just because CNN doesnt verify or validate something for you doesnt mean it didnt happen. Wake up dummy.
Chris R. at 10:25AM on Jul 15th 2007