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 14 of 22)
196. Funniest thing is how this faggot had to write "just wait for the replies" knowing full well that most people weren't gonna buy his b.s.
Dave at 2:21AM on Jul 15th 2007
197. "http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
That's how I'm privy to what the FBI knows. It can't convict Bin laden in a court of law or anywhere else for that matter. It says so itself."
Maybe I'm missing something here, but where exactly on that page does it say anything remotely close to that?
"Yes there is much evidence to support the continued existence of the some of the hijackers. The BBC, Guardian and Telegraph have all carried stories about them. If it's a case of mistaken identity why has the FBI not updated the hijacker list?"
Update it to what? If it was stolen identity then how would the FBI know who they actually were?
"We know the physics of the Official Conspiracy theory are impossible. Prove that fires brought the buildings down"
Every investigation says they did. Structural engineers say they can and did. You prove they didn't.
"I just love it when you guys bring up the McCormick
There's no comparison between the McCormick and WTC 1,2 and 7
Unlike McCormick, The twin towers were intense grid-like structures with 47 vast steel-reinforced pillars running up the middle."
Um, source? This is completely inaccurate. WTC was designed to be large open space. It had no legitimate inner support beams or walls.
"They were over-engineered and designed to take "multiple impacts of jetliners," according to WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini."
Uh huh...because he expected such to happen while he was building them, right? Sounds to me like a guy who doesn't want blame for faulty design.
"The buildings fell at near free fall speed. Watch any video. You will see a collapse time of 10-12 seconds. NIST itself says on page 305 that the south tower fell in ten seconds. However, I will humor you. Let's say the towers fell in twenty five seconds. How did the top part (using NIST's current explanation), the lightest part of the building, smash through each structurally reinforced floor below it all the way down to the bottom without violating the laws of conservation of energy and momentum? Make sure to mention that the lower part of the structure is the heaviest part since it must hold the largest upper sections."
NIST never ever claimed pancaking CAUSED the collapse. They claim it was a RESULT of the collapse.
"NIST keeps changing its explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. You say this is"how science works. Hypothesis are changed as more information and experimentation is presented."
Well you're wrong. That's how failure to divine the obvious works. NIST has refused to consider the hundreds of eyewitness accounts, police and fireman included, of explosions."
Explosions in a 110 story building that is burning is evidence of a demolition to you? Every single floor of those buildings had natural gas running to them. Gas generators were present. Not to mention huge chunks of concrete falling on top of each other would certainly give off a sound very similar to an explosion.
"Nor has it even acknowledged the documented presence of molten steel at the WTC site weeks after the collapses."
You are aware that the steel structure was CUT UP after the collapse for the purpose of being able to move it, right? If you knew anything about cutting steel, you'd be fully aware that doing so CREATES the "molten steel" you speak of.
"The NIST investigation was incomplete and fraudulent from the outset. It makes itself irrelevant right out of the gate by stating its mission is not to explain the collapse in its entirety but rather confines itself to the conditions prior to onset of collapse. The NIST report essentially a “pre-collapse” theory: "[the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12;
The report does not explain what happens after the collapse began.
Just who on earth does NIST think that will satisfy? If you can't explain the mechanics of the entire collapse sequence, why bother with the report at all? It's like a doctor writing up a report for a murder victim stating that he would only tell you what happened up until the bullet first made impact with the victim's body but tell you nothing of the damage the bullet actually did to the victim to cause his death."
If the gunshot victim were reduced to a pile of dust after being shot that's pretty much all the coroner COULD come up with.
"The 9/11 Commission contradicts NIST in its claim that the WTC was destroyed in a "pancake collapse".
Michael,yYou say "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."
Wrong. NIST never proposed the pancake collapse."
Then what is your argument? The claim was made:
"The 9/11 commission contradicts NIST in its claim that the WTC was destroyed in a "pancake collapse""
I responded that the NIST never made such a claim.
You guys are arguing against each other, now.
Michael at 1:54AM on Jul 15th 2007
198. More of your bunk. No proof that Bin Laden Al-Queda or anyone else did 9/11.
When I said do you research and avoid ad-hominem I was certainly not talking to me. I was talking to you since I'm the only one doing the research and intellectual lifting in this exchange
"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."
Michael said:
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".
Actually no it doesn't Micheal. Unlike McCormick, The twin towers were intense grid-like structures with 47 vast steel-reinforced pillars running up the middle. They were over-engineered and designed to take "multiple impacts of jetliners," according to WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini.
Compare this to McCormick Place which collapsed, according to the Chicago Public Library, under severe conditions, including a failure of water supply to attendant firefighters, non-existent sprinkler systems, the entire building catching fire, 1,250 art exhibits within the building which were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic, and faulty wiring not up to building code.
Compare this to the WTC fires, which were almost extinguished according to the firefighters tapes, sprinkler systems that activated as soon as the planes hit, and reinforced fire-proofing which was installed after an intense fire in the WTC north tower (from which the building obviously did not collapse) in 1975.
Also it had a cheap tar roof. It was not a steel high rise. The McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building.
>>>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."
Michael said: I see you are now not only the investigator, but also the prosecutor and the judge."
Show us the evidence Bin Laden did it. Show us all the statements he's made regarding his alleged involvement in 9/11 which you can't prove.
Conflicting testimony from a suspect renders the testimony inadmissible. That's a fact Michael. Deal with it.
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."
What a load of bunk. Whoever heard of a law enforcement agency withholding indictments for "strategic reasons"?
If that's the case then why did they bother listing the other crimes they say Bin Laden did?
What are these reasons? Are they the same reasons Bush won't release the pentagon and many other surveillance videos of the object that hit the pentagon?
Fact: Bush has never supplied any evidence of Bin Laden's guilt. Not one token. We're still stuck with "Bush told me so".
BTW Michael, let's see a link to that quote of yours.
"Pakistan said the U.S. must furnish proof of Bin Laden's guilt before they handed him over to the U.S.
They never did."
Michael said: 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.
Wow. I don't know how to break this to you dude but Pakistan controls the Taleban. The Northern Alliance was on CNN stating as much in the first days of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Google it.
It's a fact:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm
"Besides, you eve heard of a false confession? "
Is that a joke? You ever heard of a guilty man originally pleading not guilty?
Sorry Michael. That's a fact. What kind of an argument is "You ever heard of a guilty man originally pleading not guilty?"
You're using your conclusion as your argument.
You ever heard of an innocent man pleading innocent? You ever heard of an innocent man pleading guilty?
Fact: two conflicting statements from an individual make that individual's statements inadmissible unless some outside evidence is discovered. Well? Where is your evidence that Bin Laden did it? I mean more than "Bush told me so". Let's see you hard evidence that the FBI is allegedly hiding from us.
Fact: there is such a thing as a false confession. Deal with it.
"Uhh, yeah it did. Please go to Google video or Youtube and show me where the WTC7 collapsed more quickly than 7 seconds."
Michael said: Uhhh, WTC 7 started collapsing 3 hours before the final collapse, why would I try to show it took less than 7 seconds?
Unbelievable. Not even NIST or FEMA are trying this one. Unbelievable. Well, as with every other one of your statements, let's see your proof. Let's see your proof that WTC7 collapsed in more than seven seconds.
Please explain to me how the penthouse collapsed before the rest of the WTC7 did.
Daniel Richards at 2:21AM on Jul 15th 2007
199.
Please read the following:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/07/14/the-politicos-brazen-lies-about-ron-paul/
Dan Clore at 2:19AM on Jul 15th 2007
200. "Please read the following:"
"The Republican smear machine is revving up its motors, getting ready to launch a typically vicious campaign against Ron Paul, the only real threat to their death-grip on the GOP"
That's as far as I could go without doubling over in laughter.
I promise you not a single republican anywhere fears Ron Paul. The man could raise 8 billion (with a B)dollars and he'd STILL have zero chance of winning the nomination, let alone the general election. Fortunately for us the tin-foil hat crowd is a very small part of our populace. And most of them couldn't tear them away from their "research" into who murdered Elvis long enough to go vote, anyhow.
Michael at 2:28AM on Jul 15th 2007
201. "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."
"What a load of bunk. Whoever heard of a law enforcement agency withholding indictments for "strategic reasons"?"
Happens all the time. And for many reasons.
"If that's the case then why did they bother listing the other crimes they say Bin Laden did?"
Because he's been indicted for those crimes.
"What are these reasons? Are they the same reasons Bush won't release the pentagon and many other surveillance videos of the object that hit the pentagon?"
Um, the Pentagon video HAS been released thanks to a freedom of information request by YOU guys. Were you asleep that day?
"Fact: Bush has never supplied any evidence of Bin Laden's guilt. Not one token."
Why would Bush supply any such thing? He's Commander in chief, not prosecutor in chief. You guys seem to think Bush controls everything.
"BTW Michael, let's see a link to that quote of yours."
Is the Washington Post a good enough source for you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
"The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.
Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.
"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."
David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.
"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was.""
Please do read the entire article. I look forward to you accusing the Washington Post being part of the conspiracy.
Michael at 2:43AM on Jul 15th 2007
202. Scott says Ron Paul is polling 0%. Sorry Scott, the only polls he doesn't register in are the ones you leave him out of. Now we know you are a liar. Since when did it become a bad thing to be a "truther"? Liars hate the truth. Scott, Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. Ron Paul is the only candidate who said he would never nuke another country. Jesus also said "take heed, lest any man deceive you." I support Ron Paul because he wants to stop the oppression of the poor, the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class (thats most of us) to the very wealthy few. Shame on you for trying to stop him!
shalemayah at 2:47AM on Jul 15th 2007
203. Hey Daniel,
I have a question. Why exactly would Bush and company go to the lengths you claim they did in the first place? IOW, what would they gain by perpetrating 9/11?
Michael at 2:52AM on Jul 15th 2007
204. "idiot Michael got that from www.debunking911.com----the idiots website."
Actually "idiot" Michael researches all kinds of resources (including the conspiracy sites) before coming to any conclusions. Unfortunately the vast majority of the conspiracy crowd does not. They take what they read at the conspiracy sites as fact and any source that disputes their "findings" is obviously "the idiots website" or something similar.
Why is it not surprising that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists resort to ad hominem attacks at the first sign of dissent from their own unsubstantiated opinions?
Michael at 3:04AM on Jul 15th 2007
205. "When I said do you research and avoid ad-hominem I was certainly not talking to me. I was talking to you since I'm the only one doing the research and intellectual lifting in this exchange"
That's classic. Claim you obviously aren't throwing around ad-hominems followed by an ad-hominem attack.
Hate to break this to ya but "I'm the only one doing the research and intellectual lifting in this exchange" IS an ad-hominem attack.
Even in your carefully thought out attempt to appear intelligent you STILL couldn't refrain from attacking me personally.
Michael at 3:27AM on Jul 15th 2007
206. I can explain the conspiracy theory pundits very easily.
We have a 100,000 piece puzzle. The actual investigators have about 30,000 pieces and are expected to solve the puzzle without error. The conspiracy theorists have 1000 pieces and try to solve the entire puzzle from it. And they assume they know more, from less information, than the experts who actually get paid to do such things.
The investigators start with nothing and attempt to reach a conclusion. The theorists start with a conclusion then try to make the "facts" fit. The theorists problem is they don't agree WITH EACH OTHER on the conclusion OR the "facts". In fact, most of their hypothesis relies on what HASN'T been released. They ASSUME that because information hasn't been released it MUST be part of a cover-up.
Here's the one fact we absolutely know: Not a single conspiracy theorist has proven his theory with any validity. In fact, they haven't given enough evidence of their theory to get a single major news organization to agree with them. Why? This would be the story of the century. As a book writer, I'd LOVE to have this story.
Michael at 4:07AM on Jul 15th 2007
207. One last question for the conspiracy theorists...
If the Government was going to "invent" the attack, and the terrorists are still alive, why didn't they make some of them Iranians or Afghans? Why on earth would they make them Saudis (a HUGE ally)? Not only that, why would they make them LIVE Saudis? They couldn't come up with names of dead (or non-existent) people?
Are you telling me people smart enough to pull off the biggest conspiracy in history weren't smart enough to implicate the very people they intended to attack?
Michael at 4:48AM on Jul 15th 2007
208. "Yes there is much evidence to support the continued existence of the some of the hijackers. The BBC, Guardian and Telegraph have all carried stories about them."
There is if you accept initial reports as fact. Have you bothered to read RECENT articles?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
"A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names."
I guess we add the BBC to the list of conspirators?
Michael at 4:46AM on Jul 15th 2007
209. "Yes there is much evidence to support the continued existence of the some of the hijackers. The BBC, Guardian and Telegraph have all carried stories about them."
Sure, when confusion reined. Have you bothered to find out what those same organizations have said since?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
"A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
Screen grab of original website storyWe later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names."
Tell me why BUSH implicated LIVING Saudis instead of the people he "intended" to attack? Couldn't fit an Iraqi into the official story? Not an Afghan to be found?
Common sense isn't very common among the "Bush lied, people died" crowd.
Michael at 5:06AM on Jul 15th 2007
210. a hit peace, well written
I could have done better though, maybe casting a negative polling, say -15%
of course it can be done, AOL own Scotty can beam this out right off his magician hat
9/11 was an inside job Scotty, wake up
thematrixexpert at 7:53AM on Jul 15th 2007