PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul denies 9/11 conspiracy theories



Book
16th April 2010, 12:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60TWZNVgtk

:oo-->

woodman
25th April 2010, 05:46 PM
Et tu? Maybe he figures it would ruin his chances at mainstream politics if he concludes the obvious. The guy is definitely intelligent enough to put 2 and 2 together so it would seem he would prefer to skirt the issue by denying it.

hoarder
25th April 2010, 05:59 PM
"Absolutely not!"
A politician could have used more evasive language if his mainstream politics were his only concern.

wildcard
25th April 2010, 11:09 PM
GATE KEEPER. He keeps patriots in the corral. We're gonna fix things, just vote and give love and peace a chance! Just give it time. Don't be violent, don't raise up. Make some protest signs and wave them around really ardently, but not angrily!

gunDriller
26th April 2010, 11:41 AM
GATE KEEPER. He keeps patriots in the corral. We're gonna fix things, just vote and give love and peace a chance! Just give it time. Don't be violent, don't raise up. Make some protest signs and wave them around really ardently, but not angrily!


i think he has the ability to "be political" so as not to alienate the general population.

for example, he could say that there are some unanswered questions, and that if he is elected President or Vice President he will re-open the investigation.

but if he is serious about investigating 9-11, he will be killed by people working for the 9-11 perpetrators

my observation is that the 9-11 perpetrators didn't just plan the event - they also planned for the aftermath. specifically, they planned what to do about troublesome politicians.

Paul Wellstone, Minnesota senator, was one such troublesome politician.

one of the intereresting details about his death is that the FBI van that left to investigate the crash (Oct. 26, 2002) left the office before the plane left the ground - it was reported in local media (TV and/or newspaper).

about Ron Paul - i think he knows that a Representative that tells the truth is more useful than one who kisses AIPAC's ass. he could come out swinging and tell a whole lot of truth about 9-11 - and make hundreds of millions of friends in the process.

they may not be in his district in Texas, and it could lose him an election, but so what ? who wants to work with Rahm Emanuel anyway ?

JohnQPublic
26th April 2010, 12:36 PM
I really pushed for Ron Paul to bring up Obama's "natural born citizenship" issue during the congressional certification in January 2009. I posted this (http://joesixpack.me/second_letter.html), I posted on GIM, and Ron Paul forums. I called my representatives and Ron Paul's office.

Ron Paul's intern checked into ti and said Ron Paul had no intention of bringing it up (this was the last chance to air it). He said that he felt that there was nothing to it, and that it would make him look follish. I was very disappointed in Ron Paul at that point. The Ron Paul blogs all basically said that he had to maintain his credibility.

I decided not to write Ron Paul off ultimately (and thought I had posted that, but apparently I lost that statement).

Libertarian_Guard
26th April 2010, 01:44 PM
I disagree with the notion that Ron Paul could act coy with the issue by saying "there are some unanswered questions, and that if he is elected President or Vice President he will reopen the investigation."

The Zionist media would lamb baste him with this. Every interview would contain one or two questions about his doubt about the official 9/11 investigation, same as they did with the question of whether or not he would run as an independent if he did not get the republican nod.

hoarder
26th April 2010, 03:17 PM
1) Voting doesn't matter in the age of electronic voting machines.
2) Our rulers do not want us to focus on that fact.
3) Our rulers want us to have false hope and pursue useless kinds of resistance.
4) Focusing on political candidates is useless resistance.
5) Our rulers got where they are by monopolizing influence.
6) Our rulers got where they are by controlling opposition.
7) Anyone who has influence is probably controlled opposition.
8 ) Ron Paul has quite a bit of influence.
9) Ron Paul could do our rulers much damage by talking about 9-11.
9) Ron Paul is giving us false hope and saying nothing about 9-11.
10) Ron Paul is probably controlled opposition.

Chibioz
26th April 2010, 03:53 PM
This was posted on the old GIM forums at one time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cENpjWNIt-Y

Personally, I support Ron Paul. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, inside job or not, but it is not the only tragedy. Ron Paul focuses on economic aspects primarily and has made more progress in exposing the real heart of the fraud, which is the monetary system itself, than anyone else in the past 30+ years. I feel that if he does not want to make 9/11 his main issue but still focuses on other important issues, than I am ok with that.

wildcard
26th April 2010, 09:48 PM
Millions of people now worship Ron Paul. He could spread his truth through the internet. On youtube and sites like the dailypaul and all those. Is he an idiot? Does he lack courage? Or is he holding back for another reason?

*are the masses too stupid to be able to understand monetary policy and the truth about 9/11 at the same time? Brains not big enough to grasp two ideas simultaneously?

woodman
27th April 2010, 12:43 PM
1) Voting doesn't matter in the age of electronic voting machines.
2) Our rulers do not want us to focus on that fact.
3) Our rulers want us to have false hope and pursue useless kinds of resistance.
4) Focusing on political candidates is useless resistance.
5) Our rulers got where they are by monopolizing influence.
6) Our rulers got where they are by controlling opposition.
7) Anyone who has influence is probably controlled opposition.
8 ) Ron Paul has quite a bit of influence.
9) Ron Paul could do our rulers much damage by talking about 9-11.
9) Ron Paul is giving us false hope and saying nothing about 9-11.
10) Ron Paul is probably controlled opposition.


Could be controlled opposition as you say Hoarder or perhaps he knows he will be utterly sidelined if he notices the elephant in the room. Without the goodwill of the press a politician is like a baby out in the cold. No chance at political life. Something doesn't add up and it must be one of the two. I think just about anyone can be destroyed with a nod of the head by those who really run the show. If he had any balls he would speak out I think.

philo beddoe
27th April 2010, 12:58 PM
Besides the fact Bill White is a big AssHat, he was arrested soon after outing Ron Paul. Paul is a freemason and controlled opposition. He is too ols and has no chance to be president at 77 years old in 2013. So if he doesn't weigh in on 911, he is a phony.

Occamsrazor
28th April 2010, 08:16 PM
Is he an idiot? Does he lack courage? Or is he holding back for another reason?



All of the above.

hoarder
30th April 2010, 07:49 PM
Could be controlled opposition as you say Hoarder or perhaps he knows he will be utterly sidelined if he notices the elephant in the room. Without the goodwill of the press a politician is like a baby out in the cold. No chance at political life. Something doesn't add up and it must be one of the two. I think just about anyone can be destroyed with a nod of the head by those who really run the show. If he had any balls he would speak out I think.

Put yourself in his shoes (assuming he is a real patriot). Your country is going down the tubes fast because the people don't understand what is really happening. You are about 100 years old and have been in congress for ages and things continue to get worse. Do you hold out and hold back on the truth so you can appeal to mainstream so you might run for the White house when you're 110 years old or do you do what needs to be done?

Just askin'....

gunDriller
1st May 2010, 03:48 PM
Put yourself in his shoes (assuming he is a real patriot). Your country is going down the tubes fast because the people don't understand what is really happening. You are about 100 years old and have been in congress for ages and things continue to get worse. Do you hold out and hold back on the truth so you can appeal to mainstream so you might run for the White house when you're 110 years old or do you do what needs to be done?

Just askin'....


at his age, there is no reason to hold back.

as far as 9-11 not being a big deal, if it was just 3 buildings collapsing and 3000 people dying, it wouldn't be a big deal, in the grand scheme of things.

but given that it's used to justify the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security - etc. - it's a huge deal.

it's not like the people who did 9-11 got all nice-nice on 9-12 and stopped doing nasty things.

Shami-Amourae
2nd May 2010, 08:32 PM
If I had heard any of you guys, Alex Jones, or any of the 9-11 people tell me what I know now back when I was a Socialist I would disregard you/them as idiots immediately.

People like Ron Paul are effective at the common sense level without diving into the real dirt. Without people operating in the mainstream, I guarantee our numbers would be a lot thinner, since some people need to be exposed to the truth progressively to full comprehend it without shutting down, and running the other way. I know this since that's how I came to be here. I believe it's more effective to work within the mainstream and use the very tools of these elite bastards against them within their own system. This can and will set people on the path to finding out the truth themselves!

You don't go from Socialism to Libertarianism overnight.


Oh, and who the Hell cares if Ron Paul is a Freemason? Are we going to hate our Founding Fathers...? They were Freemasons too!

hoarder
2nd May 2010, 08:49 PM
If I had heard any of you guys, Alex Jones, or any of the 9-11 people tell me what I know now back when I was a Socialist I would disregard you/them as idiots immediately.

People like Ron Paul are effective at the common sense level without diving into the real dirt. Without people operating in the mainstream, I guarantee our numbers would be a lot thinner, since some people need to be exposed to the truth progressively to full comprehend it without shutting down, and running the other way. I know this since that's how I came to be here.

You don't go from Socialism to Libertarianism overnight.


Oh, and who the Hell cares if Ron Paul is a Freemason? Are we going to hate our Founding Fathers...? They were Freemasons too!
There is much to be said for the progressive awareness theory, I argee.

Our rulers got where they are by knowing how to use influence. Mass media is "broadcast" as one would broadcast grass seed....rather indiscriminately. They have people like Alex Jones geared to attach themselves to target audience and avoid sending his message to the general public.

Now that there are dozens of people who are reaching out to confused patriots, Alex Jones is not essential. Now that he has a large following the best thing he can do is tell the whole truth.

That is really the key...once someone has a large following it's time to stop holding back.

What a disinformation artist will do is take you half way down the rabbit hole and then divert your intiative into ineffective efforts and do this for as long as possible.

Shami-Amourae
3rd May 2010, 06:52 AM
I just have a hard problem seeing Ron Paul as working for TPTB. I mean, he really was the main guy I attribute to waking me up to everything. If he's doing controlled opposition, I'm pretty sure the elites would have fired him a LONG time ago.

hoarder
3rd May 2010, 07:14 AM
I just have a hard problem seeing Ron Paul as working for TPTB. I mean, he really was the main guy I attribute to waking me up to everything. If he's doing controlled opposition, I'm pretty sure the elites would have fired him a LONG time ago.
It is important to understand the theory of void-filling.
Certain people are driven to find answers to their questions and pieces to their puzzles. Knowing this, TPTB try to fill these voids with their controlled opposition well in advance.

Most people would rather have a leader to rally behind than to dedicate their lives to a cause which would rob them of all their spare time and energy. This creates a wonderful opportunity for TPTB.

TPTB fill these voids in anticipation of the damage that could be done by letting these voids become filled by real opposition.
Although TPTB do not want to widely disseminate the information distributed by their controlled opposition, they calculate that it does far less damage to them than real opposition would cause.
It's simply well calculated damage control.

gunny highway
3rd May 2010, 09:40 AM
I just have a hard problem seeing Ron Paul as working for TPTB. I mean, he really was the main guy I attribute to waking me up to everything. If he's doing controlled opposition, I'm pretty sure the elites would have fired him a LONG time ago.
It is important to understand the theory of void-filling.
Certain people are driven to find answers to their questions and pieces to their puzzles. Knowing this, TPTB try to fill these voids with their controlled opposition well in advance.

Most people would rather have a leader to rally behind than to dedicate their lives to a cause which would rob them of all their spare time and energy. This creates a wonderful opportunity for TPTB.

TPTB fill these voids in anticipation of the damage that could be done by letting these voids become filled by real opposition.
Although TPTB do not want to widely disseminate the information distributed by their controlled opposition, they calculate that it does far less damage to them than real opposition would cause.
It's simply well calculated damage control.


That's a good point but in RP's 2008 run the MSM, TPTB and most of the people who supported him (i.e. me) didn't know there was a void that needed filling. i, and al lot of others, just knew that things just didn't make sense the way they were presented on the nightly news. He was never promoted in the media like all the mainstream candidates were. TPTB wanted nothing to do with him. now that he lost the race and is just a congressman again, they feel comfortable allowing him on the air to spout his "crazy theories". he's the lone voice of reason on the TV, and all of us here at GSUS know that. but to the average, everyday sheeple, he's a crazy old man from Texas spouting off about things they've never heard of and, more importantly, things they've been conditioned to not give a shit about.

this is where i find it hard to disagree with the whole controlled opposition theory. while in know that he is not actively working to deceive us, it is more than likely that he is being used by the TBTB to further marginalize the topics he discusses. for example, when he is the only person to speak out against the Fed during a 24 hour news cycle, a cycle filled with dozens of people defending the Fed, he comes off looking like a nut, bucking the conventional wisdom of generations of economists. it doesn't matter that he's right, that's not the point. no one takes him seriously. that's the goal and that's a shame.

that said, i still support him wholeheartedly. he's being used. i just hope that things aren't as bad as i think they are, and people are actually listening to him and learning despite it all.

Libertarian_Guard
3rd May 2010, 01:09 PM
Look no further than the up coming Senate races.

Three new Ron Paul Republicans could be seated.

Mark Rubio, Peter Schiff and Rand Paul - - all of which owe their success (to varring degrees) to Ron Paul's Presidential run.

I'm not buying into any controlled opposition here.

JDRock
5th June 2010, 09:27 AM
1) Voting doesn't matter in the age of electronic voting machines.
2) Our rulers do not want us to focus on that fact.
3) Our rulers want us to have false hope and pursue useless kinds of resistance.
4) Focusing on political candidates is useless resistance.
5) Our rulers got where they are by monopolizing influence.
6) Our rulers got where they are by controlling opposition.
7) Anyone who has influence is probably controlled opposition.
8 ) Ron Paul has quite a bit of influence.
9) Ron Paul could do our rulers much damage by talking about 9-11.
9) Ron Paul is giving us false hope and saying nothing about 9-11.
10) Ron Paul is probably controlled opposition.


flag this post...it sums up the whole ron paul thingie.

Hatha Sunahara
27th June 2010, 06:37 PM
In the video in the OP, he was asked if he supported the theory that the government was instrumental in 911. He replied 'absolutely not'. Does any conspiracy theorist assume that he knows what we (the people) know about 911?

I'm up to my eyeballs in conspiracy theories, and I assume that people at Ron Paul's level of importance know something different about 911. Something different from what we the people know.

This never occurred to me until I found out about Dmitri Khalezov--a Russian who laid out the most believable 911 Conspiracy Theory i have heard to date. I arrived at the first part of his theory on my own. Khalezov expanded my thinking about 911. He suggests that there are three 'truths' about 911. The first 'truth' is what we all know. The story about planes and 19 arab terrorist hijackers, and the buildings collapsing from being melted by jet fuel. The first truth is the official story. It involves no government complicity.

The second truth is for higher level government officials, a group Ron Paul belongs to. There needs to be a further explanation involving some secret information, that they should not reveal for reasons of national security. It has a different story that makes more sense to our elected officials than does the official story. It involves a story about stolen nukes that were aboard those 'planes'. And the terrorists had them aboard the planes that crashed into the WTC towers. And they were going to detonate them possibly by radio control. Rather than risk having a 1/2 megaton bomb explode 1000 feet above New York, and killing millions of New Yorkers, the government decided to save New York by demolishing the WTC towers with the demolition plan that accompanied their building permits. That demolition plan included 150 KT nukes placed 77 meters below the ground level of each of the buildings. These were detonated, demolishing the buildings, and saving New York.

The third truth is what really happened, including who the mastermind was and what was the real motive. I don't really know what the real truth is, but I suspect it was the Neocons who wanted a Pearl Harbor event to get America into the Middle East. It appears that there is so much deception in 911, that it must be a product of the Mossad, or at least people who are familiar with how the Mossad works. BY Deception You Shall Do War.

Anyway, if Ron Paul knows this second truth--including the part about the nukes under the WTC towers, would he be likely to want to pierce the peaceful bubble we all live in by believing it was 19 Arab Terrorists? I think he's more interested in keeping mum because he, and everyone else who knows this second truth also knows that America, as we know it, is over. When everybody believes a lie, just think how angry they will be when they finally discover the truth? That their government was faced with such a choice on 911. Why weren't we told about it when it happened? Why make up some bullshit about it like the official story? Do you people think we can't handle the truth?

Does anybody honestly think Ron Paul or any of the other politicians are looking forward to that kind of conversation? It would show how cowardly they all are--to maintain a lie for so long.

I don't think Ron Paul is controlled opposition. He knows what's good for him politically. He just doesn't want to let go of how America used to be--just like most of the people. But he's also a human being and he knows that the people who did 911 kill any serious opposition. I don't hold him in any higher esteem than I do other politicians. He doesn't seem to have much more courage than the rest of them. And I doubt that the Ron Paul knock offs like Peter Schiff, or the others mentioned have the requisite courage to tell us the truth. They all fear being Wellstoned.

Hatha

dysgenic
27th June 2010, 07:14 PM
I'm in the Ron Paul is controlled opposition camp.

dys

hoarder
27th June 2010, 08:14 PM
The second truth is for higher level government officials, a group Ron Paul belongs to. There needs to be a further explanation involving some secret information, that they should not reveal for reasons of national security. It has a different story that makes more sense to our elected officials than does the official story.

If one assumes that politicians have not only a higher intellect, but a higher concern for matters of national interest than the average Joe, such an explanation is needed.
In reality, personality type is what is behind career choices that drive people to become politicians. They strive for social position, not truth. Politicians are not truth seekers, they're status seekers.
IMO, this "second truth" is an answer to a question that does not exist. Just as the Department of Homeland Security tells the masses that secrecy is needed to protect our national security, they tell politicians the same thing and it's good enough.

Hatha Sunahara
28th June 2010, 01:45 AM
The second truth is for higher level government officials, a group Ron Paul belongs to. There needs to be a further explanation involving some secret information, that they should not reveal for reasons of national security. It has a different story that makes more sense to our elected officials than does the official story.

If one assumes that politicians have not only a higher intellect, but a higher concern for matters of national interest than the average Joe, such an explanation is needed.
In reality, personality type is what is behind career choices that drive people to become politicians. They strive for social position, not truth. Politicians are not truth seekers, they're status seekers.
IMO, this "second truth" is an answer to a question that does not exist. Just as the Department of Homeland Security tells the masses that secrecy is needed to protect our national security, they tell politicians the same thing and it's good enough.


I don't assume that politicians are interested in truth. I believe they are masters of telling lies, albeit believable ones. They faithfully carry out the orders of those who both bribe and blackmail them. I also think they all, to some degree, have that elitist attitude that was expressed in the movie A Few Good Men--that 'you can't handle the truth'. So, out of a protective benevolence, they won't tell us the truth they know about 911. Surely, they won't tell us about all the backroom deals they make with the people who buy their influence.

The official story is so full of holes, it cannot be true. But, it may be good enough for public consumption. It seems logical to me that our leaders--the higher officials in our government, not limited to the politicians, but to high ranking people in the bureaucracies know more about 911 than we do. And they are motivated to keep it secret. Maybe this is the 'truth' about 911 that they received from the national security apparatus, and they all know that to question it is not good for their careers. You can boil everything they do down to a simple choice--Is it good for my career. So they do what's good for their careers. And here, they are being asked not to burden the public with the 'truth' because the public can't handle it. The way to do this smartly is to claim that they believe the official story, and that ends any discussion. Just as Ron Paul has done in the video in the OP. Everything other than the official story is a conspiracy theory. And therefore all other explanations are untrue--even if the official explanation doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It's safer for your career to keep mum.

You might want to discover for yourself what Dimitri Khalezov says about the three truths. You can get that here:

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/911-wtc...tf-t19433.html

What I find admirable about Khalezov's explanations is that he presents a large picture of what happened, and he doesn't get bogged down with details. The details he presents support the larger picture he paints. I find his explanation credible.

Hatha

Neuro
28th June 2010, 02:17 AM
I'm in the Ron Paul is controlled opposition camp.

dys
Yes if you are lying about something as important as to what happened on 911, you must be controlled opposition. It is treason! Further he should well understand that the reforms he is suggesting will kill the patient, who is on lifesupport with terminal disease. And he didn't seem to be to interested in challenging vote fraud in the primaries. He was put up so that people who were freethinkers libertarians had something to hope for...

dysgenic
28th June 2010, 05:52 AM
Word is that he is a mason, too. I haven't personally confirmed this, reason being I believe he is CO even if he is not a mason.






I'm in the Ron Paul is controlled opposition camp.

dys
Yes if you are lying about something as important as to what happened on 911, you must be controlled opposition. It is treason! Further he should well understand that the reforms he is suggesting will kill the patient, who is on lifesupport with terminal disease. And he didn't seem to be to interested in challenging vote fraud in the primaries. He was put up so that people who were freethinkers libertarians had something to hope for...

Neuro
28th June 2010, 06:14 AM
He may very well be a mason, but I am more sure about him being controlled opposition, regardless if he is a mason.

JohnQPublic
28th June 2010, 08:15 AM
Look no further than the up coming Senate races.

Three new Ron Paul Republicans could be seated.

Mark Rubio, Peter Schiff and Rand Paul - - all of which owe their success (to varring degrees) to Ron Paul's Presidential run.

I'm not buying into any controlled opposition here.


I think this is a big part of it- especially Rand Paul.

PatColo
28th June 2010, 08:27 AM
Look no further than the up coming Senate races.

Three new Ron Paul Republicans could be seated.

Mark Rubio, Peter Schiff and Rand Paul - - all of which owe their success (to varring degrees) to Ron Paul's Presidential run.

I'm not buying into any controlled opposition here.


Peter Schiff answers the question, was 9/11 an inside job by the US Government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf77yqkjk_M


aww jeez looky there, every time I check that number gets bigger, 1,215 licensed architects & engineers (http://ae911truth.org) now calling the official 9/11 CT a fraud! ;D

[center]http://www.ae911truth.net/flash/wtc7ani2.swf

JohnQPublic
28th June 2010, 08:38 AM
...Peter Schiff answers the question, was 9/11 an inside job by the US Government...


A straw man.

Was it an inside job by the US government? Absolutley not. Congress did not secretly legislate it and GB did not sectretly carry it out, nor did the Supreme Court secretly review and approve it. I doubt any agency of the US government planned and carried it out.

Were high ranking government officials aware of it before hand? Did high ranking US officials let it happen? Those are more realisitc questions.

PatColo
28th June 2010, 09:04 AM
...Peter Schiff answers the question, was 9/11 an inside job by the US Government...


A straw man.

Was it an inside job by the US government? Absolutley not.

Elvis alive & gummit hiding space aliens (Schiff referenced both, seeking to conflate them with 911 Truth) are straw men.

Characterizing 911 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) as "everyone who's employed in government was in on it" is another straw man.

JQP: what is your opinion of these articles?

"Were America Attacked by Scary Moozlems on 9/11? (http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/)"

Introduction: Israel & 9/11 (http://rediscover911.com/introduction/)

Do you believe that WTC-7 abruptly collapsed in the manner it did, due to fire, as the government's official 911 conspiracy theory maintains?

[center]http://www.ae911truth.net/flash/wtc7ani2.swf

Hatha Sunahara
31st July 2010, 10:16 AM
...Peter Schiff answers the question, was 9/11 an inside job by the US Government...


A straw man.

Was it an inside job by the US government? Absolutley not. Congress did not secretly legislate it and GB did not sectretly carry it out, nor did the Supreme Court secretly review and approve it. I doubt any agency of the US government planned and carried it out.

Were high ranking government officials aware of it before hand? Did high ranking US officials let it happen? Those are more realisitc questions.


You could raise the question here about whether our high ranking officials are working for the US Government, or for some other group with a different agenda, such as the Council On Foreign Relations, or the Bilderbergers, or The Federalist Society, or other secret societies like Skull and Bones. The government has been infiltrated by people pursuing a non-government agenda. The public hasn't a clue about who their government officials are really working for. Moreover, it's not politically correct to discuss this question.

The US Government is run by people who do not care one iota about the constitution, the will of the people, or anything they publicly profess--they care only about their careers, and increasing their power. 911 provided a bonanza of opportunities for these careerists. Particularly for the ones who operate behind a cloak of secrecy called 'national security'.

Hatha

gunDriller
2nd August 2010, 11:35 AM
GATE KEEPER. He keeps patriots in the corral.

which is next to the Free Speech Zone.

both out of sight of the general public.