LDS Freedom Forum

John Locke wrote: So do you actually have bonofide evidence of your man's (Ron Paul) backing up this 9/11 stuff or are you just saying "he has to know the truth, and just not say anything." because I seriously doubt he believes it was as much of an inside job as some of you claim. I think for sure there is a secret combination involved, I'm just not sure its who you think it is. I mean no disrespect, you see thats usually the difference between those of us who are critics of this stuff, we can disagree and still respect the other crowd, not belittle, question their intelligence or their faith....... :ymcowboy:

John, Ron has stated on many occasions that a new, independent investigation is needed to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, but he has stopped short of coming out and saying "it was an inside job", but he's not stupid - he knows what a crock a beans the official story is, but to come out and start challenging the official story would be political suicide and he knows that, especially since there are still so many voters who bought the official story hook, line and sinker and if he runs for president again, he can't afford to challenge the 9/11 event - too controversial and politically risky. Also, John... the discovery of highly explosive nano particles in the dust means that parties with access to highly specialized and technical weapons-grade incendiaries were involved - so who would have been able to load both towers and building 7 with tons of the stuff, beat security in the process and pull off such a masterpiece demolition of 3 WTC's? I can tell you right now... not bin Laden and not al Qaida (the latter of which was created by the CIA in 1989). =))

hehehehehehsheheheheheheshedidit

Col. Flagg wrote:

John Locke wrote: So do you actually have bonofide evidence of your man's (Ron Paul) backing up this 9/11 stuff or are you just saying "he has to know the truth, and just not say anything." because I seriously doubt he believes it was as much of an inside job as some of you claim. I think for sure there is a secret combination involved, I'm just not sure its who you think it is. I mean no disrespect, you see thats usually the difference between those of us who are critics of this stuff, we can disagree and still respect the other crowd, not belittle, question their intelligence or their faith....... :ymcowboy:

John, Ron has stated on many occasions that a new, independent investigation is needed to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, but he has stopped short of coming out and saying "it was an inside job", but he's not stupid - he knows what a crock a beans the official story is, but to come out and start challenging the official story would be political suicide and he knows that, especially since there are still so many voters who bought the official story hook, line and sinker and if he runs for president again, he can't afford to challenge the 9/11 event - too controversial and politically risky. Also, John... the discovery of highly explosive nano particles in the dust means that parties with access to highly specialized and technical weapons-grade incendiaries were involved - so who would have been able to load both towers and building 7 with tons of the stuff, beat security in the process and pull off such a masterpiece demolition of 3 WTC's? I can tell you right now... not bin Laden and not al Qaida (the latter of which was created by the CIA in 1989). =))

So the answer to my question was no you don't, thanks

John Locke wrote:or Ron Paul knows how incompetent the government really is, and realizes that a government that cant even balance its budget, or tie its own shoe surely can't pull of something like 9/11....just sayin....

Yes, but luckily a few muslims can......

The Beck audio is disgusting for anyone- much less a "priesthood holder" - if we can call Beck one. That sounded like something from Howard Stern. I'm so tired of having people come up to me at church and ask if I've seen the video of Beck's "conversion story"- and then they go on about how wonderful Beck is.

Well I'm not very impressed, and if Glenn thinks this kind of behavior is ok for a LDS man then it's only a matter of time before Glenn wakes back up in the gutter.

John Locke wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:

John Locke wrote: So do you actually have bonofide evidence of your man's (Ron Paul) backing up this 9/11 stuff or are you just saying "he has to know the truth, and just not say anything." because I seriously doubt he believes it was as much of an inside job as some of you claim. I think for sure there is a secret combination involved, I'm just not sure its who you think it is. I mean no disrespect, you see thats usually the difference between those of us who are critics of this stuff, we can disagree and still respect the other crowd, not belittle, question their intelligence or their faith....... :ymcowboy:

John, Ron has stated on many occasions that a new, independent investigation is needed to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, but he has stopped short of coming out and saying "it was an inside job", but he's not stupid - he knows what a crock a beans the official story is, but to come out and start challenging the official story would be political suicide and he knows that, especially since there are still so many voters who bought the official story hook, line and sinker and if he runs for president again, he can't afford to challenge the 9/11 event - too controversial and politically risky. Also, John... the discovery of highly explosive nano particles in the dust means that parties with access to highly specialized and technical weapons-grade incendiaries were involved - so who would have been able to load both towers and building 7 with tons of the stuff, beat security in the process and pull off such a masterpiece demolition of 3 WTC's? I can tell you right now... not bin Laden and not al Qaida (the latter of which was created by the CIA in 1989). =))

So the answer to my question was no you don't, thanks

But at least it makes sense to you, right?

POV.........Beck has "soldout to the highest bidder........ie Fox and company

what makes sense to me is he (and you) cannot produce any shred of evidence that Ron Paul believes your claims about 9/11, yet you still support him because you "THINK" he does. People see exactly what they want to see. I mean no offense by that I just get kind of sick of people who think 9/11 is the end all issue around these parts. I can believe our country is ran by crooks without believing your side on the 9/11 stuff. I can believe we need to get back to the constitution etc etc etc without having to buy into the theory.

John Locke wrote:what makes sense to me is he (and you) cannot produce any shred of evidence that Ron Paul believes your claims about 9/11, yet you still support him because you "THINK" he does. People see exactly what they want to see. I mean no offense by that I just get kind of sick of people who think 9/11 is the end all issue around these parts. I can believe our country is ran by crooks without believing your side on the 9/11 stuff. I can believe we need to get back to the constitution etc etc etc without having to buy into the theory.

Why not let Mr Paul speak for himself. If I were him I would sue the Col. and others for libel and slander if they keep saying he supports the 9-11 inside job theory. )


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60TWZNVgtk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mark wrote:

John Locke wrote:what makes sense to me is he (and you) cannot produce any shred of evidence that Ron Paul believes your claims about 9/11, yet you still support him because you "THINK" he does. People see exactly what they want to see. I mean no offense by that I just get kind of sick of people who think 9/11 is the end all issue around these parts. I can believe our country is ran by crooks without believing your side on the 9/11 stuff. I can believe we need to get back to the constitution etc etc etc without having to buy into the theory.

Why not let Mr Paul speak for himself. If I were him I would sue the Col. and others for libel and slander if they keep saying he supports the 9-11 inside job theory. )


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60TWZNVgtk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mark that is why I love you lol "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" I can gladly say I stand with Ron in full support on this

John Locke wrote:what makes sense to me is he (and you) cannot produce any shred of evidence that Ron Paul believes your claims about 9/11, yet you still support him because you "THINK" he does.

John... this wasn't too hard to find - you mean you couldn't find this info.? Took me 30 seconds...

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/11/2 ... cal-order/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The following is a comprehensive summary of Congressman Ron Paul’s public comments on the subject of “9/11 truth”, if 9/11/01 was possibly part of a government conspiracy.

JANUARY 17, 2007:
On the Alex Jones show, (with Jack Blood guest-hosting) Ron Paul says “..a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it.”

“CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
[Full MP3 link. Discussed here and here.]

FEBRUARY 2007:

Ron Paul is questioned by Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth and says he would support a new 9/11 investigation. Thanks to SST911.org.

JUNE 16, 2007: Among Supporters in an airport, Ron Paul says that the 9/11 investigation, similar to that of JFK, Waco, Ruby Ridge, amounts to a ‘coverup’.
Thanks to 9/11 Truth TUCSON. Ron Paul asked about 911, Phoenix, AZ

FALL, 2007: Ron Paul, At The Arab American Institute Conference in Dearborn, Michigan,
At minute 11:00 while referring to republican congressmen, Paul says: “9/11 changed everything.. and they loved it”. Paul also discusses the neocons calls for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ type event, which later ‘fell into their lap’.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2007:
On KFI Radio Los Angeles, Ron Paul is asked about Alex Jones and if he will denounce 9/11 truth.
The host John Zeigler, who is a neocon gatekeeper and ardent supporter if Bush’s “war on terror” , was eventually fired from KFI for what he claims were problems with KFI host John Kobylt. Kobylt recently got angry when a caller brought up 9/11 truth on air (before being cut off) in November 2009.

DECEMBER 18, 2007:
Ron Paul says 911 conspiracies are “PREPOSTEROUS” and “bizzare”. CNN’s Glenn Beck also mentions Rosie O’Donnell and Charlie Sheen. Paul says that he shouldn’t even have to answer questions like that. At Minute 3.

Dec. 18, 2007: Ron Paul Interviewed By Glenn Beck on CNN, Glenn Beck says that Ron Paul supporters have threatened his life.
[Editor Question: Has a single Ron Paul supporter, or anyone for that matter, been arrested for these alleged threats against Beck, or charged with making such threats? if so, what is their name? If not, why not?]

JANUARY 10, 2008: Ron Paul denounces 9/11 truth during nationally televised presidential debate in South Carolina.
Q. Many of your supporters call themselves ‘9/11 Truthers’. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy?

Paul: Well, I can’t tell people what to do, but I’ve abandoned those viewpoints, I don’t believe that, and that’s all.. that’s the only thing that is important, and so I don’t endorse anything they say,
but I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we’ve been debating here for the last 20 minutes.

Q. Sir, would you ask them to cease that rhetoric tonight on your behalf?

Paul: Well it doesn’t do me any good, so if they care about me they should, but the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what i say. I can’t tell them what to do, so I don’t endorse what they say and I don’t believe that, so please, could I participate in the current debate rather than talking this out?

A. please do. Please do. Please do. Please do.

JUNE 18, 2008: On MSNBC Morning Joe,
Ron Paul says “Osama Bin Laden LOVES What We Have Done!”. At minute 4:00.

JUNE 19, 2008: Ron Paul: I have NOT Accepted the 9/11 Investigation [Thanks to NWOtruth.com/] Ron Paul is asked about 9/11 truth and Alex Jones film ENDGAME.
Ron Paul: Doesn’t Accept 9/11 Investigation

September 2, 2008:
JESSE VENTURA on 911 at the Ron Paul Rally For The Republic 9/2/08 Part 3 (Great Clip!)

September 3, 2008: Ron Paul on Glenn Beck show, discusses Jesse Ventura’s 9/11 comments at minute 3:40.

Posted July 19. 2009: WeAreChangeLA questions Ron Paul about the IMF as well as 9-11 Truth
Q. “One last thing. why dont you come out about the truth about 9/11?

Paul: “Because i cant handle the controversy, i have the IMF and federal reserve to deal with..
i have too many things on my plate”..

John Locke wrote:People see exactly what they want to see. I mean no offense by that I just get kind of sick of people who think 9/11 is the end all issue around these parts. I can believe our country is ran by crooks without believing your side on the 9/11 stuff. I can believe we need to get back to the constitution etc etc etc without having to buy into the theory.

John, there are no theories to what happened on 9/11 anymore buddy - we know - just not all of the 'whodunnit' stuff, which is why patriots like Dr. Jones, thousands of Architects/Engineers, first responders, firemen, pilots, academics, former military people, etc., not to mention a LOT of outraged citizens are calling for subopena power to get every member of the former Bush admin. under oath, as well as Larry Silverstein.

lol So Col I guess you didn't watch the link Mark posted cause Paul absolutely BLASTS your point of view. I guess you gotta stop supporting him cause he said "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" but hey like I said you hear what you wanna hear lol.

John Locke wrote:lol So Col I guess you didn't watch the link Mark posted cause Paul absolutely BLASTS your point of view. I guess you gotta stop supporting him cause he said "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" but hey like I said you hear what you wanna hear lol.

John, I can't watch videos online where I'm at. Did you not look at anything in red above? He's not going to embrace 9/11 truth as genuinely and sincerely as people like me for obvious reasons, especially during a nationally-televised debate where they tried to nail him on it so people would think he was a real kook, but I think your answer to whether or not he feels a new investigation is needed was answered above in red buddy (especially with the last two lines). (-|

Locke, a "truther" can be defined many different ways. One of the ways is: If you support a new investigation on 9/11... to get.. the truth, means you are a... TRUTHer. Just like Mark is a... TRUTHer. It really boils down to: Do you agree with the official story, or not?

But of course, the mainstream media labels truthers as vile and unpatriotic if you don't agree with the official summary of the events on 9/11. I agree that it would be political suicide for Ron Paul to even step into that mess. Just like it would be suicide for the church to come out against unconstitutional behavior by our government and politicians. Remember what Glenn Beck did to Debra Medina? She was (negatively) labeled as a "truther". Why? Because she wanted a new investigation!!! WHOA!!!! Look what good that did her. By Glenn Beck's own logic... wouldn't that make Ron Paul a truther too? Jus'sayin.

Personally, I don't care what Ron thinks in his own mind what really happened on 9/11. The fact that he wants a new investigation is good enough for me! I fully support him.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:Locke, a "truther" can be defined many different ways. One of the ways is: If you support a new investigation on 9/11... to get.. the truth, means you are a... TRUTHer. Just like Mark is a... TRUTHer. It really boils down to: Do you agree with the official story, or not?

But of course, the mainstream media labels truthers as vile and unpatriotic if you don't agree with the official summary of the events on 9/11. I agree that it would be political suicide for Ron Paul to even step into that mess. Just like it would be suicide for the church to come out against unconstitutional behavior by our government and politicians. Remember what Glenn Beck did to Debra Medina? She was (negatively) labeled as a "truther". Why? Because she wanted a new investigation!!! WHOA!!!! Look what good that did her. By Glenn Beck's own logic... wouldn't that make Ron Paul a truther too? Jus'sayin.

Personally, I don't care what Ron thinks in his own mind what really happened on 9/11. The fact that he wants a new investigation is good enough for me! I fully support him.

Amen IW! I'm growing a little tired too of John's ignorance on the 9/11 issue - part of me thinks he likes to egg you on to get a rise out of you. :p

Col. Flagg wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:Locke, a "truther" can be defined many different ways. One of the ways is: If you support a new investigation on 9/11... to get.. the truth, means you are a... TRUTHer. Just like Mark is a... TRUTHer. It really boils down to: Do you agree with the official story, or not?

But of course, the mainstream media labels truthers as vile and unpatriotic if you don't agree with the official summary of the events on 9/11. I agree that it would be political suicide for Ron Paul to even step into that mess. Just like it would be suicide for the church to come out against unconstitutional behavior by our government and politicians. Remember what Glenn Beck did to Debra Medina? She was (negatively) labeled as a "truther". Why? Because she wanted a new investigation!!! WHOA!!!! Look what good that did her. By Glenn Beck's own logic... wouldn't that make Ron Paul a truther too? Jus'sayin.

Personally, I don't care what Ron thinks in his own mind what really happened on 9/11. The fact that he wants a new investigation is good enough for me! I fully support him.

Amen IW! I'm growing a little tired too of John's ignorance on the 9/11 issue - part of me thinks he likes to egg you on to get a rise out of you. :p

Haha, could be. I think it's kinda weird how on particular threads on this forum, where evidence is overwhelmingly compiled, the naysayers just sorta... disappear.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:Locke, a "truther" can be defined many different ways. One of the ways is: If you support a new investigation on 9/11... to get.. the truth, means you are a... TRUTHer. Just like Mark is a... TRUTHer. It really boils down to: Do you agree with the official story, or not?

But of course, the mainstream media labels truthers as vile and unpatriotic if you don't agree with the official summary of the events on 9/11. I agree that it would be political suicide for Ron Paul to even step into that mess. Just like it would be suicide for the church to come out against unconstitutional behavior by our government and politicians. Remember what Glenn Beck did to Debra Medina? She was (negatively) labeled as a "truther". Why? Because she wanted a new investigation!!! WHOA!!!! Look what good that did her. By Glenn Beck's own logic... wouldn't that make Ron Paul a truther too? Jus'sayin.

Personally, I don't care what Ron thinks in his own mind what really happened on 9/11. The fact that he wants a new investigation is good enough for me! I fully support him.

Amen IW! I'm growing a little tired too of John's ignorance on the 9/11 issue - part of me thinks he likes to egg you on to get a rise out of you. :p

Haha, could be. I think it's kinda weird how on particular threads on this forum, where evidence is overwhelmingly compiled, the naysayers just sorta... disappear.

All of the scientific evidence and facts aside, seriously... how anyone can watch the twin towers 'collapse' like they did and not think that there is a problem is baffling to me. Same with building 7. Are there that many people in our country who couldn't even pass physics 101? That's probably a dumb question when more people voted for last year's American Idol than for president in 2008. :ymblushing: :ymblushing: :ymblushing: ) But that is how the true perpetrators managed to pull it off initially and initiate the bogus 'war on terror' - stupidity, ignorance and apathy amongst the general population.

Col. Flagg wrote: All of the scientific evidence and facts aside, seriously... how anyone can watch the twin towers 'collapse' like they did and not think that there is a problem is baffling to me. Same with building 7. Are there that many people in our country who couldn't even pass physics 101? That's probably a dumb question when more people voted for last year's American Idol than for president in 2008. :ymblushing: :ymblushing: :ymblushing: ) But that is how the true perpetrators managed to pull it off initially and initiate the bogus 'war on terror' - stupidity, ignorance and apathy amongst the general population.

YUP!

Ron Paul would support a new investigation, he knows the government seeks to cover up the facts all the time, but even if there was a new investigation the government would seek to cover up the facts again..... I for one know that there is no real justice in this world. I have had experiences that confirms this to me. Ron Paul does not need to believe 9/11 was an inside job for me to support him. He is true to the Constitution, that is more than enough for me to support him. I can understand why that many people cannot believe the inside job story, it is mind blowing. Many people live in denial for various reasons, those reasons usually boil down to great pain of some sorts.

I see government officials covering up abuses and murders all the time. There are many YouTube videos showing cops abusing and terrorizing people, wiki leaks published the videos showing troops killing kids and other innocent people. Government cover ups happen all the time. I have no doubt government officials were involved in 9/11 and that powerful government leaders covered it up. It's not that far fetch from my experiences and observations.

You see the problem with the science is i'm not a physicist or a chemist so I don't know 90% of the time if what i'm reading on the matter is true or not, and i've read both directions some scientist claim it was legit, others call foul. I understand why you guys believe it and honestly i'm not opposed to a new investigation taking into account all surround conspiracy theories and debunking those that are bogus etc. I'm not against that. My major hang up is I still do not see the benefit of the operation, what good did it do anyone? Why on earth would our own government want to bring the economy to its knees, while in the process murdering thousands of Americans? That just doesn't add up, it seems a lot more likely that it was motivated by hate. Now honestly guys on September 11 did you really watch the towers go down and your first thought was "Oh there's no way that wasn't a controlled demolition!"

John Locke wrote: My major hang up is I still do not see the benefit of the operation, what good did it do anyone? Why on earth would our own government want to bring the economy to its knees, while in the process murdering thousands of Americans?

Evil is something I struggle to understand, I wish I had a better answer for you. Maybe someone else can do a better job than me answering your question.

John Locke wrote:You see the problem with the science is i'm not a physicist or a chemist so I don't know 90% of the time if what i'm reading on the matter is true or not, and i've read both directions some scientist claim it was legit, others call foul. I understand why you guys believe it and honestly i'm not opposed to a new investigation taking into account all surround conspiracy theories and debunking those that are bogus etc. I'm not against that. My major hang up is I still do not see the benefit of the operation, what good did it do anyone? Why on earth would our own government want to bring the economy to its knees, while in the process murdering thousands of Americans? That just doesn't add up, it seems a lot more likely that it was motivated by hate. Now honestly guys on September 11 did you really watch the towers go down and your first thought was "Oh there's no way that wasn't a controlled demolition!"

I will just add here why only the call for a 9-11 re-investigation? What about the Oklahoma City bombing? Jasper from the New American has uncovered many discrepancies to the standard govt line on that incident. How about the 1st trade center bombing? TWA Flight 800? I don't remember reading call after call for congressional investigations on those incidents. Why only 9-11? Perhaps those other incidents don't fit snuggly into the standard inside job conspiracy accusation? Maybe connections to middle eastern radical terrorism on US soil doesn't have the conspiracy appeal to those accusing of an inside job? Just musing..

the "answer" my friend, is "...blowing in the wind..." the "trap" is set, say goodnite AmeriKa

John Locke wrote:You see the problem with the science is i'm not a physicist or a chemist so I don't know 90% of the time if what i'm reading on the matter is true or not, and i've read both directions some scientist claim it was legit, others call foul. I understand why you guys believe it and honestly i'm not opposed to a new investigation taking into account all surround conspiracy theories and debunking those that are bogus etc. I'm not against that. My major hang up is I still do not see the benefit of the operation, what good did it do anyone? Why on earth would our own government want to bring the economy to its knees, while in the process murdering thousands of Americans? That just doesn't add up, it seems a lot more likely that it was motivated by hate. Now honestly guys on September 11 did you really watch the towers go down and your first thought was "Oh there's no way that wasn't a controlled demolition!"

The first problem I see which will lead to your confusion is you have to stop thinking about "them" in terms of our government/citizens. Their allegiance lies with the world banks and mega corporations. They may hold an office in the our government but they are no more a part of us than the "third of the host" are a part of the church of the first born.

What do they stand to gain? The entire country is in debt. When the economy finally collapses they will be able to collect on the collateral backing that debt. It is a government over through by economic war. One of the scariest parts is a lot of the collateral for our debt is the tax dollars of the American people. We will, in effect, be slaves to the world bank and its corporations.

So you saying slavery is what they have to gain? However NONE of that was accomplished on 9/11 so really all they did was eliminate large amounts of income over that time period and killed off a whole bunch of slaves, again that doesn't add up. Even big bankers lost on that day.....