-19 votes

What do Truthers really think of Ron Paul?

This is not a thread about if Truthers are right or wrong in any theory. Let us avoid that debate.

Many of us 'discovered' Ron Paul during a 2007/8 debate when Paul went toe to toe with Rudy Giuliani debating the cause of 9/11. Paul plainly stated that it was our foreign policy that caused 9/11.

It is obvious that Ron does not subscribe to Truther Theory. Ron was so certain Bin Laden was behind the attacks, he voted to authorize the use of force to bring him to justice.

What do Truthers really think of Ron Paul? I've been shown nothing but contempt for being 'a 9/11 denier', do they hold the same contempt for Ron Paul?

Before you reply that Ron supports re-opening the 9/11 investigation, he does so "because I think the ineptness was probably hidden, because there was a tremendous amount of ineptness. And that's generally what government investigations do - they hide the inefficiencies and ineptness of government." (from YouTube)

So... why are Truthers here? Paul doesn't support your theories. Does your contempt of me extend to contempt for Ron Paul?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I am a

truther, and I believe Ron Paul knows everything about that event was 'hinky.' It's just political suicide to talk about it.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Put it like this..

Im a truther and Ron Paul introduced me to the 9/11 truth movement ..

'Nuff said.

The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.

- Calvin Coolidge

Building in China Burns for Hours

but never falls in on itself. Ron Paul knows the truth. He just doesn't go around raving about it. The media would have a hey day if he did. Explain THIS! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM


I have been thinking

RP said its a conspiracy of ideas

Hayek says the turds float to the top

XXXX says if u believe in conspiracies you are giving them too much credit...they aren't that smart they can't control so much. Its the worst coordination problem ever.

can we just get rid of these power centers. Let the crap float to the top, but lets lower the top so low it doesn't matter.

Don't know what happened all seemed fishy to me. Some times I think a lot of people went truther because they can't comprehend what 60 years of world empire can do to piss off some folks. other times i think it was created as a crazy tag to throw at anyone questioning the governments actions.

I'm neither truther or naysayer

I'm more of a 'questioner'

After the Nixon/Watergate scandal, it's hard to put anything past government really.

That being said, I like Ron Paul for the honesty, telling it like it is, and speaking his mind against the flow of the so called media and beltway.

He also puts country first, political affiliation second, that is admirable.

His sound money and fiscal responsibility are attractive as well.

And his voting record ACTUALLY reflects what he says and believes.

The man's a legend. What more can be said?

Its simple. He distrusts the

Its simple. He distrusts the government and always questions their "official reasons" and "official story"....just like the founders did.

DJP333's picture

What does Ron Paul think?


"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW


We like him.

Even though he's still in the closet.

We know he's one of us.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Ron Paul is NOT a liar

He has stated he is not a 9/11 truther.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien


... if you oppose the drive for the truth... does that make you a Liar?

PS: Paul Wellsotne was a politician and a Truther.... Look what happened to him.

There is a body count attached to the Truth Movement.

Don't kid yourself, 19 images of Arab men did not breach through the most protected airspace in the world with a few box cutter knives. LOL!

Truthers will believe

Truthers will believe anything Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura say.

And Naive

mindless sheep believe anything the likes of Bush and Cheney say. Take your pick. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that 3 buildings can't just fall into their own footprints for no real reason. I don't have to have AJ or Jesse tell me that to know it!


Speaking only for myself.

Speaking only for myself. Ron Paul may be a truther and never admit it and from his point of view not mine it wouldn't help to talk about it. He feels he is already attacking the source of the problem. There is a video of we are change (I think) asking him about bilderberg, he shrugs it off. Then when asked again he says (i'm paraphrasing) that bilderberg gets together to talk about how to control the worlds resources. Then goes on to say but we have our own things to talk about like how do we get our liberties back. He would set the respect he has gained by the common "conservative" back along ways by bringing it up. I should know I bring it up all the time because I feel it is important for people how evil these people really are. You just end up making people think your crazy because 95% of Americans will never do any research on any subject. If they don't see it on msm, it never happened. How could we ever hold contempt for Ron Paul he is the greatest man that has ever lived.

Why are truthers here?

Because DP tolerates some conspiracy theory and freedom of speach. I'm not a truther, but stand for their right to debate and entertain themselves with their versions of truth.

That's actually kind of funny

"I'm not a truther"...well, that wouldn't surprise me as I've seen that you are definitely here, and engaged out there, to fight the good fight as you see it. But with that said, You've definitely shown the capacity, if not a propensity, to lie to yourself.

At some point cognitive dissonance must be addressed...I've sat in your seat.

From a former "not a truther".

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?


How did you sit in my seat?

What lies am I telling myself from your perspective?

I think the thruther movement was started by the same folks who gave us 911.. shock and awe.. they give you what they want you to question and debate, and it's over a decade and we are no closer to the truth. So if being a truther suits your soul and you think you're living the truth.. more power to you. I don't see it your way because I don't see any truth.. sure, plenty of facts that don't lead to truth or justice.. just stalemate. Enjoy.

Thank you Granger

We may never know the truth, and really, at this point it is irrelevant. If you focus on the principles of liberty and do what you can to further these, then you are doing the right thing. Even RP has said this.

The liberty movement must make end roads locally before it can make anything happen nationally. Get out to change the state party leadership.

What I am trying to do right now is to have a better way to convince the people that free market principles will benefit them. RP has said that the people must know free markets are in their best interest or else the masses will reject free markets. I am going to start a thread in the "ask DP" about how we can do this better. I hope I can get better response this time.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

I dono

But while contemplating what happened to them weapons of mass destruction....I wonder???


Don't care what they think

Sorry but I could care less what "truthers" think.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

What do they think?

That's easy to answer, regardless of what Ron Pauls position is on the circumstances of 9/11, they support him. Ron Paul is viewed as a totally honest statesman, he is trusted to a degree that no other politician is, or probably ever has been. So people who are of the belief that some kind of shenanigans had taken place that day, he has earned a place of trust among people who have lost trust in the official story. So it really matters not what Ron Paul believes happened, it is the fact that he has absolute integrity they like. With a new investigation of 9/11, Dr Paul is trusted to tell us the truth.

I think he's the man

Don't care what he believes or knows about 911. I care about the policies he advocates.

On a side note, I remember when I was like Bill. After all I live in NY, saw the destruction first hand. To think my government had anything to do with it was insane. And folks that claimed it was an inside job were nuts.

Then I looked at the evidence.

Now I envy Bill in a weird way. Ignorance truly was bliss.

I find most of the Bill's of the world "have it all figured out" from the extensive research they have conducted on the topic when reviewing the material with an unbiased mind.

For all the BS from folks who refuse to look, and claim Truthers are nut jobs, I have yet to hear one give any explanation on Building 7 that is even remotely plausible. The best is when guys like Bill respond with the classic "what's building 7".

fireant's picture

"...folks who refuse to look..."

Do you have room in your thinking for someone who originally believed the official story, then several years later got on the internet for the first time and started believing the controlled demolition theory, then recently realized was not being given the full story by the Truth Movement, in fact, outright misled at times, then recently decided to chuck all past belief and study free of any predetermined conclusions, and found there is no evidence of missiles, bombs, or controlled demolition?
That's me.
You seem to assume that those of us who hold that belief somehow are blinded by the official story and have not considered all the claims of the Truth Movement. That is a false parameter from which to form a conclusion of any kind. It eliminates the possibility of some other combination of belief.
My belief is based on hard fact. Whenever I present hard fact, it is never discussed, it is either ignored or I am subject to name calling and every other form of intimidation. I've been told I'm utter scum for simply presenting established fact.
I have to ask. Who is it who refuses to look?

Undo what Wilson did

Who is this Truth Movement?

First off...who is this "truth movement" you speak of? Specifically the ones who misled you? If you did as you claim and examined the evidence yourself, then who is responsible for the conclusions you draw, false or otherwise?

I will agree there are theories out there that are devoid of all facts, but it is up to you to decide what to believe. I fail to see it as a single "Truth movement" with agreed upon evidence vs. the establishments story. So while you may have found dishonest theories, does that mean all theories must be false?

I am interested in the truth. We will never know that in its entirety. Even if that truth is that our government was incompetent and nothing more. If there are good facts out there to explain all the inconsistencies I am open to them.

I am interested in the evidence that you have uncovered that explains how WTC7 came down. And which NIST theory are we working off? As I said I am open to truth, and if you have facts that I have not seen, I would research them, and admit my error, if that is the case.

fireant's picture

The one consistent characteristic I have found is belief in...

controlled demolition and no plane hit the Pentagon. If you show facts which do not support it on this board, you are ignored and or called names, or in other ways intimidated. The same people call themselves truthers. It is not my label. They claim it.
So yes, there is a consistent belief, evidenced by the people on this board who call themselves "truthers". They clearly demand faith in CD and no plane hit the Pentagon.
I don't know why you mention NIST. I don't work off their theories. I simply look at what evidence is readily available, and let it speak with no preconceived notion.
Another characteristic of the truth movement is adherence to the information put out by AE911Truth. I see people here regurgitate his talking points repeatedly, and they cannot defend them. Thus the name calling I suppose. As an example, Gage claims 7 came straight down into it's own footprint, and it just had small office fires. Neither are true, and it is highly irregular for a professional to utilize deceptive tactics.
I have shown repeatedly that the fires were extensive, in some areas and at some times during the day they were very intense, that the damage from 1WTC was likely even greater than NIST describes, that FDNY, from several sources, predicted 7 would fall, that saying the whole building fell in 7 seconds is a lie, and that the initial move of the shell was a rotating move, which is observable by it's noted shift to the east. This means lower support was not severed, rather, it buckled, or folded. If lower support were severed, the first move would have been straight down, and at immediate gravitational acceleration.
I present these facts and am voted down and called all sorts of names, but no one discusses them.
So, tell me what your idea is of 7, so I'll have a better idea of what evidence you would like to see. I am not claiming I have all the answers on 7. My study is not complete, and evidence is not as easy to find as for the Towers. The evidence I have though, shows no sign of CD, but it does show signs of structural failure.

Undo what Wilson did


I wanted to run one thing that troubles me about WTC 7 by you for your opinion. Pause this video below at the 2 second mark. Roughly 5 windows in from the right hand side of the building it looks to me like there are "flashes" that occur in a (roughly) vertical line for roughly 10 floors. There are also the same things on the left hand side of the building (though not a vertical formation) I think 8 rows from the top and about 5 windows from the left.

I will fully admit that I am no architect/engineer/demolitions expert but those do seem like they're "flashes" to me. Any thoughts on that?


fireant's picture

I think you are seeing distortions in the building.

If there were flashes caused by demo charges, they would be unmistakable, and everyone would have heard very loud reports. If they were silent cutter charges, we'd see sparks flying all over. The give-away though, is it is after the building is falling, and well after the core had started collapsing. If you see any light flashes at that stage, it would be from windows breaking (angular reflection variation) or maybe from friction when the steel broke. There for sure was a pressure wave in that area of the building, indicating something was going on with the floor trusses.

Undo what Wilson did

some people are just less

some people are just less smart than others. theres no other way to look at it. some people just believe what the majority believe without thinking at all. its up to the smart ones, the truthers in this case to persuade enough of the flock to wake the f___ up.

f___ all forms of govt.

You are a bit presumptuous

I have looked at lots of 'evidence' - I've read official reports and 3rd party reports. I've watched a lot of Truther videos and debunking videos.

I have done my analysis... I've looked thoroughly at all sides of the evidence (did you?) I don't claim proof that it was not an inside job - our government could have had a nudging hand and a blind eye involved. But all the thermite stuff - wtc7 and the other outlandish theories are bunk.

So - don't tell me I haven't looked at the evidence. Don't call me ignorant. I always look at all sides of any argument.

Why do non-truthers think we truthers have a solid theory?

We think we've been lied to and with the information we have we can tell that either a major failure of defense occurred or a few people in select places knew the plan and allowed it to occur, possibly covering up their tracks with an inept investigation afterwards. Because of the major policy shifts and lives lost after 9-11 I support a new independent investigation and opening peoples eyes to the fact that one is necessary.
Why is that so wrong or kooky?

fireant's picture

Because when we show evidence CD did not occur,

they gang up on us, calling us every name in the book, unworthy of associating with an effort to gain Liberty for our children.
How can you say "truthers" don't have a solid theory. On this board, either you accept CD and no plane at the Pentagon, or you are out. That sounds like a "solid theory" to me.

Undo what Wilson did