The time has come for Ron Paul to delve into ConspiracySubmitted by bloatedtoad on Thu, 03/28/2013 - 07:14
First and foremost knowledge is power. Without a good understanding of conspiracy and how it plays into the degradation of our freedoms here and worldwide we'll have little chance of reversing it.
RON PAUL HAS AVOIDED CONSPIRACY AS A CONGRESSMAN
I don't doubt that it hasn't been lost on Ron Paul that believing in conspiracy is a political hot potato that can easily torpedo a political career. That alone being the honest man that Ron Paul is he may not have delved into it knowing that if he had knowledge and answered questions truthfully it could make things incredibly more difficult to mount any successful campaign to get into office. But I do remember a video I saw once where someone approached Ron Paul and asked why he hasn't delved into conspiracy. Ron's answer was to the effect that it was a very complicated subject and he couldn't devote the the appropriate amount of time to it that he felt it needed. I cannot remember where I saw this so I'm paraphrasing the question and answer as I remember it.
WITH THOUSANDS INVOLVED IN CONSPIRACY WHY HASN'T IT COME OUT IN THE NEWS?
So yes, Ron's answer was a truthful answer, and I agree conspiracy is extremely complicated because it has gone on for centuries and conspiracy will not voluntarily reveal itself. Those involved at the apex of the conspiracy are far down the learning curve of deception (these are the families who are shareholders of almost all the central banks of the world including "our" Fed). These conspirators (the bankers) are fabulously wealthy far beyond the dreams of avarice and their wealth is secret. With that wealth comes enormous power and immunity from their crimes. They are majority shareholders of almost the entire fortune 500, including all the mainstream media. The conspirators know that the people they can trust the most to carry out their secret works of darkness are people who have something to hide or are corrupt in some key manner so they can be bribed or blackmailed into submission if need be. These would include (but not limited to) people who are homosexual, people who have gained wealth illicitly, pedophiles or people involved any number of other illegal or immoral activities. I hold that most congressmen are controlled by corruption, with the carrot and stick of bribes and blackmail.
Another aspect of conspiracy is the fact that one does not have to understand the entire agenda to be a participant. It operates much the same way as the CIA in that the vast majority of the people involved only see a portion of the picture that they are directly involved with. They may even believe in what they are doing and not even realize they are connected with the conspirators or that they are carrying out part of a conspiracy. It's compartmentalization if you will. That is why, out of the many thousands of participants, you never find anyone that can blow the whole thing wide open.
THE LID ON CONSPIRACY IS NOT AIRTIGHT
Bits and pieces of this international banking conspiracy do leak out and it's up to us to pay attention and put those pieces together and look at them in context. Any given piece of information may indeed be coincidental but as more and more pieces are discovered it comes to the point that the mathematical chances of "coincidental" diminish as other possibilities, particularly conspiracy, become more of a logical probability.
A good example that Ron Paul supporters are familiar with is what happened in Ron's 2012 campaign where in state after state all kinds of dirty tricks were played to marginalize and kill the Ron Paul movement. We had the crucial Iowa caucuses where Ron went into the caucus with the polls stating he could win, yet he came out 3rd. Iowa had changed the procedure on how the votes were to be counted only a short time before. That taken by itself could be coincidental. But in state after state rules at conventions were broken, Ron Paul delegates were disallowed over trumped up technicalities. Legitimate attendees were arrested or "roughed up". Even in the convention everything was done to silence Ron Paul and never allow anyone like Ron Paul to ever make it that far again. The Republicans were even caught scripting in advance the outcome of the voting on rule changes! The "ten fat men" that Doug Wead famously referred to that were the Republican controllers were more than likely beholden to others who were pulling strings for the bankers.
In the broader picture there are bits and pieces that somehow get through the mainstream media. Let's take a look at Anwar al-Awlaki the first American Citizen who was "officially" targeted for assassination. We pretty much all agree that he was a really bad guy so that was perfect to make him the first target in the administration's new policy of assassinating citizens with no judicial review, thus setting the precedent allowing the president to openly kill at will. So would there be another reason that we don't know about (tied in with the conspiracy) that would also make it convenient to kill Anwar al-Awlaki so as to avoid a trial? If so what is it that the government doesn't want to come to light in a trial. Well, a tidbit turned up in the mainstream news not once but at least twice! Yet it really never "went anywhere". This news is of such a ground shaking magnitude you would think it would be front page everywhere. However, it's a fact that very few people have seen these reports. That should tell you something. Watch here:
I have found that in studying conspiracy that the more one delves into it the bigger it gets. I have come to the conclusion that outside the bankers themselves and the few closely associated with them that no one can learn the entire extent of it. It is absolutely vast and it's tentacles are everywhere, in industry, education, government at all levels and organizations of all kinds. It's all orchestrated with the same themes and talking points to make the evil secret agenda look like a normal consensus of opinion across a very wide spectrum.
So Ron Paul is correct when he stated that it was very complicated. Yet it is vital that it be studied because the most important knowledge that one can have is that this conspiracy IS VERY REAL and it must be taken into account as we put together strategies to build our liberty movement. Otherwise we will be at risk of being co-opted and led down paths where we will only waste our energies spinning our wheels or fighting among ourselves. The bankers are experts at this.
Now that Ron Paul no longer plans to run for political office he should take this opportunity to take the liberty movement to a higher, more savvy level. That can only come by studying and taking into account conspiracy as we move forward. I will now prove beyond any reasonable doubt that conspiracy is very much alive and is responsible for our current rapid loss of our freedoms. Though the international banking conspiracy is unbelievably vast I will prove this through the evidence found in 9/11. Follow my logic as I piece together the evidence here:
WHEN DID YOU QUIT BELIEVING IN SANTA CLAUS?
As kids we believed in Santa Claus. Our parents were the gatekeepers of information and, though benign, our environment during that formative time was a controlled one. We were taught to believe in Santa Claus. Initially we accepted all the information that we received at face value. However, as time progressed, we gained bits and pieces of information that led to a cognitive dissonance which, in turn, led us to question our image of Santa Claus. These “bits and pieces” led to questions such as “How could Santa Claus fit through my chimney” or “How does Santa Claus leave gifts in millions of homes during a single night”? Armed with all these bits and pieces of information, we began to get a different picture that caused all the previous illogic that we had learned to come crashing down. This finally led to an epiphany that Santa Claus really isn’t anything like what we had first thought!
There are other things in life that we have always taken for granted as “fact” that later prove to be only an illusion as well. It’s only a matter of getting more information. As in the case of the Santa Claus myth, it is only a matter of time as new evidence unfolds that we are forced to rethink our view on what the truth is.
I WANT TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT HERE:
Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’ve read this far into my article so please take just one small minute and watch this first video. You’re going to be impressed. This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:
The explosions in the basement were separate independent events which had nothing to do with where the airplanes hit some 80 to 100 floors above. Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower.
You say, “wait, this doesn’t fit anything I know, maybe there is some other explanation for those explosions in the basement.” True. This is just one piece of evidence, but it’s a piece of evidence that raises a lot of questions. You didn’t see this on TV either. Does that prick your interest?
The government has promoted a “theory” that maybe the fuel from the jet trickled down the elevator shafts into the basement and subsequently exploded. Could this be? Let’s continue and look at other evidence. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Remember, Building Seven was NEVER hit by a jet. In Barry's case an explosion blew out a stair well below him leaving him hanging and stranded for hours until the fire department got him out. Both the twin towers went down during the time he was stranded. Building Seven, a tall building in it’s own right (47 stories tall), came down at around 5:20 (later that day). Fortunately, he was saved. Watch his account here:
Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. You say, “Hold On! Building Seven housed the FBI and the CIA offices, so who would have access to set up explosives in there? There has got to be another explanation.” True. This is just one piece of evidence which raises more questions. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.
William Rodriguez, head janitor at the towers, was meeting with some people in basement level #1 (the highest of several basement levels) when an explosion from below pushed everyone upwards, causing ceiling tiles to fall and walls to crack. Just as William started to express to others what he thought that explosion might be, an airplane hit and shook the building from above. His story begins at 9:31 here:
Now, let’s look for other different kinds of evidence. Steve Jones, a physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers from people who lived nearby. He analyzed it and found that the dust contained residues of explosives. Steve Jones first became famous when he became known as the “voice of reason” during the Pons / Fleischman "Cold Fusion" debacle of 1989, if you remember that. For a Nuclear Physicist, like Steve Jones, analyzing dust samples for explosive residues is a relatively simple task. It may be similar to asking a PhD mathematician to do arithmetic. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:
In this lecture, you recall, he offered other scientists to take parts of his samples in order to analyze the "red chips" that he had recently discovered. That was December 2007. These specks have now, in fact, been confirmed to be unexploded “nanostructured super-thermite” particles. That confirmation is not just a smoking gun IT IS THE GUN. See the article here:
The actual scientific paper in its entirety can be found here in PDF form. Be sure to click the “download” link here:
If you get into the actual paper, you learn that the explosives may actually have been sprayed into position like paint or insulation!
Steve Jones’ findings may not fit the stories that you have heard in the news but it does lend support to what Johannemann, Jennings and Rodriguez testified that they saw. You say, “The news media isn’t going to shoot itself in the foot by making something up.” So how do we rectify all the contradictions that we were told in the news? Could Steve Jones and these witnesses be glory-seeking kooks trying to make a name for themselves?
Then take a look at this:
Here is a BBC report announcing the collapse of the Solomon Building (the official name for Building Seven). There is only one problem. The reporter standing at the scene and announcing this didn't realize that, in fact, you could still see Building Seven still standing off to the right. It actually collapsed within about 20 minutes after that live report. Watch it here:
How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled (but in a more sinister way than how information about Santa Claus was controlled in your life).
Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building Seven. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and he suggested to the fire department that they pull it. He then stated that the fire department made that decision to "pull" it. Well, here is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes at least a week to rig a building like that with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building Seven went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:
Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal. So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this. What else could explain the BBC blunder? They had to control the information to those of us who might not like the idea that a few thousand people had to be killed in order to fulfill some kind of agenda. So what’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”
Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?). This is the same Rockefeller family that is a large shareholder of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a private company that loans money to our government and contributes to our huge national debt. You see the name “Federal Reserve” at the top the dollar bill. Yes, we're talking about THAT Bank! Anyway, the upshot of this friendship was that in the year 2000 (11 months before 9/11) Aaron Russo learned from his Rockefeller buddy that there was going to be an "event". He was told that out of this event the U.S. would go into Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden in Caves and then the U.S. would go into Iraq. His fascinating testimony about this "event" and how it fits into their agenda starts at 26:45 here in this interview (If you have the time watch the whole thing in this most important of all videos):
Another thing. In February 2009 a 44 story Chinese skyscraper caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder. However IT DID NOT COLLAPSE. By comparison WTC Building Seven had a few small fires and was never hit by a plane. It DID COLLAPSE. See that article here:
Now see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
Amazingly, all this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of these are separate independent pieces of evidence from unconnected sources. When taken together they paint a clear picture. You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict?
Remember, the word “conspiracy” is not in the dictionary to describe a fiction.