Comment: With Ron Paul I think we do know for sure

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: There's no way of knowing for sure (see in situ)

With Ron Paul I think we do know for sure

Ron Paul just doesn't lie. He knows how to say "We're told that ..." in order to eviscerate some official story without endorsing it, he's certainly cunning in that way, but he didn't do that in all the times he talked about 9/11 as an example of blowback.

He talks about how neocons say that terrorists are motivated because they hate our freedoms, but you don't see terrorists from Iran attacking us, instead fourteen of the nineteen were from Saudi Arabia and motivated by our occupation and our puppet government there.
This is his case for blowback. If he's lying about believing this he's not only lying about that, he's building his case for blowback on something he believes to be a lie. That's not Ron Paul.

This doesn't make him a "truth denier." He says that WTC 7 is suspicious. He says he doesn't accept the 9/11 investigation. He says they're hiding things from us.

He says the report was basically a coverup:
Starting around 3:50, and around 4:30 he gives a specific example of something that he thinks should have been investigated but wasn't.