It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Glenn Beck gets death threat and Ron Paul explains his position on 9/11

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:13 PM

Wow is all I can say. Who are these people sending out death threats to the media AND in the name of Ron Paul. He has stated over and over again that he does not believe the government took down the buildings so stop smearing his image. I am glad Glenn Beck gave him a chance to explain his position.

Ron Paul believes that it was partly our government's fault through ineptness, not some direct conspiratorial action. And he feels that blow back from us dicking around in the middle east has caused much of the turmoil, which I agree. But he absolutely does not believe it was the government.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by Golack]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:39 PM
Hmm... Sounds like a great guy. Not sure if he has my vote, or not - since I know from personal experience that you have to bring down the "hammer of doom" that is U.S. air operations on other countries for reasons of diplomacy - and you won't get anywhere with the "why can't we be friends" approach... but the man sounds level headed.

And it's stuff like this that sorely disappoints me in the behavior of many in the 9/11 "truth" movement. They use the concept of "conspiracy" to simply double-speak their point of view into a piece of reality far removed from that of their own - then present it as reality.

"Why does such and such an official support the current version of 9/11?"

"Well, because he is either afraid the government will kill him, or he is a greedy scumbag who will trade the lives of his countrymen for money."

It just snowballs until everything is some sort of conspiracy where I can't even trust the five year old across the street - because he might be in on it.

And it's sad when they start hijacking the campaigns of political figures like this. And - as I have stated before... what is to say the purpose of the 9/11 "Truth" movement is not about truth, at all... but about controlling a segment of the population and, thus, having a vested political power in the country?

Obviously... we have all of the elements.... The leaders of this movement seem to have support and 'approved' this candidate and tried to twist it around to make it look - to 9/11 "Truth" supporters - like he is in support of the movement. ... Can we look at this situation and say that the 9/11 "Truth" leaders do not have a political objective in mind that may extend beyond their stated intent?

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:29 PM
well I will have to say that those people who make death threats
are not friends of mine nor do I agree with their motives
or intent. I think they are seeking and end to a means which
they have worked so hard for 6 years to overcome. But the
way they are doing it is just wrong. Hanging on political coat tails
to that means is just wrong. It gives the movement a bad name.

As far as Ron Paul's agenda, I do not intend on voting for him
since he just stated in that video that he does NOT believe
the US Government was directly involved in 9/11 other than
ineptness. Which is not what I want my next president to believe.
I want a new 9/11 investigation and I'm afraid Ron Paul IS NOT
gonna do that from what he said in that interview. So he just lost
my vote. My presidential nominee still looms.

As far as what the interviewer was talking about Ron's response
was gonna be just that ..... another conspiracy to hold back his
REAL views on 9/11 til after he takes office. All I got to say is he
better come clean with his true intentions and NOT hide them else
he is gonna lose a lot of revolutionaries by cloaking his opinions.
But I don't believe he is gonna come clean cuz I believe he is telling
the truth. Ron Paul will NOT re-OPEN 9/11 ..... so why vote for him
in the revolution. Frankly I was disappointed. This was his best
opportunity to come clean on the truther's agenda and he didn't.
Then why should he stand on the revolution platform if he is not
gonna follow through with actions ?? JMHO

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:44 PM
Please do tell me what there would be left to investigate.

The rubble has all been scrapped - so it's not like you are going to find any bomb residue or some smoking gun like in some Dan Brown book, or something.

And, by now, any political trail is so cold it's practically absolute zero - or the offending parties are already out of power or influence - unless they are one of our energizer senators or something - they just keep going and going and going.....

So... from the standpoint of cold reality, here is what I see. You are wanting to spend millions, possibly billions, of U.S. currency to conduct an investigation into an event that is six years in the past for some sort of government conspiracy. Not to mention the amount of time and human resources invested into such an effort; any effects/objectives of such a conspiracy would have long been completed.

So, let's go stir up the past, and keep staring at it so that we can run right into the brick wall in front of us at full-tilt.

Sounds like a nice plan.

Sorry to say... but I strongly disagree with your desired leadership values.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:44 PM
to quote... "going down this road is dangerous"... sounds like a bit of a threat to me.... i don't believe that Ron Paul thinks the government WAS responsible... remember there's lots of people involved in the government.. perhaps ask him whether he thinks masad or larry silverstein were involved or if the bush family had knowledge and a hand in it or that don rum knew something, and you might get a very diffrent facial expression... of course, the guy's not going to say what he really thinks.. he wants to be president, not shot in the head while getting out of a van in Tusla...

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:00 PM

i so wish paul was a better arguer, trash talker
when beck asks paul about the trhreats paul would say::

in a joking kidding matter----:well glenn did u deserve it??? "what answer from me are u lokking for? and what does this have to do with me running for president???well glenn my supporters are sick and tired of the media biased, derailment and blackout of my campaign

beck will get a nice bonus check in the mail---he did wonderful smearing paul

does glenn beck really think ron paul has anything to do with or control over what supporters may do???? he can't be this dumb--well maybe

i told my mom to watch for all the diggs, and negative contotations thrown in throughout the hour----she now clearly sees what i am talking about.

this did nothing to help the average american dewcide who ron paul is or what he stands for-----all it did was make him sound crazy.

if i didn't do the homework and know the truth--i wouldn't vote for him either.

that hour of tv was absolutely disgusting

and today the fcc decides to allow more media consolidation, even after repeated public outcries to vote no---where are we headed????

sorry if i strayed off topic but i feel better now----let me know i can't be alone on this

i want to fight beck in a boxing match---it can even benefit a charity of his choice

*Edited unfounded insult*

[edit on 19-12-2007 by dbates]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:01 PM
Of course. And the reason I am against the 9/11 "Truth" movement is because I am in the military and want to be promoted and accepted into designing "black" aircraft.

See, the only cause for disagreeing with the "Truth" movement is that those who are in disagreement are scared of the Government.

It's an impervious mindset and point of debate.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:04 PM
All in all,I give G.B credit.
It was a pretty fair interview.
I mean,come on already,he gave him an entire show to talk.
Thats more than any other network has given him.
Im not a fan of G.B's,but he did a good thing tonight.
All be it for ratings or whatever,it could only help Ron Paul gain exposer.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by Black_Fox

maybe paul "supporters" should threaten every media personality... then he'd really get some time!

[edit on 18-12-2007 by never_tell]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by never_tell

I think that was G.B's attempt at demonising the 9/11 "truth" movement.
He made it sould like he was threatened over his 9/11 views,opposed to anything having to do with Ron Paul.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by Black_Fox

why interview ron paul then if not to tie him to the 911 "truth" movement as well... more likely he was hoping america, or at least his viewers, we're listening with only one eye open...

[edit on 19-12-2007 by never_tell]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:17 PM
On one hand, I see Ron Paul as a liar. He talked openly about his 9/11 truth seeking questions on Alex Jones no less than a year ago, and now he's flipping his viewpoint on us? What is this, just a joke? That he can manipulate people with false truth seeking and patriotic fervor?

On the other hand, maybe this was his plan. Maybe he really will oust 9/11 and start a real meaningful revolution once he takes office.

I am not holding my breath for that, though.

Sorry Mr. Paul. I'm voting Kucinich. He's probably more of an honest guy than Ron Paul seems to be. If Ron Paul can't even admit to having serious questions about 9/11, than how is he gunna do anything in the face of the CIA and the Federal Reserve?

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:45 PM
Ron Paul will do more to help the truth movement than Kucinich. He is the man who wants to take out the Federal Reserve and stop funding Israel. He plans to dismantle the CIA and bring all of the troops overseas home.

In essence, if 9/11 was caused by an element in the government, Ron Paul will get rid of it by cutting way down the size of the federal government.

Besides he has said that he will re-open an investigation into 9/11 because he believes that the government did a crap job on it (they did). I haven't heard him change his mind on this yet?

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by shortywarn

And here we see exactly why Ron Paul has trouble getting any traction at all. His supporters act like buffoons. As a Ron Paul supporter, it is embarassing.

*Edited unfounded comment*

[edit on 19-12-2007 by dbates]

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:27 AM
reply to post by indierockalien

Are you kidding me, Kucinich???

Are you aware that the guy completely bankrupted the city of Cleveland when he was mayor??? I live in Cleveland and have watched this guy's political career for nearly 20 years and I can tell you that it's nothinbg short of an absolute train-wreck! If the vote came down to Kucinich versus Mickey Mouse, I'd put my faith in Mickey before I would Dennis. Just my two cents.

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by SimonSays

Well Simon, now that Ron Paul has declared the government, no-plane, ect conspiracies to be outrageous, who would you vote for now?

I was tempted to start this thread last night after watcing what I would consider the "truthers" last gasp for some political affirmation or affiliation but alas I thought better of it.

I for one was quite pleased to see Mr. Paul's quick and definitive response to what he thought were outlandish statements regarding a 9-11 cover-up.

He seems like a decent man but raising 16 to 20 million dollars in this high stakes game unfortunately leaves him on the outer fringe. I don't think it's right but it sure is reality.


posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by never_tell
not shot in the head while getting out of a van in Tusla...

Or driving down Dealy Plaza.

I'd be scared too.

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Becker44Well Simon, now that Ron Paul has declared the government, no-plane, ect conspiracies to be outrageous, who would you vote for now?

My definitive vote would be for any candidate who would
re-open a 9/11 investigation and bring our troops home
from Iraq. As I see both of those as skid-marks in the
U.S. dirty laundry. And needs to be rectified. A someone else
mentioned about it being dead and gone, NO, it's NOT dead
and gone as there is no statue of limitations on murder or
conspiracy to murder. 9/11 was murder, Iraq was murder
under false pre-tenses (WMD). It's time to wash the dirty laundry
instead of just sweeping it under the rug and act like it didn't

So in essence if any candidate promises to fix those 2 things
on public TV and I see the truth in his/her eyes will get my vote.
I don't care what their name is .... or what party they represent.

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Becker44
He seems like a decent man but raising 16 to 20 million dollars in this high stakes game unfortunately leaves him on the outer fringe.

That's another thing that bothers me about politics and how it is covered
in the media. The media's coverage always covers how much money
a candidate can raise in a campaign. It's shown all over the news.
Frankly, too much emphasis is put on how much money one raises
instead of what the candidate stands for. This is just a media circus
in which the person with the most money gets the most coverage.
Basically, it is buying an election. I think there needs to be a cap
on how much a campaign can raise. Anything over that cap is given
back to the donor. This is turning out to be a money race instead
of an issue or character race. With so much money involved, there is
no wonder you have to be a crook in order to reach the White House.
The system works against the nature of why it was designed.
With any candidate accepting so much money in order to compete,
it's no wonder why so many favors are cashed in once they get in
office. Sad to say, that goes all the way down the line to small
municipalities as well.

The only way to fix the entire issue and put integrity back into
the political process is to completely fire every politician in
the U.S. and start over with new fresh faces that haven't been
corrupted by the existing process. An entire new political
infrastructure. Once that has been established, then position
sharing should be implemented. Instead of 4 years in the White
House, make it a 1 year term and let somebody else take the seat.
Else we leave one scoundrel in the king's seat too long and he changes
it around to his liking and before you know it. It's harder to get
him out of the seat than it was to get there.

These are just my opinions and (LOL) I'm sure it will never
come to pass ..... but it is a dream of a brighter future
in democracy.

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Aim64COf course. And the reason I am against the 9/11 "Truth" movement is because I am in the military and want to be promoted and accepted into designing "black" aircraft.

In my opinion, this is the wrong reason.
Why not "I want to design aircraft that will help us as a nation"
instead of JUST "black" aircraft. It's a dead end, as the best black
aircraft has already been designed and sits in 9 hangars in S4 and
don't need re-designing. It just needs modification for human
use. As ET has already delivered all the design we will ever
need in your lifetime. So the need to design "black" aircraft
is a useless endeavor in my opinion and should not be a
legitimate reason for disassembling the truth movement.
It's a dead end, JMHO

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in