Ron Paul: 9/11 Was Caused By Government Banning Guns on Planes

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   


Ron Paul is spot on, he also shows himself as a bit of a truther to say the government set the stage by telling people to stand down to terrorists. He also told the truth about the political incorrectness of not profiling and instead targeting 95 year olds as terrorists.




posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Here is I think the full version.




posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
This guy is a crack pot.

Allowing people guns on planes?

OP are you serious?


Regards, Skellon.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Reply to post by Skellon
 


pilots were armed on planes into the 70's before irrational fear made them boxes to be cut.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Ron Paul is just getting himself deeper and deeper into that hole. The more he speaks the more idiotic he sounds...and people really want him to be President?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I understand what you are saying.

I just cannot grasp the idea of allowing people, in general, to bring guns on planes.

That is not a solution.

So, instead of wondering if the passenger, of Middle Eastern origin is going to pull a gun and hijack the plane for political reasons, you are left wondering if any of the passengers on the plane that have had a bad day are going to hijack the plane?

Not to mention that a ballistic discharge inside a pressurised cabin is somewhat dangerous.

Regards, Skellon
edit on 10-7-2011 by Skellon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
If our entire society was armed, chances are violent crimes like that wouldn't happen - or would at least seriously decline. Criminals would think twice about committing a violent crime if they were aware that everyone else surrounding them was armed. It seems that criminals are the only ones who get to carry guns around these days, you know? It just makes the rest of us more dependent on the nanny state we live in, IMO.
edit on 10-7-2011 by rEVOLuti0nary because: grammar



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 


Your fears are valid only if you believe the anti-gun groups statements that everyone who carries a gun is a wacko who is just waiting for a chance to shoot somebody. It is my belief that disarming the passengers and crew of airliners increaced the number of hijackings and led to 9-11.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 


You can honestly listen to him there and say he's a crackpot?
He obviously means security. It's a good idea.. that's why it was employed before they started stripping away liberties.

OP I have to say the way you titled it leaves it open to improper interpretation that may make people think he means anyone.. I would say banning armed agents instead maybe.. your thread though. Anyway, even just security with tasers would be good.
edit on 10-7-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I understand what you are saying.

I just cannot grasp the idea of allowing people, in general, to bring guns on planes.


Not everyone would have a gun on the plane only the pilot so that's a big difference. I wouldn't like it if anyone could bring a gun on a plane but the pilot is different. You entrust your life to the pilot and the pilot should also be armed to further the security of the passengers.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Skellon
 


You can honestly listen to him there and say he's a crackpot?
He obviously means security. It's a good idea.. that's why it was employed before they started stripping away liberties.

OP I have to say the way you titled it leaves it open to improper interpretation that may make people think he means anyone.. I would say banning armed agents instead maybe.. your thread though. Anyway, even just security with tasers would be good.
edit on 10-7-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


It was a direct quote from a website, probably prisonplanet so maybe that would explain it, but thanks for the heads up. I think he obviously meant pilots and private security, not everyone having a gun on the plane.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Ron Paul is just getting himself deeper and deeper into that hole. The more he speaks the more idiotic he sounds...and people really want him to be President?


You are so right, it is politically incorrect to use rationalism and common sense thinking to solve problems today..

Imagine how funny you look to your puppetmaster...



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Ron Paul is just getting himself deeper and deeper into that hole. The more he speaks the more idiotic he sounds...and people really want him to be President?


I smell a rat



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
If you stop and think about it, the only justification (if you can call it that) of the TSA destroying freedom to "keep terrorists off the plane" is to prevent the plane being used as a weapon, as supposedly happened on 9/11. If the pilots were armed, and they had 1 or 2 plain-clothes security on the plane, it could never happen. "But what if they smuggle explosives in their shoes and blow up the plane" -- so ?? Guess what, an islamic terrorist could drive a truck full of explosives through times square and blow it up there, and kill lots of people.

Anyway, we all know the NWO crowd wants total tyranny over the American people, so this is all moot. The only point of voting for Ron Paul is to force them to deal with him, and expose themselves. But Ron saying dumb things (or saying smart things which will be automatically spun as dumb in the media) is really not helping.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I really don't see whats dumb here? Am i missing something?

The point isn't for people to bring guns on planes, its just to have security. Saying that's a stupid idea is like saying cops shouldn't have guns (well maybe i should find a different example), Its like saying game wardens can't have guns (a little better).

The point would be, have a security officer on the plane. If SHTF security guy will light up whoever. A bullet hole or two won't cause a plane to crash. More than likely the armor is too strong for the bullet to penetrate.

Can someone tell me whats wrong with having armed security on a plane?



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by doom27
I really don't see whats dumb here? Am i missing something?

The point isn't for people to bring guns on planes, its just to have security. Saying that's a stupid idea is like saying cops shouldn't have guns (well maybe i should find a different example), Its like saying game wardens can't have guns (a little better).

The point would be, have a security officer on the plane. If SHTF security guy will light up whoever. A bullet hole or two won't cause a plane to crash. More than likely the armor is too strong for the bullet to penetrate.

Can someone tell me whats wrong with having armed security on a plane?


What's wrong is that people want to misconstrue everything Ron Paul says. If he says people should be free to make their own choice, it becomes: heroin should be legal. If he says pilots should be armed, it becomes: everyone allowed to bring guns on planes. People either don't understand the simplicity of his message or they are just out to make him look bad.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I understand what you are saying.

I just cannot grasp the idea of allowing people, in general, to bring guns on planes.

That is not a solution.

So, instead of wondering if the passenger, of Middle Eastern origin is going to pull a gun and hijack the plane for political reasons, you are left wondering if any of the passengers on the plane that have had a bad day are going to hijack the plane?

Not to mention that a ballistic discharge inside a pressurised cabin is somewhat dangerous.

Regards, Skellon
edit on 10-7-2011 by Skellon because: (no reason given)


You are grossly misunderstanding the point, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. "People" aren't and wouldn't be allowed to bring guns onto planes. There would most likely already be a gun on the plane, in the cockpit, under a very secure lock and key. Probably safeguarded to the point that if the cockpit door has been opened since takeoff, they wouldn't be able to open it.

Guns aren't allowed past the airport security checkpoint. The pilots wouldn't even be able to carry them on. It would be a last minute ditch effort, if they were being hijacked.

Also, I believe Mythbusters did air pressurization test with gunshots, and nothing catastrophic happen. They would have time to land the plane (correct me if you remember the episode better than I do)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
What Paul is saying, is that what the TSA does should be left up to the Airlines to do, because its a waste of taxpayer money, and its infringing on your personal liberties. It should be left to the airline to make sure their passengers are safe, NOT the government.
If they did that, they could hire plane security.
No more molesting, no more terrorists.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
You are grossly misunderstanding the point, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. "People" aren't and wouldn't be allowed to bring guns onto planes. There would most likely already be a gun on the plane, in the cockpit, under a very secure lock and key. Probably safeguarded to the point that if the cockpit door has been opened since takeoff, they wouldn't be able to open it.

Also, I believe Mythbusters did air pressurization test with gunshots, and nothing catastrophic happen. They would have time to land the plane (correct me if you remember the episode better than I do)


Then what would be the sense in having a gun on the plane? By the time you got past all of the safety features, the hijacker would have died of old age. There is a simple foolproof way of preventing 9-11 from ever happening again. Remove the plane from the equation.
Most modern airliners are fly-by-wire. For years the Navy has had a system that allows an aircraft to be flown remotely from either another aircraft or the ground. All that needs to be done is to place a "panic button" in the cockpit, that when pushed disables the aircraft's controls. The aircraft would send out a message through it's transponder that there was an emergency on board, it's autopilot woud either place the aircraft in a holding circle, or start to fly it to the nearest airport with a remote land system. After the button was pushed, the aircraft would no longer respond to any control inputs from the cockpit, it would automatically be controlled from the ground. End of problem.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
You people are so petrified. Trust me, theres not a terrorist around every corner.

If people had guns on the 9/11 flights, trust me, it wouldn't have happened.

I'll let you go, your missing fox news and I know how much you hate that.






top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join