United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Ex-Aide Says Ron Paul Is a 9/11 Truther & Isolationist Who Thinks U.S. Shouldn't Have Fought Hitler
Source:
The Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs ... have-fought-hitler_614883.html
Published: Jan 2, 2012
Author: JOHN MCCORMACK
Post Date: 2012-01-02 08:27:43 by Happy Quanzaa
Keywords: Truther, moonbat, kook, loonytoon, Ron Paul
Views: 69521
Comments: 125
A former Ron Paul staffer named Eric Dondero, who worked closely with the Texas congressman and presidential candidate over the course of 15 years, has issued a statement in which he both defends his old boss from charges of racism and anti-Semitism and reveals damning new details about about the "sheer lunacy of [Paul's] foreign policy views". First, Dondero claims that his old boss is such an extreme isolationist that "he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that 'saving the Jews,' was absolutely none of our business." Second, Dondero writes that that Paul himself is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist: And lastly, Dondero reveals that Paul wanted to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 but lacked the courage of his convictions to do so: Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 74.
#1. To: Happy Quanzaa (#0)
...I'd be 100% in favor of an independent investigation into 9-11, so would over 3000 architects and engineers that say I those building coming down from a plane hit defies the laws of physics....building 7 came down and was never even hit by a plane. And yes, we should start minding our own business...that's not isolationism, it's non-interventionism...a stance that serves Switzerland well, and served us well for almost 150 years. Freedom and liberty must scare you terribly...why is that?
You're telling me that 3000 architects and engineers don't understand gravity and the minimal effect of it is that things fall in a path of least resistence? building 7 came down and was never even hit by a plane. Right. It was hit by a collapsing building instead.
Remind us all again when and where you received your Master's Degree in Architecture and/or engineering. Civil Engineer Jon Cole points out in his latest rapid-paced 18 minute video, 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert, that many people, espousing the official account of the 9/11 WTC events and viewed as technical experts, have proposed a variety of conflicting theories as to why the WTC buildings collapsed on 9/11. What is interesting is that none of those theories supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) obey the laws of physics or match the observed events. This innovative and well-researched video also presents a fascinating 9/11 narrative and compelling images that refute these official accounts of how the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 came down. Some experts told us that fires melted steel, and others pointed out that jet fuel and office fires don’t burn hot enough to melt steel. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said the molten metal seen coming out of the upper floors of the buildings and found pooled at the bases of their debris was “irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse of the towers.” This material was actually molten steel or (more likely) iron – a byproduct of the incendiary “thermite”. It produces the required temperatures to melt steel and iron, which are twice as high as what office fires or jet fuel can produce. Some experts said the floor truss connections in the Twin Tower broke, causing a “pancaking” collapse, whereas others said that the connections were actually strong enough to pull in the perimeter columns causing their failure. This argument is actually irrelevant, since the local failure of either of these structural elements could not have caused the Twin Towers to fall like a house of cards. Some experts said that the sulfur attack on the WTC7 steel documented by FEMA at Ground Zero came from the pulverized gypsum wallboard, whereas others said it couldn’t have. The truth is that gypsum wall board is used to protect steel and has never been shown to attack it.
#85. To: Deckard (#74)
(Edited)
Since when do I need one to understand gravity? Some experts admitted that there were explosions in the Twin Towers, and others said there were none -- even though there are many eyewitnesses to these explosions. There's a difference between being an eyewitness and simply hearing something. Not one "eyewitness" SAW anything explode after the initial impact of the planes which is when the infamous basement "explosion" occurred. They all HEARD something that sounded like an explosion. Occum's Razor alone reveals that there was no reason to fly planes into the buildings if they were already wired for a CT. It produces the required temperatures to melt steel and iron, which are twice as high as what office fires or jet fuel can produce. The fires didn't NEED to melt metal. It only needed to compromise its weight bearing ability. Neither theory accounts for the speed of the “collapse” or the forensic and video evidence, including the molten metal found at Ground Zero and the thermitic residue identified in the WTC dust. A) You believe that the "speed of the collapse" was what? B) That "dust" was found in apartments months later and, in one case, in Brooklyn. And a chain of custody was never established for that "dust". Truthers are even bigger Moonbats than Berfers.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#72. To: freedomsnotfree (#1)
(Edited)
o would over 3000 architects and engineers that say I those building coming down from a plane hit defies the laws of physics....
#74. To: war (#72)
(Edited)
You're telling me that 3000 architects and engineers don't understand gravity and the minimal effect of it is that things fall in a path of least resistence?
Some experts admitted that there were explosions in the Twin Towers, and others said there were none -- even though there are many eyewitnesses to these explosions.
Some experts said the perimeter columns bowed out and others said they bowed in. Again, these experts miss the point, because normal office fires cannot possibly cause the systematic, instantaneous failure of all the steel columns that must have occurred in order to cause the rapid, symmetrical destruction of each of the WTC skyscrapers.
Some experts said WTC Building 7 didn’t collapse at free fall acceleration, and others said it did. Fortunately, NIST has already acknowledged the free fall of WTC7, after being publicly embarrassed and provided with analysis by physics instructor David Chandler. 
What is being ignored by these “experts” is the elephant in the room – the numerous facts that confirm the controlled demolition hypothesis
Some experts said thermite couldn’t have been used to cut the steel beams, and others said it could. Cole points out in the video that thermite was used over 75 years ago to melt the steel supporting columns in the controlled demolition of the Skyride Towers.
One self-styled expert with an engineering background even gives two conflicting theories himself. Jonathan Kay, the author of the hit piece Among the Truthers, suggested both the “pancake theory” and “pile driver theory” when interviewed on National Public Radio. Neither theory accounts for the speed of the “collapse” or the forensic and video evidence, including the molten metal found at Ground Zero and the thermitic residue identified in the WTC dust.
After all the time and money spent on government investigations, the defenders of the OCT can’t agree on the nature of those building collapses. What is being ignored is the elephant in the room – the numerous facts that confirm the controlled demolition hypothesis.
This latest video by Cole is not to be missed, especially by those of us who find ourselves in repeated discussions with the deniers of the explosive 9/11 evidence. This tool can be very useful in your hands as you educate others with the truth.
Replies to Comment # 74. Remind us all again when and where you received your Master's Degree in Architecture and/or engineering.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 74.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]