I think we'd probably struggle to think of too many politicians who don't tailor their message to fit the audience to some degree. This seems like a silly point to get excited about tbh.

Exactly, Ron Paul is just another politician.

Of course not. Russ has shown an example of where he does

No he didn't. He claimed he did. I watched the videos and didn't see anything that he wouldn't say to any audience.

in fact, here is a summary of the videos for those that are just taking ADR's word:

video 1: agrees that a new investigation into 9-11 is warranted when the questioner mentions that "I've heard that you question the government's official account". He says he "never automatically believes the government's account, whether it's the Kennedy assasination..." video is cut here. Same guy approaches him later and mentions that Kucinich is interested in another investigation. Paul mentions that "doing the same thing again and again is just spinning your wheels" but that he would bring it up with Kucinich.

Video 2: when asked about reinvestigating 9-11, he says that the cover-up was one of government failure, and discusses the evidence that different agencies had that could have led to stopping the attacks. But more importantly, he says, we need to improve our inteeligence so that it doesn't happen again.

video 3: Starts off with a question about the IMF. The interviewer then asks: "Why don't you go public with the truth about 9-11?" Paul looks stunned for a second (obviously not expecting this question). He says that he can't handle to controversy and has more important things to deal with (federal reserve and IMF that they were just talking about). Not the greatest answer, but he was taken-off guard.

Here is the real problem for you, Russ, and for the writer of this website. From the site:

He is perfectly happy to say that 9/11 was a cover up and there needs to be an investigation. When he’s being interviewed by sane people (like Reason Magazine), he says there’s “no evidence of an inside job.”

These are not opposing messages. They are answers to different questions. You can say that there was a cover-up, and that you don't believe it was an inside job with no contradiction. In fact, he made clear in the first two that he believes the coverups were of incompetence. The guy in the first video NEVER asked Ron Paul if he thought 9-11 was an inside job. The guy started off by saying that he had heard that Paul; "didn't believe the official story." Guess what? A lot of people don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_ ... nion_polls

Not once in any of these videos did any of the questioners suggest that the US government was behind the attacks. So ron Paul didn't "wink and nod" as the site creator suggests.

Oh, here is a video on Ron Paul on Steve Gil Show saying exactly the same thing as in these videos, but to the "sane" sources that the author of the website claims Ron changes his story for. Here, unlike in the videos in the link that Russ posted, Paul is asked directly about the idea that the US government was behind 9-11. He says no, that it was a coverup of ineptness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g08WCZTc6VU

Show me a video where Ron Paul is asked if the US government was behind 9-11 and disembles. Then I'll believe your claims of "spin" and "changing the message"

I also went to Michelle Malkin's site from back in 2008

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/tr ... -ron-paul/

She had the same videos up, but she also had a transcript from when Ron Paul was on the Alex Jones show (a show known for discussing conspiracies)

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

Again, same message. Again, no mention that 9-11 was an inside job, but agrees that the investigations were coverups.

Russ, you haven't show any video of anyone for Ron to wink and nod at. Find a video in which someone asks Ron directly about 9-11 being an inside job in which Ron dissembles. Then you'll have a point that he is changing his message.

In fact, I'm finding it kind of weird that these truthers never actually asked Ron Paul point blank "Do you believe that 9-11 was an inside job?" I've watched several videos of Ron Paul being questioned by truthers, and it always the same "Do you believe the official 9-11 story?" or "Do you support a new 9-11 investigation?" both of which he answers the same way he answers to reporters or radio hosts.

I have never said Ron Paul said the U.S. Gov't was behind 9/11. Please show me one spot where I said that. What I said was that when talking to Truthers, he gives vague answers that make it seem like he agrees with them. However, once he gets into the mainstream, he clarifies. You even agree with me Vince when you say that his answers in the videos are vague and not good.

This is the problem. When you tell a Truther you think there is a cover up and leave it vague like that you are giving the impression that you agree with him that 9/11 was an inside job. The fact that mainstream media reporters are asking him to clarify those statements is proof enough that the comments are vague enough to be taken as implying support. Let's do an unscientific poll. How many people on this website watched the video's in the link? How many think they seem to at least imply Ron Paul agrees with the Truther position?


Further, what will happen is exactly what is happening. The video clip will be edited in such away that it sounds like Paul is saying 9/11 cover up was because the U.S. Gov't was responsible. Those clips will then be made as part of an attack ad. People will buy it because most people do not look any deep at the clip for context.

theodorelogan wrote:

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

Again, same message. Again, no mention that 9-11 was an inside job, but agrees that the investigations were coverups.

Actually Vince, this link proves my point even more. Not that Ron Paul gives answers saying 9/11 was an inside gov't job. Just a vague answer that there is a cover up that can be taken by truthers to be an agreement the cover up was on U.S. Gov't involvement.

An interview of Paul with Haaretz which is a left of center Israeli newspaper/website

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-ed ... e-1.404208

How other people dissect his words (you are putting the truthers to shame here) is not under his control. You are proving that with every post you make in this thread.

When asked about whether there is a coverup, he agrees.
When asked about whether it was an inside job, he disagrees.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I have never said Ron Paul said the U.S. Gov't was behind 9/11. Please show me one spot where I said that.

Never said you did.

What I said was that when talking to Truthers, he gives vague answers that make it seem like he agrees with them.

I'm going to restate this to clarify what I think you mean. Italics indicate what I changed.

What I said was that when talking to people who believe that 9-11 was an inside job, he gives vague answers that make it seem like he agrees that 9-11 was an inside job.

First off, how is he supposed to know when someone believes 9-11 was an inside job? Just because you question the official story (many do) doesn't mean you believe it was an inside job (far fewer do)

Secondly, saying that you believe that there was a coverup, when asked if you believe there was a coverup, does not imply that you believe that 9-11 was an inside job. It doesn't imply anything other than you don't trust the government. How can saying "we don't know what happened on 9-11" imply "We do know what happened...the government did it" In fact, in two of the videos he made clear that it was a cover-up of incompetence.

However, once he gets into the mainstream, he clarifies. You even agree with me Vince when you say that his answers in the videos are vague and not good.

The difference is not whether it is mainstream or not. The difference is when he is asked, not whether the 9-11 investigation was a cover up, but whether it was an inside job. Maybe the truthers just don't want to ask that question.

I agreed that his answer in the third video was vague. He was caught off guard. It happens. His answers in the other videos were not vague.

This is the problem. When you tell a Truther you think there is a cover up and leave it vague like that you are giving the impression that you agree with him that 9/11 was an inside job.

How is he supposed to know if someone believes that 9-11 was an inside job if the person doesn't ask if 9-11 was an inside job? He also didn't say he wasn't racist...does that mean he is?

The fact that mainstream media reporters are asking him to clarify those statements

In other words, they actually ask directly whether he believes it was an inside job.

is proof enough that the comments are vague enough to be taken as implying support.

Or, proof that they are trying to smear him by associating him with an idea he has repeatedly disavowed.

Any statement is vague enough for a lawyer to take as implying something else, apparently.

Yknow Russ, now that I think about it...in all of these posts you have never said that the US government was not behind 9-11. Obviously, you are trying to send a hidden message to the truther movement that you agree with them so that you will support your future political aspirations!

theodorelogan wrote:First off, how is he supposed to know when someone believes 9-11 was an inside job?

Because the people he is talking to specifcally identify themself as being from X organization. We are a group that believes the 9/11 attacks were either done by or actively allowed to happen by the U.S. Gov't. That makes it pretty obvious.

theodorelogan wrote:Secondly, saying that you believe that there was a coverup, when asked if you believe there was a coverup, does not imply that you believe that 9-11 was an inside job.

Dude, are you really that niave or just being intellectually dishonest in your support of Ron Paul.

If a guy who introduces himself a belonging to a group that thinks the 9/11was done by or actively allowed to happen by the U.S. Gov't asks you "Do you think the 9/11 Commission report was a cover up?" you know what he is asking is really "Do you think the 9/11 Commission report was a cover up of the U.S. Gov'ts active involvement in the attack?" Therefore, when you answer, "Yes I do believe there was a cover up." you are essentially leading the person asking the question to believe you agree with him

You commented you were surprised that nobody ever asked flat out Do you believe the U.S. Gov't had something to do with 9/11. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that because that is exactly what they are asking him every time they are talking to him.

theodorelogan wrote:I agreed that his answer in the third video was vague. He was caught off guard. It happens. His answers in the other videos were not vague.

Exactly, his answers when talking to the truthers are vague. His answers talking to more mainstream audiences are not vague.

theodorelogan wrote:Yknow Russ, now that I think about it...in all of these posts you have never said that the US government was not behind 9-11. Obviously, you are trying to send a hidden message to the truther movement that you agree with them so that you will support your future political aspirations!

Of course, I have never said that I was part of an organization that said it believes iin the Truther movement. Nor was I asked about my opinion by someone who identified themselves as part of such an organization. However, since you have asked me. No I do not believe the U.S. Gov't was involved in 9/11 and I do not believe the 9/11 Commission report was a cover up. See that is how you answer the question.


Other then that, wow, is that the best you have

We are a group that believes the 9/11 attacks were either done by or actively allowed to happen by the U.S. Gov't. That makes it pretty obvious.

They don't say that in any of these videos.

If a guy who introduces himself a belonging to a group that thinks the 9/11was done by or actively allowed to happen by the U.S. Gov't

They never did that in any of these videos. They give the name of the group in the first video, which say something like "9-11 truth" (something Ron Paul is for) not "Americans for proving the the federal government was behind 9-11"

You commented you were surprised that nobody ever asked flat out Do you believe the U.S. Gov't had something to do with 9/11. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that because that is exactly what they are asking him every time they are talking to him.

Actually, I said I was surprised the truthers in these videos don't. I'm glad you found it funny, but I've already asked you twice in this thread to provide a video of truthers asking him this, and you still haven't.

And I think I have provided it sufficiently. Further, I have another posting agreeing that I have provided a suffiicent response to your request. So at this point, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree and drop the subject.

I'll try a third time.

Russ, you said

You commented you were surprised that nobody ever asked flat out Do you believe the U.S. Gov't had something to do with 9/11. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that because that is exactly what they are asking him every time they are talking to him.

Bold added for emphasis.

Incidentally, my quote was actually "was behind" 9-11. I don't know if this was an honest paraphrase or an attempt to move the goalposts, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't want to argue about "had something to do with" (a vague statement that could mean almost anything) means later.

Now, would you mind posting a link to support that claim, in bold above? In other words, a time in which a truther asks Ron Paul "flat out Do you believe the U.S. Gov't [was behind] 9/11." I'm debating in good faith here and just asking you to support a claim that you feel is so obvious that you almost fell out of your chair laughing at the opposing position. A claim so obvious should take no more than a few seconds for you to find a link to prove (unfortunately, I was unable to turn up any such evidence in a Google search I did this morning, but maybe you know better where to look.)

There is no need to "agree to disagree" when it is a matter of fact rather than opinion. All you have to do is produce a single video in which a truther asks Ron Paul directly if he believes that the US government was behind 9-11. If you can't, at least have the courtesy to admit you can't.

theodorelogan wrote:There is no need to "agree to disagree" when it is a matter of fact rather than opinion. All you have to do is produce a single video in which a truther asks Ron Paul directly if he believes that the US government was behind 9-11. If you can't, at least have the courtesy to admit you can't.

Surely all he needs to do is to demonstrate that the organisation he spoke at believes that the US government were behind 9/11, and that he should have been in a position to know that they were.

One of the groups that he has met is 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth'. Here's their website: http://911scholars.org/

They are certainly part of the overall 'Truther' movement, and they appear to be saying that 9/11 was an inside job. Ok, they say that they are 'seeking the truth', but that's basically because they believe that the government covered it up to hide their responsibility. They've been around for some time and have put out books. Paul should know what they are, and should have done back in 2007 when he met them.