My comment about Giuliani, the WTC, and WeAreChange under James Kirchick's article "Paul's Pause"

Yesterday, at a very late hour for me, James Kirchick published online in The New Republic his article "Paul's Pause". As it looked at the time like no reader had yet to post even one word in the comments section, I decided to take the opportunity to speak my 9/11 truther mind and point out why it is more important for The New Republic (and Kirchick) to be focused on a few unanswered questions about Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 than on Ron Paul and his newsletters.

| Posted by Eloy Gonzalez II
35 of 47 | warn tnr | respond
You know something, Kirchick, I really don't know what's motivating you to write these hit pieces but it certainly looks like all you're interested in is gaining some petty degree of spotlight worthy of the tabloid press. Whether or not any of the accusations you make are even true, they aren't really all that important when you consider the kinds of worrisome histories of, and comments spewed from, the other Republican presidential candidates (and these actually make a difference in terms of lives, mind you). For example, I've not heard a single peep from The New Republic about Giuliani's statement to Peter Jennings on 9/11 that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And let me focus a bit here on what probably is a pause on your part, as you're no doubt giggling over this so-called "conspiracy theory" that I've brought up. Well, I hate to tell you, but this one's not a conspiracy theory. It's conspiracy fact. Don't think so? Do your own homework and see for yourself. No matter how many Ron Paul hit pieces you write, Giuliani DID say he was told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse, and-then-it-did. And you know what? He was later asked about it on MANY occasions by members of WeAreChange (when he should have been grilled about it ad nauseum by the MSM), denied that he ever said it (when his statement is on YouTube, for crying out loud), gave some ridiculous explanation about what he "actually" said (some pseudo-scientific engineering prattle that contrasts with the very fact that no steel-structured building has EVER collapsed due to fire up to or since 9/11), and despite numerous questions from similar like-minded, inquisitive, and patriotic Americans during his other public appearances, he still avoids the topic like the plague (actually getting the local police to help him "quell the dissent"), in the process belittling young activists like We Are Change, at every turn, openly implying that they're just a bunch of "whacko conspiracy theorists" (variations of a term you seem all-too-happy to use yourself) when in fact WeAreChange is just a group of brave intelligent kids who know better and want real answers to real questions about 9/11. Now, it would be one thing if Giuliani was the only person saying that he was told the WTC was going to collapse. But he ISN'T. EMS Division Chief, John Peruggia and EMT Richard Zarrillo corroborate his story in their testimony to the 9/11 Commission (which, to my knowledge, was left out of the final 9/11 report). So why is Rudy Giuliani lying? Could it be that the firemen that died due to the first WTC collapse could have been saved if they had been warned? And while we're on the topic, why weren't they warned? Was it those faulty radios that Giuliani's administration failed to replace? THESE are important questions that need to be asked of Rudy Giuliani, who is running for President of the United States. But so far, we haven't heard a peep from your publication or any of the moderators of the many Republican debates so far (Gee, I wonder why?). You should know that this story about Giuliani and the WTC collapse is somewhat old; however, since you don't mind quoting excerpts from at least decade-old articles Ron Paul surely didn't write, this should be right up your alley. Let me leave you with one last thought: This business about the Ron Paul newsletters, as a qualifier for Ron Paul as president, is small potatoes. It really is, Kirchick. But as you likely would prefer, it may actually hurt Ron Paul's chances for becoming president. And if that happens, it would be a real blow to the hope for change in this country. Because we desperately need a transparent government accountable to the people -- one especially willing and capable of providing the kinds of answers about 9/11 that individuals such as Rudy Giuliani, and organizations, such as the MSM, have so far failed to disclose to the American public. Nevertheless, despite your efforts, people see, and will continue to see, how very unjustly the playing field has been set-up between Ron Paul and the other Republican candidates. And I have no doubt that as they read your numerous and recent articles on the subject of Ron Paul and his newsletters, they will at the very least be asking themselves, "If this is how little they have on Ron Paul, who is a candidate they are fighting like mad to keep off the stage, how much do they have on the very candidates they are endorsing?" How much indeed?

The next morning, Friday, January 18, 2008, I submitted to The New Republic editors a correction to my first comment in the form of a second comment (which also should have been better edited, btw).

As you have only written, to the best of my knowledge, only TWO articles on Ron Paul and his newsletters, in all fairness, Kirchick, I would like to add the following correction to my last comment: "And I have no doubt that as they read your recent articles and hear your numerous comments on the subject of Ron Paul and his newsletters . . ."