Ron Paul Supports 9/11 Families Calling for New 9/11 Probe

Photobucket | September 1, 2011

When asked by WeAreChange (see video) if he would support the 9/11 victim’s family members whose questions were never answered by the 9/11 Commission Report, in their demand for a new independent 9/11 investigation, Ron Paul, R-Tex., replied “Yes, I support more investigation, because, I think the ineptness was probably hidden, because there was a tremendous amount of ineptness. That’s generally what government investigations do, they hide the inefficiencies and ineptness of government officials.”

9/11 family members and first responders are leading the charge, 10 years later, for a new investigation on the free fall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Called the 10th Anniversary Campaign and organized by Remember Building 7 (, their goal is to collect $1 million in donations to fund an aggressive TV, posters and print ads campaign to be seen by over 10 millions in the New York Metropolitan area and two million more in other U.S. cities.

A recent Sienna poll (PDF) shows that only 25% of New Yorkers have ever seen footage of the collapse of WTC Building 7, and that nearly 1 in 2 are in favor of a new investigation into Building 7’s collapse. World Trade Center 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and it collapsed at 5:20pm on September 11, 2001, in about 7 seconds.

The 10th Anniversary Campaign is supported by several other 9/11 organizations, including a group of over 1,500 architects and engineers, also calling for a new investigation into Building 7′s destruction. The final report by U.S. officials on the collapse of this building, produced in December 2008, says that normal office fires is the reason for the collapse, which created simultaneous structural beam failures, leading to the entire structure to collapse on itself.
10th Anniversary 30-second TV Ad

Ron Paul On the 9/11 Wars

In a recent interview on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, Ron Paul said the 9/11 wars “made things much worse.”

Opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more generally to U.S. military activity abroad has been a cornerstone of Paul’s candidacy and sets him apart from the rest of the Republican field and President Obama. He has a long record of voting against international intervention. He voted against both Iraq wars. He voted against the war in Kosovo and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which he called a “declaration of virtual war.”

Dr. Paul is the author of several books, including The Revolution: A Manifesto, End the Fed, Liberty Defined, Challenge to Liberty; The Case for Gold; and A Republic, If You Can Keep It.

Sarah Palin Supports New 9/11 Investigation

I don't care for SP in the least, but nevertheless she did say this.

Anthony of WAC - Ohio asked Sarah Palin: "Will you support the victims' family members and first responders of 9/11 that are calling for a new investigation?"

Palin responded: "I do. I do, cause I think that helps us get to the point of never again, and if anything that we can do could still complete that reminder out there."

(It is clear and legible, if not altogether coherent!)

Palin continues: "Were you affected?"

She is supporting an investigation, not just sympathizing with family members.

Uhm . . .

I couldn't hear any of what she said. Can you put it in writing?

Read my lips: "Government ineptness"

Actually Ron Paul has a contentious history with the 9/11 movement, being pushed on activists as a supporter of our views, then trashing them in public. Here are a few posts to keep in mind on Ron Paul's shifting positions depending on who is asking the questions and how far along the campaign is . . .

Ron Paul Deals With "Trutherism" accusations
Submitted by Caveperson on Tue, 05/22/2007 - 3:17pm

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?

Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.

The end of my support for Ron Paul.
Submitted by johndoraemi on Sun, 11/11/2007 - 2:51am

I'm disgusted that Ron Paul voted repeatedly against the Cheney impeachment bill (HR333, NOW HR799). This was roll call 1037, 1038, and 1039. Paul sided with Sterney Hoyer who attempted to kill the bill altogether, and against Kucinich. Congressman Ron Paul, explain yourself?

What You Might Not Know About Ron Paul, and Why You Should Know It
by Bov
January 8, 2008

Transcript: Honest Questions with Ron Paul
Glenn Beck, Aired December 18, 2007,
BECK: . . . But may I just run through these 9/11 conspiracies? No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11th. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements from inside the American state apparatus. Yes or no?
PAUL: It`s preposterous.
BECK: OK. The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled?
PAUL: I mean, this is just bizarre.
PAUL: I`ve not even heard of these challenges before.
BECK: Is there -- is there any evidence or is there any doubt in your mind that the United States government was not involved in the September 11th attacks? That we did not bring down World Trade Center number seven?
PAUL: Well, yes, I absolutely believe that is true. They did not. But the connection may be, and where some people get carried away, is if you dig through those $40 billion worth of intelligence-gathering apparatus that we had before 9/11, you know, we dig up information and there was some ineptness. And sometimes when you find ineptness in government, it`s easy to make this giant leap over into conspiracy, and they do it on purpose. But, you know, we had an FBI agent on 70 different occasions reported that these individuals were flying airplanes and not learning how to land them. And he was totally ignored.
BECK: Right.
PAUL: I consider this ineptness on government, not a conspiracy that, oh, yes, we know about it, we can`t wait until the towers come down. No, I don`t believe that at all. I think -- I don`t even think I should have to answer questions like that.


And it's only the tip of the iceberg. Ron Paul is an opportunist when it comes to 9/11 truth.

Don't be disheartned.

You should know that if he openly said that he thought it was an insude job, the media would have had a field day and he would have stood no chance of being elected.

Instead look carefully at his choice of words, they are ambiguous.

His policies are in line with what we need to achieve and he supports an indeendant investigation.

George Bush had to be 'born again' to stand a chance of (it seeming plusable of) being elected... he is not a Christian, but being a christian is necessary to be elected.

Don't expect Ron Paul to slit his throat to please us, we are a fringe minority. He needs support from the vast majoity to get elected, and that is what he is achieving. Even with support from a vast majority he is plugged as unelectable... 'they' are scared of him and 'they' are scared because he will bring real change.

Once he is elected and there is, or is not an independant investigation, then make you judgements.

He has been attacked with Ad Hominem for decades now and understands fully the reprcussions of his replies to such questions.

If you support anyone else other than Ron Paul, your/our chance of moving forward is approximately zero...

Paul and Kucinich

have both disappointed the 9/11 Truth Movement. Neither man has been an advocate for the cause or a standard-bearer in Congress. I have repeatedly asked Dennis Kucinich to follow through on his "6 time promise" to investigate insider trading.

But.... both have said they support a new investigation. And that's at least a public position.

Either you support a new 9/11 investigation or you don't. Regardless of what you think happened. And for what it's worth, Ron Paul, Dennis K., Jimmy Carter, Sarah Palin, and Kirsten Gillibrand have said they support this.

They're actually not all the same

What good is a "new investigation" that is based on "government ineptness"?

The 9/11 attack was the opposite of ineptness.

No investigation started by someone who publicly states those beliefs is going to un-cover anything beyond the claim that the intelligence agencies weren't talking to each other because they aren't funded well enough to have proper communications and up-to-date equipment, and you know, some of them are just careerists who didn't do the ideal job .. . etc.

Some investigation.

Also, there was no massive campaign to get the 9/11 activists on board with Kucinich (or any other candidate) that way there was with the Ron Paul campaign which essentially was deceptive in making many promises about what he "really thinks" and "what he would do once he's in there", etc.

The Ron Paul grassroots effort really went overboard in misleading our activists and exciting them about him, and it was deceptive -- that doesn't bode well for an investigation that his promoters would be behind. That's part of why people got really angry about it and openly rejected him.

The fact is, all of the presidential candidates who are D, R or Tea Party are already sold out to the highest bidder because the political system is a money game -- Obama's 2012 campaign is estimated to cost over $1B. A "new investigation" by any of these parties will likely go nowhere. Presidential candidates are for sale to the highest bidder and that's the opposite of "truth".

Two words

Cynthia McKinney.

Wish she was still in office.

I Agree...

with you on all counts about the 2-party system being a sham and controlled by corporate interests. I supported Ralph Nader in 2000 and worked to get him ballot access and media. I protested him not being allowed to debate in Winston-Salem. I have absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans and would not expect a Congressional 9/11 investigation to be legit or independent. It would be limited in scope (to intelligence failures likely) and compromised.

A couple of years ago, I supported NYCCAN's ballot initiative and pressuring Kucinich to launch a probe as chairperson of a House Select Subcommittee. Both foundered.

Now I support the Toronto Hearings and the RB7 campaign to force NYC officials to investigate per their jurisdiction.

Quoting officials, in my view, is just to crack the media embargo on the subject of 9/11 itself. To create a story or controversy in which information about the cover-up and complicity can be raised. This subject needs to go mainstream. The worst situation of all is silence. So I'm not endorsing Paul as a savior or anything -- it's just outreach. I like some of what he says though.

Politically, I'd like to have public funding of elections with free TV time for all qualified candidates, including Greens and Libertarians.

South Carolina presidential debate 2008

This is when I became disheartened with Ron Paul. Although I still think of him as being as good a candidate as most of the others I've seen.


Paul essentially says "truthers, cease and desist" to millions.

Now it's 2011 -- time for a new investigation!

Can't get any more clear than that.

No, I don't believe he is saying that at all.

He is saying, people can believe what they want, and that he would rather talk about his own policies he is using to become president.

If YOU want him to succeed in his mission to expose the corporate banksters that are responsible for all this, you will support him.

If you have not learned by now that 9/11 has had probably the most time, money and energy spent on it by the Oligarchs to move their agenda forward, then you will realise that it will be the best tool for them to bring Ron Paul down.

The Ad Hominem is almost automatic now for most people as that is how they have all been carefully trained, with billions of dollars of funding. the way to get a new investigation is to first get the oligarchs out of power, and only then will anything be achieved.

I am agnostic and against Christianity and atheism equally, I understand though that a presidential candidate must be a confirmed Christian to become president, an open agnostic would never become president with the way politics and voters opinions currently stand, that is just the way it is... for now.

In the same sense with what has been achieved by the oligarchs in the past decade, it is impossible for a full blown truther to become president either.. for now.

Even if Ron is a denier for whatever reasons, he is also a libertarian and will allow more open dialogue about such subjects and then at that point he can be of assistance to you, an ou requests.

He obviously very much dislikes Bernankie and his cronies but do you hear him use ad hominem towards them?

Do you ever see or hear him not give them a good chance to explain themselves?

It seems you want a presidential campaigner to come out and say, 9/11 was an inside job... maybe that may be the case one day, but only when the investigation has taken place and when that is a mainstream statement, without Ron Paul as presedent of the USA, I believe the chances are about Zero with any other politician. With Ron a new investigation is a certainty.


It's a puppet show. It's high school government. Hope exists but it resides in a different location, I think.

Media Will Purposely Ruin Paul For Supporting 9/11 Truth

The establishment own the biggest microphone (or mega-phone in their case) and slam anyone who departs from the official 9/11 myth.

But Paul's agenda can undermine the circles that were behind 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up.

The smart thing for 9/11 skeptics to do is to give Ron Paul some space, while continuing to raise public awarenss and applying pressure to authorities who have the responsibility to investigate 9/11.

Note that Paul does not distance himself from Alex Jones (arguably the most prominent 9/11 skeptic) and he also seemed to try to change the subject of the question in the 2008 debate clip, rather than criticize 9/11 skeptics. Paul may very well have the same doubts about 9/11 as most 9/11 skeptics, but is smart enough to realize that the media will launch endless attacks on him for openly doing so.

He could have distanced himself from the movement...

... without slamming the movement. But he basically said "If you vote me for 9/11 truth, don't". A lot of people, accordingly, did not.

Paul Mum in Public

Alex Jones has said on the radio that Paul has told him things in private about 9/11 that he won't say in public. Of course, every member of Congress knows what happened despite their charade in public. What is so troubling about Paul is his wavering back and forth sounding like he's saying something about 9/11 but he can never be trusted to support an investigation even if elected. No president is safe going after the criminals that run the country. Another issue where Paul is appalling is abortion and it shows he's just a political opportunist here, too - he's against abortion even though he's an obstetrician and gynecologist, so he's a hypocrite because every doctor knows that the reason abortion is legal is to prevent the illegal butchery that occurred before the law was passed. Paul is only consistent on his stand to investigate bank fraud and the Fed. Forget his efforts for a new 9/11 investigation.

I am pro choice too

But I agree with Paul’s standpoint on the legislation of it...

Let the state decide, not the federal government.

He will shut down the Federal Reserve (if he is able).

He will end the wars and bring the troops home.

And he is exposing in his own ways the evil people that we all believe committed the crimes of 9/11.

Is this not what you want also???

He is our only chance; you may want to remain part of a fringe that achieves no change by remaining a minority. You ned to give a little to gain a little. We are not all the same.

Who else should truthers vote for?

I cannot think of anyone that could make any significant change other than Paul...

He is fighting fire with fire, and if you want him to come out as a truther before you vote for him, you wish for him to fail.

You wish for him lose the opportunity to change our world for the better, he has spent the past few decades achieving this for himself by remaining civil and true to his word.

Yes, let's let the media continue to define the dialogue

A political climate in which the 9/11 official story may not be challenged is a political climate in which only the same old bought-and-paid-for candidates will continue to get elected anyway; one in which the mass of the people will continue to have their minds enshackled, and thus prone to being misled by the usual corporate candidates, and disinclined to consider alternative candidates and points of view, re 9/11 or many other issues.

Accordingly, if Ron Paul truly represents an alternative to the status quo, then he has no chance of winning within the status quo. On the other hand, if he does have a chance of winning under the existing rules of the game, then that would be as clear an indication as anything that he's not truly an alternative after all.

I agree with him about the Federal Reserve; and his criticisms of militaristic and imperialistic foreign policy. But I don't expect squat from him where 9/11 truth is concerned. And it isn't that I fault him for concealing support for 9/11 truth. How can I when I have never seen any evidence that he supports it at all? And no, 'we should have an investigation so that we can get a full picture of all that incompetence and ineptitute' does not count as 'support' for 9/11 truth. Nor (supposing those aren't his real views) would it qualify as being 'politic' or 'circumspect' or 'prudent'--to the contrary, it's just more misleading of the public with official story BS.

And if it were anyone but Ron Paul, I doubt anyone posting to this site would hesitate to recognize it as such!

And no, I don't consider hearsay from Alex Jones (referred to in another comment) regarding what Paul has said in private about 9/11 to qualify as 'support' either. If he and other members of Congress truly do share some opinions with the 9/11 truth movement, then what in blazes are they waiting for?! It's been ten years already! Perpetually waiting for some opportune or 'safe' moment to arrive--while strictly conforming to official narratives 'in the meantime'--is a sure way to guarantee that such a moment never arrives at all.

'...give Ron Paul some space'? Hey, we don't need to give him any. Between 'it was all incompetence' and 'it was an inside job,' there's plenty of space--as there has been for some time now--for raising pointed questions that help raise public awareness re the defectiveness of the official story. And I'm not at all saying that we as a movement should get on his case. All I'm asking for is for people on this site to stop trying to foist Ron Paul on the rest of us as something he is not--unless and until such time as he actually makes statements that are genuinely supportive of 9/11 truth (by which I mean, statements that would still be considered as supportive of 9/11 truth...if they had been made by somebody not named Ron Paul).

9/11 truth is a non-partisan issue,

and best kept out of the two-party partisan political theater that occupies so much of the corporate airwaves.

Everyone, in every party, should be challenged with the facts, in a civil manner that is most appropriate for the situation.

We are better off going directly to all the people (regardless of their partisan politics), educating them on what is primarily a basic law and order issue (as well as the massive financial implications, which sadly seem more important to too many Americans, imo) and encourage everyone to demand that all prospective office holders seek new criminal investigations into the crimes of 9/11.

The two major parties are corrupt beyond reform at this point, and sadly, I think most of the third parties have been co-opted and are ineffectual, as well.

Let's not get into partisan debates here, with all the wedge issues that come with them, as they are massive distractions that can do nothing but sow discord within the truth movement and we have more than enough of that already.

The facts and physics prove that 9/11 was a false flag operation, we need to adhere to the most credible information and continue to put it before the public in a calm and consistent manner (such as the ads that the north Texas group are putting in newspapers and the NYC television commercials, well designed freeway blogs are always good, too).

When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

I hope that you and yours are all well, be safe out on the roads this weekend (U.S. Labor Day holiday).

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Ron Paul is the only way forward...

Without him it will be too late. The oligarchs are in motion, our cushy lifestyles are coming to an end and there is only on man that has th capability to change that right now.

Obama was fake, Ron Paul is th ral deal..

Hope is useless without real change...

Vote for paul.

I like Ron Paul a lot

but the 911 Truth seekers movement, needs a new politican to hang our hat on.


I'd like to see you consider a politician that actually stands a chance of gaining traction and the is actually honest?

Here is no other than Ron Paul..

Prove me wrong please... but I think you are mistaken, we don't have another decade uo our sleeves.

I'm not sure whom that poltician is..

but Ron Paul lost all creditabilty with our movement @ the South Carolina presidential debate 2008.. please watch the video.

FWIW i will probably vote for Dr.Paul in the Republican primary.