[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Other Title: Ron Paul Institute: Charlie Hebdo Massacre, Like 9/11, Was a False Flag Operation
An institute named for the father of possible presidential candidate Rand Paul has published a piece saying the Charlie Hebdo massacre, like 9/11, was a false flag operation. The claim comes in piece titled, "Charlie Hebdo Shootings: False Flag?," put online today at the Ron Paul Institute. "The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people," reads the first paragraph of the piece. Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. It is a plausible inference that the ID left behind in the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies, later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not the ID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact that supports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the attack, Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his name circulating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in and quickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered by security forces as a terrorist. ....
Some will contend that Muslims are sufficiently stupid to shoot themselves in the head in this way. But how do we reconcile such alleged stupidity with the alleged Muslim 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo professional attacks? If we believe the official story, the 9/11 attack on the US shows that 19 Muslims, largely Saudis, without any government or intelligence service support, outwitted not only all 16 US intelligence agencies, the National Security Council, Dick Cheney and all the neoconservatives in high positions throughout the US government, and airport security, but also the intelligence services of NATO and Israel’s Mossad. How can such intelligent and capable people, who delivered the most humiliating blow in world history to an alleged Superpower with no difficulty whatsoever despite giving every indication of their intentions, possibly be so stupid as to shoot themselves in the head when they could have thrown France into turmoil with a mere lawsuit? The Charlie Hebdo story simply doesn’t wash. If you believe it, you are no match for a Muslim. One wonders what Rand Paul thinks of this crack pot conspiracy theory pushed by his father's institute. Poster Comment: Is there a posting category for Ron Paul lunacy? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 79. Anyone who says 9/11 was a false flag is dumber than a box of rocks.
#30. To: GarySpFC (#29) Anyone who says 9/11 was a false flag is dumber than a box of rocks. I am not sure what false flag means
#34. To: Palo Verde (#30) It would take at least 40 tractor trailer loads of explosives to bring down those buildings, and months of inside ripping out walls, etc.
#36. To: GarySpFC (#34)
#37. To: Excalibur, GarySpFC (#36) The design failed to withstand the impact and fires. Frank DeMartini died in the WTC collapse. http://www.legacy.com/sept11/story.aspx?personid=103328
#38. To: yukon, Excalibur, GarySpFC (#37) (Edited) But they weren't designed to withstand a controlled demolition, were they? Oh and Building 7 - NEVER hit by a plane. Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7. Rudy Dent completely destroys the official statements contained in the 9/11 Commission Report. As as a high-ranking Fire Marshall he was present during the collapse of Building #7 on September 11th, 2001. He is also qualified and competent to describe the controlled demolition of Building 7 and the explosion which he heard triggered the implosion. The Most Outrageous 9/11 Conspiracy Theory BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early
#39. To: Deckard (#38) As as a high-ranking Fire Marshall Oh? Where was his testimony during the 9/11 investigation? How recently has Rudy joined the truther movement? Sorry, your propaganda is old and boring.
#43. To: yukon (#39) Why didn't the government call him? Why didn't they talk about the drills going on? What about the Janitor in the basement. He is a 911 victim. is he a liar? Remember God tells you to not be "willingly ignorant".
#44. To: A K A Stone (#43)
#45. To: yukon (#44) So why aren't you more aware of all the other eyewitness reports, analysis by demolition, structural, fire and architectural experts? Because there are none that confirms the story the government told. You haven't brought up any evidence. Usually just a snarky comment. Like the list that deckard put up. You have no answer to it. Why don't you have an answer to it? Because you can't address the points he made in a rational fashion. Maybe 911 wasn't an inside job. But there sure are a lot of unanswered questions. Like why is the wtc the only steel building in history to collapse because of fire. The buildings were stable after the plane hit them. If they were weakened by the planes. They would have had that part of the building fall over. Path of least resistance. Not collapse in a free fall. Building 7 wasn't even hit and it collapsed too. You have zero answer to that. You can't answer it. I will repeat you can't answer it.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#45)
#47. To: yukon (#46) The government told us what many eyewitnesses told us. Planes crashed into the WTC, Pentagon and the ground in Pennsylvania. If you don't want to believe that, fine, I don't care. When you can provide evidence proving otherwise, ping me. I don't dispute that. Buy why did they allow 4 hijacked planes to fly on a joy rider all the way to Ohio without being intercepted. If they were real terrorists. i would think that they would have went straight to the target. Not go for a joy ride across several states first. I would think that they would be thinking get to the target before they intercept us afterall we have 4 hijacked planes. I guess that wasn't as important as them intercepting a lone private plane with that famous golfer on it. You think that passes the smell test? So far all you have offered is something we agree on. Planes crashed into wtc buildings and people saw them.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#47) I don't dispute that. You are contradicting yourself. "Because there are none that confirms the story the government told."
#49. To: yukon (#48) I don't dispute that. You are contradicting yourself. "Because there are none that confirms the story the government told." Is that the best you can do? Seriously? lol
#52. To: A K A Stone (#49) Is that the best you can do? You made the claim. Read the following and get back to me, okay? If you need assistance in understanding any of the presented let me know and I'll do what I can to help. www.tms.org/pubs/journals...112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html www.tms.org/pubs/journals...erman/Biederman-0112.html www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html
#53. To: yukon (#52) Is that the best you can do? You made the claim. You can't address Deckards point can you? Just like you are accusing Bob of. You just don't want to answer it. Because you have no good answer. That's ok I knew you couldn't. Thanks for proving my point.
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53) You can't address Deckards point can you? Already answered many times. I can't help it if he and you are unable and unwilling to absorb information. Here's more for you to digest....if you are capable.
www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
#56. To: yukon (#54) Why did they ignore the dozens of firemen and first responders who heard explosions? What about the molten steel that lasted for weeks afterward?
#60. To: Deckard (#56) Why did they ignore the dozens of firemen and first responders who heard explosions? Who ignored them? Do you know how many items can explode in a fire?
#62. To: yukon Deckard (#60) Who ignored them? Do you know how many items can explode in a fire? I'm sure you've seen the video with poofs of smoke shooting out of the wtc prior to collapse. What caused these multiple explosions on multiple floors? I'm sure someone can pull up the video. You still never answered a simple question that I asked about Bush and how he saw the first plane hit. No more questions of yours will I answer until you answer. Fair is fair.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#62) I'm sure you've seen the video with poofs of smoke shooting out of the wtc prior to collapse. No, I've seen them as the collapse begins and progresses. Who says there were multiple explosions on multiple floors. There are all kinds of items that will "explode" in a fire. Why do you believe there are warnings on aerosol cans to keep away from heat and fire. DO NOT INCINERATE. Please do a little research and stop embarrassing yourself.
#66. To: yukon (#65) Why do you believe there are warnings on aerosol cans to keep away from heat and fire Yeah those were aerosol cans popping out of the side of the building. That is a perspective I have not seen yet.
#68. To: A K A Stone (#66) those were aerosol cans popping out of the side of the building. Who claimed that? You're a waste of time.
#69. To: yukon (#68) He's ridiculing you, pea brain.
#71. To: Fred Mertz (#69) He's incapable of rational discourse as are the majority of truthers.
#74. To: yukon (#71) He's incapable of rational discourse as are the majority of truthers. That is why you wont answer the Bush seeing first plane. Ok I'm bored with you. You have nothing to add.
#78. To: A K A Stone, Deckard, yukon (#74)
#79. To: Nexus6 (#78)
Replies to Comment # 79. There are no replies to Comment # 79.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 79. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|