Thursday, January 15, 2015

Ron Paul's Trutherism

Ron Paul's organization has published a piece by Paul Craig Roberts (someohne I used to respect) claiming the massacre at Charlie Hebedo was a false flag operation. Of course Roberts also thinks our government did 9/11. One of the reasons my respect for Ron Paul and the whole libertarian isolationist view has fallen so much is this tendency that when facts and ideology disagree, just make up new facts rather than question their ideology.


B said...

There are some odd things about the whole deal.

Now I am NOT saying that it wasn't real, but there are some anomalies.

And I really gotta say that if you watch the cell phone video of the cop being shot at close range with and AK you do start to wonder.

Add it the "lost" Id left behind in the car and then things seem a bot less focused.

If you already wear a tinfoil hat then things look even wierder.

hga said...

Yeah, I used to respect Roberts as well. But when he publishes stuff like this (linked to in the Reason article):

For the first time in history low temperature, short-lived, fires on a few floors caused massive steel structures to weaken and collapse.

He's for example showing evidence he's never used hot water to help unscrew a metal lid off a glass jar (the Official Story is that expansion of critical weight bearing steel supports wrecked their alignment, or in the case of WTC7, simply pushed a key girder off it's seat, in all cases leading to cascading failures).

Now, you might argue with the Official Story, but ignoring it altogether is the sign of a crank, as our host has detailed. Reminds me of Robert's referring to Iran's nuclear projects as peaceful, when there's only one reason for a country like it to so massively invest in U235 concentration.

hga said...

Even more lunatic than I originally realized, for his method of conspiracy theorizing is internally inconsistent:

Roberts claims Saudis were in essence framed for the 9/11 "man caused disasters" ... which explains why we immediately overthrew the government of Saudi Arabia, and then in 2003 invaded and occupied that nation.

By the same token, to slap the wrists of a France getting even more cozy with the Palestinians and Russia, 4 people born in "metropolitan" (continental) France, 3 of Algerian and one of Malian descent (both former French colonies), were per the Official Story the perpetrators of the recent man caused disasters in France.

TM Lutas said...

The isolationist ideology is that absent an actual attack, we simply do not proactively go beyond our borders stirring up trouble. When there's an actual attack, the post hoc rationalization ending up in cries of false flag makes it not an attack. That's the rearranging of reality. But that's only useful if the ideology never was isolationist. It works just fine if the ideology was suicidal.

Rick C said...

Years before 9/11, I asked my boss, who was slowly renovating a several-hundred-year old balloon-frame house north of Boston, why he was putting in a 6x6 or so post in the corner of the house to replace the damaged, old one, when he could put in a steel beam instead, and he told me that a wooden beam would smolder/burn for up to hours before failing catastrophically, but that a steel beam could lose it's strength and fail catastrophically much faster, and at a much lower temperature, than wood. Anyone who thinks that "fire can't melt steel means the official story is bull" is ignorant (at this late date, willfully so) or an idiot--the fact that it weakens at relatively low heat was well-known long before 9/11.