It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by EagleTalonZ
He would not have a snowballs chance in hell after that.
Well, lets be real for a half second
He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell anyhow..so, might as well use the height of his attention (right now) to bring something to the front.
However, it would potentially effect his day job (congress). Texas likes a bit of rebellion, but not anything considered against america...and so yeah, saying the wtc attack was a inside job would certainly cast a dark cloud over his district.
However, if he came forward and demanded truth be let out about UFO's, the texans would certainly give a thumbs up (you know how them texans are )
Originally posted by Red Cloak
The way that it can be proven though that Ron Paul is a fraud, a faker, a charlatan - a true wolf in sheep's clothing is by the fact that while he pretends to be a crusader of the people against the elite powers that be..........he 100% follows the official US government/military/mainstream media version of 9/11/01.
Originally posted by sokpuppet
Oh damn - knowing that old Ronnie has had an actual sentient thought that is well thought-out and actually follows science (that 9-11 occurred as we all actually know it did - airplanes were hijacked by radicals and flown into pre-selected targets) kinda messes up my ideas about him (that good old woman hating white supremisist Texan)!
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by sokpuppet
Oh damn - knowing that old Ronnie has had an actual sentient thought that is well thought-out and actually follows science (that 9-11 occurred as we all actually know it did - airplanes were hijacked by radicals and flown into pre-selected targets) kinda messes up my ideas about him (that good old woman hating white supremisist Texan)!
Thank you for proving my point.
Every single time I've ever observed members of both groups, a consistent pattern has emerged. "Truthers," as you call them, try to provide what they consider to be evidence in support of their case.
Arbitrary skeptics such as yourself, on the other hand, generally don't do anything other than spew belligerent, aggressive, dismissive ad hominem.
Emotionalism and intellectual arrogance are not rational argument. Try again.edit on 18-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)