6
Jun

Gibson & The Ron Paul Truthers

Posted by: Curt @ 7:33 pm in Ron Paul, Twoofers  | 19 views

You have just have to listen to this interview of John Gibson’s with two truthers: (h/t Johnny Dollar’s Place)


Download File

That has to be one of the best interviews I’ve ever heard….and another Ron Paul twoofer supporter lives.  But of course his supporters don’t buy into the twoofer madness…..yeah.

He interviews Matt Lepacek and Luke Rudowski because Matt was arrested for accosting a Rudy Giuliani representative.  This report comes from Screw Loose Change:

The punk getting busted is Matt Lepacek, apparently a Luke Rudkowksi wannabe. Jason reportedly not arrested.

They need to stop allowing these kooks into the debates. One of them is all set to go Taxi Driver, no doubt in my mind.

Update: More details.

Though CNN staff members tried to persuade police not to arrest the accredited reporter– in violation of the First Amendment, Lepacek was taken to jail. The police station told JonesReport.com… that Lepacek is being charged with felony criminal trespass.

Lepacek did receive one phone call in jail which he used to contact reporter Luke Rudkowski. According to Rudkowski, Lepacek was scared because he had been told he may be transferred to a secret detention facility because state police were also considering charges of espionage against him– due to a webcam Lepacek was using to broadcast live at the event. State police considered it to be a hidden camera, which led to discussion of "espionage."

I guess his trip to the secret death star was put off as evidenced by his interview with John Gibson today. 

Here is a video of the exchange at the GOP debate.

These Ron Paul Twoofer Cheerleaders are some wacked out people…..

UPDATE

The argument that they get into with the Guiliani guy was about this article in which Alex Jones states Giuliani knew beforehand the buildings were gonna collapse:

No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire damage before in history. The event was unprecedented. To know the building was about to collapse would require inside knowledge of ‘the 9/11 script’ and how it was supposed to unfold on that fateful day.

Of course, as you heard John Gibson above state, lots of reporters were told it was gonna collapse prior to it collapsing.  Even more people knew it was gonna collapse and Screw Loose Change found a few of them.

But even better, this Alex Jones put up a video of the interview with a key section clipped from it.  Which section?  Well,  Pat from Screw Loose Change found the transcript of it:

Okay, I’ve listened to the two versions again, and Jones or whoever provided him with the tape certainly did do some editing of the Giuliani interview with Peter Jennings around noon on 9-11. Here is the full version of the interview; I have bolded the parts that were left out of the Jones version:

Giuliani: We were in a building, in which we were trapped for about 10-15 minutes.

Jennings: Are you talking about the Office of Emergency–Did you go to the Office of Emergency Management?

Giuliani: No, I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10-15 minutes then finally found an exit, got out, walked north and took a lot of people with us.

That is, of course, a pretty convenient edit; it implies that the warning was 10-15 minutes and that Giuliani just rather casually strolled away. The snipped part indicates that the warning and the collapse came almost simultaneously.

Here is the whole interview on YouTube:


What?  Ron Paulbots and Twoofers twitching the evidence to make their point?  Get outta here.

Nuts one and all.

UPDATE II

Check out Newsbusters where he found a REAL truth….that the AP employs truthers:

In his cover story on the war in Afghanistan in the June 11 Weekly Standard, Michael Fumento recounted his experience embedded with the U.S. military at Forward Operating Base Lagman in the Zabul province of Afghanistan.

Fumento was assigned quarters with two Spaniards working for the Associated Press. One of them seems to be in a mind-meld with Rosie O’Donnell (“he believes 9/11 was a Bush administration conspiracy hung on al Qaeda”) while the other reporter “never takes off his Che Guevera T-shirt.”

No wonder the European press thinks our media are just a bunch of Bush administration cheerleaders!

I can’t say I’m surprised….can you?

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 6th, 2007 at 7:33 pm and is filed under Ron Paul, Twoofers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

15 comments so far

Mike
 1Reply to this comment  

The Truthers and the Ru Paulbots are nuts.

It would be one thing if they were just crazy nobodies, which they are, with kooky theories.

But their mania feeds into this whole idiotic notion that the War on Terror is somehow not real, that there is no threat, that there’s no need to worry about it at all.

And of course worse that they think their own government would murder it’s citizens.

All of this makes the war take that much longer to win with many more innocent lives lost as a result.

Bin Laden must be laughing his ass off.

June 6th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
wordsmith
 2Reply to this comment  

Just look at some of the ones who are applauding Ron Paul: Jack Cafferty…Bill Maher…all Bush-hating lefties.

Nice, the kind of company he’s keeping.

Why aren’t the Paulbots weighing in, right now? I want to hear from them!

June 6th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Colin
 3Reply to this comment  

“No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire damage before in history. The event was unprecedented. To know the building was about to collapse would require inside knowledge of ‘the 9/11 script’ and how it was supposed to unfold on that fateful day.”

That’s the dumbest freaking quote I’ve read in a long time, and these people (combined with their lefty fellow travellers) come up with some pretty dumb stuff. Maybe no steel framed building has never collapsed from fire damage before because NO STEEL FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER BEEN SUPER-HEATED BY JET FUEL POURING OUT OF AN AIRLINER USED AS A CRUISE MISSILE! Maybe no building (like Building 7) has never been subjected to the force of two 110 story buildings collapsing into themselves, creating subterranean fires measured in THOUSANDS of degrees! I saw those damn buildings collapse, just like everyone else who hasn’t repressed those memories yet, and remembers why we’re at war. The force of those buildings coming down reminded me of nothing so much as the pyroclastic flow resulting from a volcano like Mt. St. Helens blowing its top. The energy released by that had to be tremendous. The reason why this jackass has never seen a “steel framed building…collapsed from fire damage before in history” is because that kind of attack, those forces at play, that level of devestation, has never before been SEEN in history! Not in quite the same way. The mass bombing attacks of WWII packed more of a punch, but even those didn’t have the accuracy and the massive force in such a confined space of the 9/11 attacks. You want to compare this “event” (because I’m sure this bozo is too chickensh*t to call it an attack) to another event in history, well, you can’t. 9/11 heralded a new day in warfare, and trying to explain it away by comparing it to some kind of demolition or fire is both ignorant and insulting.

June 7th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Brainster
 4Reply to this comment  

Man, that is one awesome smackdown by Gibson! Linked at SLC.

June 7th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Scott
 5Reply to this comment  

Dear Flopping Aces guys,

Sorry, I don’t mean to be a troll here, but I beg you not to hold these 9/11 idiots against Ron Paul.

I know we disagree on the war and probably other things too, but the vast majority of Paul supporters don’t buy into the 9/11 “truth”ers’ garbage.

Personally, I am as disgusted with them as ya’ll, maybe even more since they are giving Paul such a bad name. But it’s not his fault. Paul blames bin Laden, KSM and the 19 for the attack. He says we should fight al Qaeda and not be diverted to other enemies.

At least one 9/11 kook denounced Paul for not being a 9/11 kook on my blog the other day. I pray that the rest of them will follow that idiot’s lead.

Sincerely,
Scott Horton
Antiwar.com…

June 7th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Michael Fumento
 6Reply to this comment  

Thanks for the mention of my “The Other War” piece, but I’d appreciate it if you could link to the version of my website. It has a sidebar that’s not in the WStandard online edition, lots of my photos, lots of hyperlinks, and a link to my Afghan photo set. Thanks.

http://www.fumento.com/military/otherwar.html

Mike Fumento

June 7th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Mike
 7Reply to this comment  

Scott: The Truther Paul bots may be the most insane, loonies. But there are plenty of other reasons to give Ru Paul the heave ho.

Like many of your friends at antiwar.com… Ru Paul is totally deluded as to the reason there is a jihad being waged against us. It started long before Iraq and long before George Bush was President.

In fact, the roots go back to a time before there was a State of Israel or United States.

Do you really think that a total U.S. withdraw; from the Middle East would facilitate world peace? Or would it just be the peace of the grave?

How do you explain Islamists murdering Buddhist monks in Thailand? Are the monks part of the Imperialist/Zionist conspiracy?

At some point you’re going to have to accept responsibility for your utter failure to acknowledge the dangers and ambition of an enemy that wants to kill YOU.

The war will last longer and more innocent lives lost because of people like Ru Paul, his supporters and YOU!

June 7th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Scott
 8Reply to this comment  

Mike,

Well, since you recognize that Paul is not a “truther” but believes that our foreign policies since World War II have promoted and then antagonized the right-wing religious forces that you fear so much, I hope you will at least be fair to him about the kook-movement stuff.

After all, I think we can have an honest and substantive debate about our respective positions – which must overlap to some degree – whereas the 9/11 BS is simply unreality, a rotten pollution of the real debate.

I agree with you that there are religious crazies in the Middle East, I’m just saying that, as Michael Scheuer, the man who gave Bill Clinton 10 chances to get bin Laden and wrote Through Our Enemies Eyes says, and Robert A. Pape has proven in Dying to Win (contrary to his own hypothesis, which was much like your own), the only reason that these nuts amount to anything more than a local David Koresh – that is, the only reason that they are able to recruit new jihadists – is because they point to specific foreign policies of the US government.

In every place there have been movements that used suicide attackers since 1980, only 50% of them were Muslim. In every case the movement was a nationalist reaction to occupation. In every case, when the occupation ended, the recruits dried up.

You write as though the loose band of radicals that fought the Russians in Afghanistan in the eighties, and now fail to control a single state on earth, are somehow going to take over the world. This is ridiculous.

Not even a 9/11 kook could deny the reality that our invasion of Iraq has helped the al Qaeda movement, and that our continued occupation of that country is expanding their numbers – not that they control a bit of real estate their being mostly foreigners there themselves.

Look at Thailand, what’s the way to handle the problem there? National cops, not war.

The way to handle al Qaeda is with intelligence assets, cops and when absolutely necessary – Tora Bora anyone? – soldiers, not giving them way too much credit and instituting a policy of regime change across the region, which only marginalizes the moderates and makes the worst sound more reasonable.

You may still disagree. but this is hardly 9/11 “truth” kookery.

Dr. Paul deserves better than to be characterized as personifying the views of his worst supporters.

June 8th, 2007 at 12:57 am
tyler oconnor
 9Reply to this comment  

Never listened to this guy before (the radio host) never will again!! What a uneducated moron!!

June 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Dave
 10Reply to this comment  

Dragging Ron Paul into this childish shouting match rests my case.

Let me see…A 10 term Congressman with a Medical Degree from Duke University vs a talk radio host with..well, I don’t know, I’ll have to guess…a BA in ‘journalism’?

Pretty funny stuff, if you like that sort of humor.

We’ve fallen from #1 in the world to #17 in basic educational skills, just above Mexico. This clip shows me embarrassingly glaring evidence of that, and since there are apparently 16 other nations who are smarter than we are, the rest of the world, too.

Let’s all get on line and call each other names, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You know, one big Jerry Springer affair. Ratings will soar. Put a big cage over the whole mess and charge the rest of the world a fee to watch and/or listen.

The motivation for my comment in this circus of a blog is this: Gibson rudely avoided a simple question that caught my interest: If, as he said, many reporters of the event, as well as Giuliani, ‘knew the buildings would collapse’, why the hell didn’t they tell the fire-fighters who were inside???????????????

Talk about D-R-I-V-E-L

Dave

June 15th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Jack Parkman
 11Reply to this comment  

The 9/11 Truthers have way too much free time on their hands, and are barking up the wrong tree. I have plenty of criticism for them, but they’re well-intentioned.

On the other hand, the likes of John Gibson, Michelle Malkin (and apparently you) have repeatedly engaged in a disgraceful campaign of unethical psuedo-journalism to tie Ron Paul in with these folks. What is the beef here? That they LIKE Ron Paul? There’s a logical explanation: they are suspicious of government and therefore likely to support the candidate would would govern least.

He hasn’t “met with” these groups. They’ve approached him unannounced. Alex Jones? Sure, he’s a kook when it comes to 9/11 but he was a radio host long before then. Going on his program doesn’t mean you endorse his 9/11 views any more than shaking hands with Bill Cosby makes you a Jello spokesperson.

If you want to claim that Ron Paul has not done enough to distance himself from these folks, fine. Fair argument. I’d respond that he’s been very clear that he doesn’t believe this stuff (his view on the cause of 9/11 is pretty well-established), and that you’re writing about a non-issue.

Belief in conspiracy theories (or a refusal to dismiss them/desire to investigate) shouldn’t make someone a total pariah. It should make them a bit of a kook, but if politicians were forced to publicly denounce (and refuse contributions from) every person with controversial and/or offensive views, EVERY candidate would have a lot of money to return.

June 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Anonymous
 12Reply to this comment  

This interview is actually disgusting. Gibson should be ashamed of himself. He didn’t address facts at all but spent the entire interview calling these guys names.

Please do tell when, before 9/11, a building made of structural steel collapsed due to fire.

And what special knowledge would it require to predict that something which has never before occurred in the history of structural steel buildings was about to occur?

June 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
indio007
 13Reply to this comment  

Do the equation for acceleration of an object by gravity and apply to WTC 1 ,2,7 . Your basically calling Newton and Galileo kooks tinfoil hatters and nutters.
It’s simple math . I think you can manage it. Stop with the ad hominums they don’t work on any one that can do simple algebra.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
There has never been a single explaination of this observed phenomena by Fema , NIST , Popular Mechanics or anyone else. Explain how Muslims suspended the laws of physics.

June 17th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Skip742
 14Reply to this comment  

Guilt by association? Yeah, just a little bit.

By those standards, shouldn’t most of Congress be locked up for associating with William Jefferson?

Yeah, the 9-11 Truthers are out to lunch, and their accusations are more than a little offensive. But really, are they worth anybody’s time? I tend to ignore them the way I would anyone who screams about aliens coming. It’s the tie-in to Ron Paul that I find disturbing. Not THEIR tie-in, because it means little or nothing to me who they support. YOUR tie-in is what bothers me.

They support Paul because he has behaved respectfully toward them, probably more than I would have, but that’s his personality. He’s been respectful to Sean Hannity when he insulted him and wouldn’t let him finish a sentence. It’s just his way, and I have to respect that. The truthers also support Dr. Paul because he has said that a more complete investigation of 9-11 wouldn’t hurt. They hung on that and ran with it. Of course, he doesn’t delude himself into believing it to be an “inside job” or anything of the sort, but he does believe we have some intelligence gaps that haven’t been fully resolved. Do you not believe that? Do you honestly think that we had our act together that day? Do you truly think that the strongest nation in the world ought to be penetrated by 19 Arab flunkies who didn’t even have the smarts to figure out how to take-off and land a plane? Obviously, we should have caught them, but somehow, we didn’t. Dr. Paul wants to patch that hole in our intelligence gathering capability.

If all this makes you hate him, then sure, go ahead and spread falsehood. I mean, it’s an election year, and that makes it ok. But I hope you understand that you’re playing right into the hands of Hillary and 4 more years of Clintonia. Because, if you had any sense, you’d realize that Ron Paul is probably the Republicans’ only chance to beat her. Read the polls. None of the pro-war candidates are going anywhere. And this is before the war gets worse.

And, of course, you realize that the war DOES get worse from here. How could it get better? We haven’t even identified a goal, so it would be impossible to achieve it. I can understand support for some wars, and I even fully supported going into Afghanistan. But there was no good reason to go into Iraq until AFTER we had found Osama. Now, it’s just a distraction, and we’ve let the leader of the 9/11 attacks get away. Or do you have your own wacky conspiracy theory about how ALL Arabs have some secret conspiracy to attack America regardless of what our policies are? Because that’s how you sound. They’re ALL out to get us? Yeah, right. Even the tin-foil-hat wearers don’t believe that.

June 30th, 2007 at 6:27 am
DDW
 15Reply to this comment  

I have spent most of my adult life working as a “construction inspector”, which has frequently involved inspecting “fireproofing” applied to structural steel. If “no steel-frame building in history has ever collapsed due to fire”, why is it that I had to spend so much of my time measuring thickness and “pull-off-strength” of “fireproofing” materials applied to steel frames? Could it be because many buildings in the historical database did, indeed, collapse because of fire? No, that couldn’t possibly be the case, since the lefty morons tell us that “No steel frame building had ever collapsed from fire damage before in history.” I, of course can give you many examples of buildings that did, in fact, collapse due to fire. I have news for you dip-sh**s. Buildings have been collapsing due to fire for as long as people have been constructing “steel-frame buildings”. My employment as an “inspector” depended on the fact that the “engineers” who design the buildings also knew that they fail under fire conditions, so they incorporate “fireproofing” to try to resist that damage, but the “fireproofing” has to ACTUALLY WORK in an actual fire for it to matter. That’s where I came in. My job was to make sure the “fireproofing” could at least stand up to the conditions the “engineers” designing the building specified.
I have looked at all the data on the WTC, especially the reports that would have been available to me, if I had worked on that project. What I see is that those who insist on seeing a government conspiracy are so full of SH** that their eyes are turning brown.
The “fireproofing” failed because a damn JETLINER slammed into each building, and the resulting blast from the impact, (we don’t need to bother taking into account the fuel lighting up) almost certainly blasted the “fireproofing” off of most, if not all of the structural steel in question. Then, of course, the jet-fuel lit up, heating the steel the impact had ALREADY stripped of “fireproofing”. But, of course, as our left-wing dipsh**s tell us, since NO STEEL-FRAME BUILDING has EVER COLLAPSED due to fire, I suppose that means that the engineers who hired me were just wasting money, since after all, they were all government projects. (oh, wait, they were mostly private enterprise projects with no government money involved.)

August 1st, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: