Mike Gravel 'HELL NO we don't know the truth about 9/11'
Sherlock Holmes Sat, 08/11/2007 - 2:07pm
Apologies if this has already been posted so please let me know if it has I'll delete it.
I also know it's almost blasphemy if anyone in the 9/11 truth to voice support for anyone other than Ron Paul, but.....
I never saw this on 911blogger and it's only had 1000 views on YouTube since July 23, 2007, so here it is:
Mike Gravel says:
1. He'll support a new investigation
2. "Hell No" we don't know the truth about 9/11.
- Sherlock Holmes's blog
- Login to post comments
MIke Gravel is the man!
He forced the Pentagon Papers onto the Hill via Filibuster in the 70's. I like Mike - and I really like this video!
Cheers!
"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a New World Order — can emerge..." - George H.W. Bush, 9/11/91
And...
.. this is exactly why I didn't shoot for the stars with Ron Paul when it came to 9|11.
Rumor has it that if Gravel continues to get just 5 emails per day, he is highly considering bringing up 9/11
into the mainstream as one of his KEY issues for his running platform.
Just a little FYI for all you bloggers
Regards,
Mark in Philly
http://www.Philly911Truth.org
http://www.SST911.org
where did you hear this rumor?
did you happen to see Paul speak at the Iowa straw poll yesterday on C-Span? he finished strong but started out by pandering big time. ive never heard him talk so much about abortion and how horrible it is before. it was truly dissapointing to see a guy like Paul pandering so hard on that issue. the very first thing he got into was abortion. he sounded exactly like Brownback at the start of his speech but started getting better by the end. Laura Ingraham(the host of the event) made sure to get a few digs in at Paul and his supporters(she said-"the inmates have left the asylum" when Paul's supporters snaked to the front of the hall while chanting his name) despite heaping praise on pretty much every other candidate. Paul is weak on 9/11 and the last thing we should do is make excuses for him, we should be prodding him to be more realistic on 9/11 just like we do every other politician. no free pass. but Gravel has even less of a chance than winning that Kucinich does. Paul has REAL grassroots support that Kucinich and Gravel just dont. as you can tell from above there is a lot i dont agree with Paul about and his stance on 9/11 is truly pathetic when you consider he almost HAS to know the official story is complete bullshit, look who his supporters are. no excuses. his chances are not good at all, i dont anticipate him winning anything but i do support his bid. he is the only one that can stop HIllary Clinton from being our next president in my opinion. now, if Gravel comes out strong for 9/11 truth or calls for a new investigation during a TV debate then i might have to think again. to see how myself and many others feel about Paul and 9/11 check here:
http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1944&start=0
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Good post Chris
I agree, Hellery is the "chosen one" and we should NOT give Ron Paul a free pass on 9/11. He DOES know 9/11 was an inside job. They all do. If he comes to the Bay Area I will certainly get in his face about 9/11. I like Ron Paul a lot but he must get stronger on 9/11 truth. To hell with politics, the fate of the entire planet is at stake here.
right on maddog, i hope you
right on maddog, i hope you do. im conflicted about Paul but like i said, hes the only respectable one that has a chance(however small) to beat Hillary Clinton(Kucinich and Gravel are already dead in the water, Paul is almost dead.). and as we all know when Hillary wins the show goes on. no need to be disrespectful to Paul but he needs to know that we expect better and we are watching him(9/11 activists). before too long Paul will likely lose and then what? we would have wasted an oppurtunity in my opinion. Paul should be confronted on 9/11 just like everybody else. 9/11 activists are a very large part of his base right now and he pushes us away and claims blowback like Chomsky. sorry, not good enough. he can do better and we should be making him.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Of course its not blasphemy.
Of course it's not blasphemy, that's silly. Ron Paul's support among 9/11 truth people comes from the fact that he supports the Constitution and many (if not most) 9/11 truth people understand that one of the purposes of what they believe was the false-flag attack of 9/11 was to enable the undermining of the Constitution. It is natural that they would support him.
If 9/11 skepticism is your litmus test for a candidate, then clearly Gravel is your guy followed by Kucinich.
If the Constituiton (you know that thing that 9/11 was designed to undermine) is your litmus test like it is for me, then Ron Paul is your guy. As much as I like Gravel's position on 9/11 truth and the war, he fails my litmus test for a candidate.
I want a new investigation, I hate the war on terror and I want the war in Iraq over but the reason I oppose these things is they take us away from being the Republic set up under the Constitution, and that is what Ron Paul stands for.
Ron Paul has rejected the government-control theory of 9/11 (I don't believe he has ruled out the LIHOP view still) but he has also demonstrated that he will not be bullied by threats of terrorism (even when he believes it to be real) into destroying the Republic. That is is ultimately more important IMO.
We can't get so hung up and centered on 9/11 that we lose sight of the larger issues. If you are so caught up in this movement that agremment with every aspect of "9/11 truth orthodoxy" is required for you to consider a candidate, then you have lost perspective and are making a mistake IMHO.
OK, so only Ron Paul supports the constitution and Gravel...
OK, so only Ron Paul supports the constitution and Gravel... well he doesn't then? Or Gravel does support the constitution but not as much as Ron Paul does? Gravel passes my litmus test on the constitution.
Be it you humble opinion or otherwise, it's quite patronising that you suggest that I am so caught up in this movement that the agreement with every aspect of "9/11 truth orthodoxy" is required for me to consider a candidate. That suggests that anyone who doesn't support Ron Paul is in some way a traitor to the constitution, bill of rights and liberty. I think I am able to choose a political candidate without being brow beaten by the 'Patriot radio' stars.
Has it ever occurred to you that Mike Gravel is also a constitutionalist and defender of liberty, or again is that not possible because only Ron Paul can be those things? In fact it's not natural that 9/11 truth campaigners support Ron Paul, because he is in some way the only candidate that supports the constitution. In fact the 9/11 truth movement is very fortunate in some respects, because you will see that there are two other candidates running currently that support a new 9/11 investigation and they support the US constitution, one of them is Mike Gravel.
In recent days Ron Paul has categorically said that he doesn't believe 9/11 was carried out by the US Government. This is because, as Ron Paul supporters and the patriot radio stars have said on his behalf; "well you know he's got to play the political game". This is an interesting position for a constitutionalist, defender of liberty and truth, to be “playing the political game".
The patronising manner of statements you make like "the Constitution (you know that thing that 9/11 was designed to undermine) only exemplify the arrogance of some Ron Paul supporters in that only Ron Paul and only his supporters are true to the constitution and the rest of us are traitors. Sounds like "You are either with us or against us" to me. Where have I heard that before?
When given that opportunity Ron Paul even failed to mention that many people, including family members, are calling for a new investigation, or that he feels there are grounds for a new investigation as even congressman Kucinich is carrying out limited enquiries in the committee he chairs.
IMHO your response is exactly why posting to highlight any other candidate than Ron Paul is an anathema to 9/11 truth.
Maybe Gravel is a constitutionalist too, maybe Gravel has some good policies too, and maybe Gravel is also putting his ass on the line by saying the things he does.
I didn't suggest that YOU
I didn't suggest that YOU were, I said "IF". I have spoken to individuals who do fit this description in local circles. I was not making a determination regarding you.
This link alone...
This link ALONE is enough to rule out Gravel as being "Constitutional" as you describe. He supports a radical shift towards direct democracy in policy making, something that is completely Unconstitutional and, to me, very alarming.
http://www.gravel2008.us/national_initiative
Have you actually read the
Have you actually read the text in the link? If you have then I'm not sure where you get your litmus paper from, China?
So Gravel says:
Governments throughout history have been tools of oppression; they need not be. American citizens can gain control of their government by becoming lawmakers and turning its purpose to public benefit, and stemming government growth––the people are more conservative than their elected officials regardless of political party.
Are the people qualified enough to make laws directly to govern their lives? They’re qualified enough on Election Day to give their power away to political candidates who manipulate the electoral process to get elected. In fact, it’s easier to decide one’s self-interest directly than it is to guess the mind of a representative who will naturally put his or her self-interest first.
More than 70% of the voters already make laws by initiative in twenty-four states and in numerous local communities, and when voting on bond issues referred to them for decision by their representatives––serious lawmaking. American voters have made laws for the last 100 years and their record is as good as their elected legislators––with respect to fiscal matters, the people’s record is far superior
If that doesn't say Government for the people by the people I don't know what does.
Ron Paul would abolish all taxes, that's not only for Joe Average on $30,000 a year, but also for all corporations, at a time when America is 50 trillion dollars in debt?? At a time when China holds $1 trillion dollars of US treasuries and growing by the hour. Corporations which currently pay around 5-10% will pay 0% under Ron Paul. What will be the result? Massive unregulated, untaxed, oligarchies with private armies like in present day Russia? You new "litmus test", a test with which you are so familiar, would be Blackwater and Halliburton. Unregulated markets and corporations which can do as they please under libertarianism would mean massive moves off shore in the unregulated limited government Ron Paul world bring.
I advise, strongly, that you read your pocket constitution again.
"Ron Paul would abolish all
"Ron Paul would abolish all taxes" OK that's just crap. He wants to abolish a particularly heinous and patently unconstitutional one called the Federal Income Tax as applied to working individuals (not corporate gains tax), which accounts for only 30% of Federal Revenues.
I don't support amending the Constitution to move in the direction of populist direct legislative Democracy. At least Gravel acknowledges that this is a departure from the Constitution by proposing to amend it.
Like I said, you're free to make 9/11 a defining issue of your vote, and you're free to support Socialistic policies. 9/11 truth is important to me, but not important enough to go along with Gravel's other positions.
Whoa there, Morgan!
The National Initiative for Democracy founded and authored by Senator Gravel (and many other experts) is not a shift to "direct democracy"! The current government structure under NI4D continues to exist. What NI4D does is to empower the people by creating the ability to place initiatives and referendums on the ballot. Thus giving the people some power to end government corruption - which we currently do not have.
Without democracy, we are literally lost as a nation I'm afraid. Voting is not democracy. When you vote, you sign away what power you did have! After that, all you can do is protest - something that is easily ignored as we have seen.
Don
Enact real democracy at www.ni4d.us.
Not a political game
I don't believe RP is "playing a political game" by asserting that he doesnt' believe the "inside job" thesis. I believe he is sincere, and I'm supporting him anyway. Like I said, 9/11 is not MY litmus test.
Alex Jones can use whatever mental gymnastics he wants to get "9/11 truth" religionists to support Dr. Paul. My point is that if you can't support a candidate because of his positions and the direction he would take as the President, and you are making your determinations based purely on how well they conform to "9/11 Truth orthodoxy" then maybe you're just a little too wrapped up around one issue, important though it is.
By the way, Ron Paul has not recinded his statement of being open to a new investigation, though he did add the caveat that he doesn't have much faith in government investigations of themselves.
vote no on ron paul
just because he is 9/11 is not enough.
didn't he say something bad about 9/11 recently.
mike gravel is great, but he is way too old.
there is no one who deserves it or will do a good job.
we are doomed no matter how you look at it.
but we will survive and persevere.
just like we always have.
Gravel has almost no grassroots support and ZERO chance of
defeating hillary.
Ron Paul has an excellent chance to win the GOP and defeat Hillary & the NWO. Also he WILL have a new investigation of 9/11, he has said so.
"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
-Ron Paul
Not blasphemy at all
Nothing is blasphemy when you honestly seek the truth. There are only different theories or options, some more likely than others. And one day you will hopefully find enough proof, to be able to call one of those theories the truth.
"Blasphemy" is a term more or less interchangeable with "dissent". It's typically used by people that oppose all dissent, but don't want to be too obvious about it.
We're in this fight for the truth together. That doesn't mean we have to agree on everything, in fact we don't even need to make the same conclusions in the end.
But as long as we honestly and with an open mind seek the truth, we are united in that. I think that's great.
I wish we could get this in
I wish we could get this in front of him:
Home videos are showing up with different perspectives. There was a light guiding that 2nd plane. No question. And there was a "white plane" in the air at the same time. Don't know if that is significant but same thing happened at pentagon. Was that (remote controlled?) plane being guided.
A friend said this looks like the system they use on laser-guided bombs. One plane shines the spot on the target, and another plane can drop the bomb, and the bomb steers itself towards the spot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvisEKeffK0
If you watch it carefully
If you watch it carefully you will see that the tracking light continues on through the fireball and onto the next building in the path of the tracking. People get focused on the fireball and don't see that happen. The photographer also doesn't notice it because when showing the frames again words come up but if you look through them you will see that the light continues on. This light did not come from the plane itself, but was from something apart from the plane. The light continues on and then you see the white plane go by. When that plane was hitting wtc something deliberate was going on. This footage is extremely important. I hope people share it.
I've never heard Ron Paul
I've never heard Ron Paul say he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job. I've heard him say "if you mean by inside job, that the government carried out the attacks, then absolutely not".
But I believe that 9/11 was an inside job (more specifically an outside job made possible by insiders), and I don't believe the government carried out the attacks. Therefore I'm with him all the way.
I think Mike Gravel is an honourable fella, but would Gravel abolish the IRS? Repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the federal reserve? Pull the country out of the WTO, the UN and stop the North American Union?
I feel very strongly that we're falling prey to divide and rule tactics here.
Gravel has a lot of good & interesting things to say
But Ron Paul is talking about getting to the root causes of 9/11, like ending the Federal Reserve, and going back to following the constitution.
The new 9/11 investigation must be INDEPENDENT of the government. Ron Paul is FOR this. We don't need our next president to run on the 9/11 issue. As huge as 9/11 truth is, it's still just a symptom of much broader problems- which Ron Paul is addressing, and will address further as president.
There's probably a place for Gravel in a President Paul cabinet.
"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
-Ron Paul
Gravel seems to be fairly
Gravel seems to be fairly sane, like Kucinich.
As we all know -- unless 911 is blown open -- the wars will continue.
What will a Clinton do? What she is told! ... how predictable ....
I happen to be convinced that only the mass media can pop the 911-pest-boil.
I am in communication with a few newspapers about THIS
.. apparently one will send a reporter with a surveyor to investigate this claim.
So far everyone agrees that this issue can be positively cleared up, one way or another.
lets see...