Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin ...

Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden

There are 96 comments on the CBS News story from May 12, 2011, titled Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden. In it, CBS News reports that:

Rep. Ron Paul , who is poised to launch his presidential campaign tomorrow, said this week he would not have authorized the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, arguing that killing bin Laden was unnecessary and that he has "respect for the rule of law." In a radio interview with WHO Newsradio 1040, Paul told radio host Simon ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#63 May 12, 2011
Here is a 2009 high-rise fire in China:



Here is the same building the morning after:

http://www.youtube.com/watch... ;

.
Stacy

Davis, CA

#64 May 12, 2011
911 was an inside job wrote:
Here is a 2009 high-rise fire in China:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =6hSPFL2ZlpgXX
Here is the same building the morning after:
http://www.youtube.com/watch... ;
.
Your point is what, that these two tragedies are similar, you must be kidding , there is nothing similar what-so-ever. Keep up the good political job.
Drink the Hive

Anonymous Proxy

#65 May 12, 2011
What Is Your Reading Material 4 The Porcelain Throne?

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com...

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#66 May 12, 2011
why is it that someone with a 911 ax to grind always follow the ron paul threads , ,,this thread is not about 911 , its about killing binladen in pakistan and dumping his body in the ocean ,both were the wrong policy to follow , I know it, so does Ron paul
owen

Lebanon, KY

#67 May 12, 2011
One to the chest and one to the head. Now I hear there were multiple shots every where. Just can't get their story straight can they???
Want to pay off the deficit in a hurry ??? sell the killing of Bin Laden on pay per view.Start to finish.
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#68 May 12, 2011
cal66iber wrote:
why is it that someone with a 911 ax to grind always follow the ron paul threads ,,,this thread is not about 911 , its about killing binladen in pakistan and dumping his body in the ocean ,both were the wrong policy to follow , I know it, so does Ron paul
Actually, I'm following the "bin Laden" threads. Remember "bin Laden," the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attack?(Or was it Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? It's hard to keep up with all the twists and turns and contradictions and flat out silliness in the official fable...).

Ron Paul's "respect for the rule of law" is admirable and rare... but he's one man with few partners among our "elected representatives." Kucinich is another. Most of our "representatives" are owned by a very corrupt corporate system, and only with a very informed and supportive populace could someone like Paul reverse the cancer.
Pleasure Beach Lover

Richmond, VA

#69 May 13, 2011
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is World Trade Center Construction Manager Frank DeMartini:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sO1JxpVb2eUXX
The buildings remained standing after the plane impacts, so impact damage was obviously not enough to bring down the towers.(Also, NO PLANE struck World Trade Center Building 7, and yet for some reason this 47-story steel frame building dropped symmetrically in less than 7 seconds!). Also, the jet fuel burned off very quickly... And jet fuel doesn't burn as hot as you might think. It's essentially kerosene. Wouldn't be any good if the engines melted, now would it?
Also, office furnishings in the towers and WTC-7 provide for fuel for, at most, a 20 minute burn in any given location, after which the fire in that location dies out. Insulation on the steel is rated for 2-3 hours. The structures were extremely redundant (overbuilt). Again, what we are seeing are obvious explosions, causing very massive steel perimeter column assemblies to be expelled outward at high velocity... and most of the concrete was pulverized in mid-air.
What about the different explosives that would be in the building? Natural gas, fire extinguishers, things like that?
911 was an inside job

United States

#70 May 13, 2011
Pleasure Beach Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the different explosives that would be in the building? Natural gas, fire extinguishers, things like that?
Building codes are very strict in high-rises. And there certainly wouldn't be anything in the building capable of melting steel and pulverizing concrete and ejecting massive steel perimeter column assemblies hundred of feet laterally into the facades of neighboring buildings.

And yet, this was found in abundance in the World Trade Center dust:

http://www.911research.com/essays/thermite/ex...

.
fedupwiththemess

Ashburn, VA

#71 May 13, 2011
Aaron Kent wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello kettle
Hello dumbazz!
Stacy

Davis, CA

#72 May 13, 2011
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Building codes are very strict in high-rises. And there certainly wouldn't be anything in the building capable of melting steel and pulverizing concrete and ejecting massive steel perimeter column assemblies hundred of feet laterally into the facades of neighboring buildings.
And yet, this was found in abundance in the World Trade Center dust:
http://www.911research.com/essays/thermite/ex...
.
What are the building codes for large fuel loaded planes flying into the building and causing a jet fuel explosion?
911 was an inside job

Pompano Beach, FL

#73 May 13, 2011
Stacy wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the building codes for large fuel loaded planes flying into the building and causing a jet fuel explosion?
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

SKILLING: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,... The building structure would still be there."

----------
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

excerpt: "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707óDC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

----------

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

DeMartini: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners ..."
Stacy

Davis, CA

#74 May 13, 2011
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
SKILLING: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,... The building structure would still be there."
----------
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
excerpt: "The buildings have been investigated and found to be
safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707ó

DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that
such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
----------
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
DeMartini: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners ..."
Thank you for the information how unfortunate that they were 100% wrong.
Stacy

Davis, CA

#75 May 13, 2011
Pleasure Beach Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the different explosives that would be in the building? Natural gas, fire extinguishers, things like that?
They had a restaurant up there also. We have watched Casinos blown down, they put explosives in the basements and first floor, when the explosives were set off the buildings came straight down in one gigantic roar. The towers did the same thing, I believe
911 was an inside job

Pompano Beach, FL

#76 May 13, 2011
Stacy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the information how unfortunate that they were 100% wrong.
Actually, the Towers DID withstand the impact and fires, as is quite evident from the videos. They did not withstand the explosives and other pyrotechnics.

Since: Dec 10

Ron Paul 2012

#77 May 13, 2011
fedupwiththemess wrote:
That is why ron paul's dumb azz is not president and won't ever be.
fedupwiththemess wrote:
<quoted text>Hello dumbazz!
Explain what "that" is? You make a statement but have not one shred of arguement to back up the claim, then you call me a "dumbazz!" for calling you out on it.

Translation so you can understand what I am asking=
"Yo dude, canz yew pleaze tahk abutt wut you mentz to say whenz youz sed dat abutt Run Pool?"
Pleasure Beach Lover

Richmond, VA

#78 May 13, 2011
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
SKILLING: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,... The building structure would still be there."
----------
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
excerpt: "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707óDC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
----------
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
DeMartini: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners ..."
The towers weren't there in 1964.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#79 May 13, 2011
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I'm following the "bin Laden" threads. Remember "bin Laden," the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attack?(Or was it Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? It's hard to keep up with all the twists and turns and contradictions and flat out silliness in the official fable...).
Ron Paul's "respect for the rule of law" is admirable and rare... but he's one man with few partners among our "elected representatives." Kucinich is another. Most of our "representatives" are owned by a very corrupt corporate system, and only with a very informed and supportive populace could someone like Paul reverse the cancer.
Ron Paul is the answer to this country's problems as he is the ONLY politician who would end both parties' corrupt policies. He says both parties ran up this debt, he says the Dems agree to run up debt on welfare programs and the Repubs agree to run up debt on wars for profits for corporations. Bush did 9/11 with the Saudis so he could invade Iraq for the oil. Bush tried to assasinate Chavez in Venezuela to gain control of the oil in Venezuela, and when he failed, he had only Saddam he could go after in order to secure the oil in Iraq. Chavez and Saddam were Bush's oil problems. If 9/11 did not happen, Bush would have had no way to invade Iraq. The Bush family and Bin Laddin families are in the same financial groups, the Bush family is in with the Saudi Royal Family. All of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Bush got Bin Laddin's family members out of the U.S. within 9 days after 9/11, as soon as there were flights out of the country. Bush never got Bin Laddin. 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. Then the Republicans sell it and sell it that they are the only ones who can protect us. OMG. The Bush family has had a lot more than 3,000 people killed over protecting the Bush family money. Bush I killed lots of people over a leader in So. America having info about his son snorting coke and having sex with prostitutes, I think it was 4,000 people Bush I killed over covering up what George W. was doing. George W. killed 3,000 Americans to get the oil in Iraq, spent 1.5 trillion on it, which made his buddies very wealthy. He killed over 100,000 innocent people in Iraq over it, and another 4,500 American military people over the oil in Iraq. That's how the Bushes role. Mass murder everyone who gets in the way of huge profits for them. You have to wonder how many billions of dollars the Bush family made from George W.'s polices. His father owns the company that our government bought guns, etc. from for the Iraq war. His family owns the tests for No Child Left Behind. His family owns stocks in big Pharma, so when he made the free meds for seniors deal, his stock values went way up. He has hella stocks in Haliburton, their stock values tripled over the contracts Haliburton got from Bush in Iraq. Their Exxon and BP stocks went way up when Exxon and BP got ahold of the oil field in Iraq. We "lost" 9 billion dollars in Iraq. It had to go to someone, I'm sure that went to Bush too. His family probably made 50 billion, maybe 100 billion dollars when Bush was in office over those 8 years.

Ron Paul would put a stop to both parties corrupt, disgusting programs.
911 was an inside job

Pompano Beach, FL

#80 May 13, 2011
Pleasure Beach Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
The towers weren't there in 1964.
The Towers were designed in the early 60s, and one of the requirements was that they be able to withstand the impact of a jet aircraft. Recall again the collision of a B-25 bomber with the Empire State Building in 1945.
Pleasure Beach Lover

Richmond, VA

#81 May 13, 2011
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Ron Paul is the answer to this country's problems as he is the ONLY politician who would end both parties' corrupt policies. He says both parties ran up this debt, he says the Dems agree to run up debt on welfare programs and the Repubs agree to run up debt on wars for profits for corporations. Bush did 9/11 with the Saudis so he could invade Iraq for the oil. Bush tried to assasinate Chavez in Venezuela to gain control of the oil in Venezuela, and when he failed, he had only Saddam he could go after in order to secure the oil in Iraq. Chavez and Saddam were Bush's oil problems. If 9/11 did not happen, Bush would have had no way to invade Iraq. The Bush family and Bin Laddin families are in the same financial groups, the Bush family is in with the Saudi Royal Family. All of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Bush got Bin Laddin's family members out of the U.S. within 9 days after 9/11, as soon as there were flights out of the country. Bush never got Bin Laddin. 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. Then the Republicans sell it and sell it that they are the only ones who can protect us. OMG. The Bush family has had a lot more than 3,000 people killed over protecting the Bush family money. Bush I killed lots of people over a leader in So. America having info about his son snorting coke and having sex with prostitutes, I think it was 4,000 people Bush I killed over covering up what George W. was doing. George W. killed 3,000 Americans to get the oil in Iraq, spent 1.5 trillion on it, which made his buddies very wealthy. He killed over 100,000 innocent people in Iraq over it, and another 4,500 American military people over the oil in Iraq. That's how the Bushes role. Mass murder everyone who gets in the way of huge profits for them. You have to wonder how many billions of dollars the Bush family made from George W.'s polices. His father owns the company that our government bought guns, etc. from for the Iraq war. His family owns the tests for No Child Left Behind. His family owns stocks in big Pharma, so when he made the free meds for seniors deal, his stock values went way up. He has hella stocks in Haliburton, their stock values tripled over the contracts Haliburton got from Bush in Iraq. Their Exxon and BP stocks went way up when Exxon and BP got ahold of the oil field in Iraq. We "lost" 9 billion dollars in Iraq. It had to go to someone, I'm sure that went to Bush too. His family probably made 50 billion, maybe 100 billion dollars when Bush was in office over those 8 years.
Ron Paul would put a stop to both parties corrupt, disgusting programs.
Where's the Iraq oil? We haven't see a drop of it. You mention both parties, but all your complaints are about Republicans....just sayin'.
southernpride

Midlothian, TX

#82 May 13, 2011
cal66iber wrote:
Bin laden should and could have been captured and strung up by his balls for all the world to see ,
They gave bin Laden one chance to surrender. He didn't. The special ops guys didn't know if he was wearing a suicide jacket or had a button to push to blow up the place.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Bin Laden Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Running Scared North Korea's Kim terrified of B... Jun 19 Parden Pard 1
News Romney 'applauds' Obama for Osama bin Laden raid (May '12) Feb '16 Jared Axelrod Dem... 51
News 'Utter nonsense': CIA and White House blast Sey... (May '15) May '15 -Lea- 1
News Did enhanced interrogation help the CIA find Os... (Dec '14) Dec '14 lol 2
News Push to declassify more documents seized from b... (Jun '13) Apr '14 swedenforever 4
News Bergen: Pakistan hid Bin Laden? Prove it (Mar '14) Mar '14 Quagmire 12
News Pakistan reduces sentence for doctor accused of... (Mar '14) Mar '14 PAKIs_TALK_OUT_OF... 4
More from around the web