Memory Hole: Ron Paul Opposes 9-11 Official Story? “Absolutely Not”

Ten years ago this month, Ron Paul was asked if the United States Government “orchestrated” the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. His answer was short and certain: he said, “Absolutely not.”

At that time, he was a Republican Congressman from Texas in the House of Representatives. Ron Paul then ran for president twice in the Republican Party. Ron Paul was also a one-time member of the Libertarian Party.

“9-11 Truth” is a term used to describe those who think that the official 9-11 story is wrong and that the United States government played a secret but critical role in permitting or causing the terrorist attacks to happen. Some describe opponents of the official story as “conspiracy theorists.” (text continues below)


In one stunning interview at LiveLeak ten years ago this summer, Ron Paul made a statement that should have put an end to speculation that he might support 9-11 truth when he answered this question:

QUESTION: The official story from 9-11 — and this is not about the government covering up their mistakes — this is about the suggestions from these people … that 9-11 was orchestrated by the government — you do not support that theory?

RON PAUL: Absolutely not.

Two definitive words. Absolutely not. Ron Paul did not support the 9-11 truth movement. Nevertheless, Ron Paul remained a hero of “9-11 Truth” afterwards.


Despite Ron Paul’s blunt stance against “911 Truth,” Paul Craig Roberts posted the following commentary at the Ron Paul Institute site. Paul Craig Roberts was a high ranking member of the Treasury Department under Ronald Reagan.

The most serious blow of all is the dawning realization everywhere that Washington’s crackpot conspiracy theory of 9/11 is false. Large numbers of independent experts as well as more than one hundred first responders have contradicted every aspect of Washington’s absurd conspiracy theory. No aware person believes that a few Saudi Arabians, who could not fly airplanes, operating without help from any intelligence agency, outwitted the entire National Security State, not only all 16 US intelligence agencies but also all intelligence agencies of NATO and Israel as well.

Nothing worked on 9/11. Airport security failed four times in one hour, more failures in one hour than have occurred during the other 116,232 hours of the 21st century combined. For the first time in history the US Air Force could not get interceptor fighters off the ground and into the sky. For the first time in history Air Traffic Control lost airliners for up to one hour and did not report it. For the first time in history low temperature, short-lived, fires on a few floors caused massive steel structures to weaken and collapse. For the first time in history 3 skyscrapers fell at essentially free fall acceleration without the benefit of controlled demolition removing resistance from below.

Ron Paul was questioned about this article. Despite his complete dismissal of “9-11 Truth” seven years earlier, Ron Paul waffled:

RON PAUL: Well, it’s just that people should have a right to express their viewpoints. If you read 99 percent of the article it was a fantastic article … that doesn’t mean that I endorse what he says, obviously … But Paul Craig Roberts has some very good views on war and civil liberties, and he shouldn’t be excluded because he takes this particular position. But that wasn’t the thrust of the article… I think most people realize exactly what my position is.

Ron Paul minimized the amount of “9-11 Truth” material in the article. As anyone can see by the lengthy portion quoted above, “9-11 Truth” was far more than one percent of the article. It is fair to say that the article was all about “9-11 Truth.”

Ron Paul said that Paul Craig Roberts and his views “shouldn’t be excluded” from the Ron Paul Institute website for his “9-11 Truth” views. Despite that, the article was removed from the Ron Paul Institute website. Ultimately, Paul Craig Roberts and “9-11 Truth” is excluded.


Asked again in 2016 about “9-11 Truth,” Ron Paul waffled and hedged:

QUESTION: Is it politically correct for the Ron Paul Institute to touch on the possibility that it was the [Israeli Intelligence Agency] Mossad that did 9-11 — not Saudis, or maybe it was Saudis in conjunction with the Mossad?

RON PAUL: Well, I think, I think people should be permitted to think and do anything. On some of those issues, I’m very suspect… But I quite frankly, me personally, I can’t go into a court and present the evidence to show that the Mossad was the instrument and the only instrument. I think it’s probably a little bit more complex than that.

QUESTION: What about the evidence … that there were interior demolition devices installed in the towers?

RON PAUL: Well, I’ve read all that, and Building 7 going down, you know — it sure raises a lot of questions. That’s why I’m always skeptical of any government propaganda. But it’s too bad that we’re not gonna be able to get every answer to that right now. But I think people should think about it and talk about it, and look at every bit of evidence we can get.

Ron Paul buried his own opinion — namely that 9-11 was “absolutely not” orchestrated by the government — behind a legalistic excuse that he “can’t go into a court and present the evidence.”

Nevertheless, Ron Paul attempted to lend credibility to the idea of “interior demolition devices” by pointing out “Building 7 going down, you know.”

Ron Paul was willing to blame the Israeli intelligence agency for 9-11, but only to the extent that it was not the “only instrument” and things were more “complex.”

Ron Paul also avoided the question on the political correctness of Ron Paul Institute, and failed to mention that an earlier 9-11 was taken down. The direct answer would have been: yes, 9-11 conspiracies are too “politically incorrect” for his website.

Ultimately, Ron Paul hinted at his true position that he was against “9-11 Truth” when he despaired that “we’re not gonna be able to get every answer” now. Does Ron Paul really want to press the issue? “Absolutely not.” It’s “too bad.”