Well, I’m going to assume that what you’re writing is true.
Yeah, Ron Paul is not strong on 9/11 matters. Because if Ron Paul said that, it seems that, yeah, “more or less cover-up” does tend to support truthers.
On the other hand, there’s “blowback” which doesn’t fit with “more of less cover-up”.
Basically, there are 3 possible positions 1) “more or less cover-up” 2) “blowback” 3) crazy muslims hate our freedom.
The official FR position is 100% #3, it certainly was during the Bush administration, and there seems to be no change as of now. The official FR position is that positions #1 and #2 are crazy, unhinged, off the reservation, etc.
Ron Paul does seem to have taken, at various times, elements of #1 and #2, neither of which is liked at all here.
Interestingly, as to 9/11 #1 and #2 are incompatible. #1 says that it might not have been exclusively muslims. #2 says that it was exclusively muslims. The difference between #2 and #3 is under #2 the muslims reasons are examined and under #3, the examination goes just as far as to say muslims are crazy.
If I was to guess, I would say that your quote was pre 2007, or, if it was from 2007, it was prior to the summer. That’s just a guess. During the debates in 2007, Ron Paul was solidly behind the “blowback” explanation. I don’t think he was switching back and forth between conspiracy theory and blowback at that time. I could be wrong.
As I mentioned, early on I thought Ron Paul was someone I could support (esp. fiscal and monetary matters), yet the more I learned about his shocking sentiments and feelings regarding September 11, national security / and his apparent nonchalance about our sovereignty, I became more wary and alarmed.