"In 2009, Ron Paul was confronted by WeAreChange journalists about the IMF and 9/11, and his response gives some important insights that I think a lot of people overlook as to why some of the powerful figures or big influencers you follow won't talk about certain topics, like building 7 being a controlled demolition as an example, or how vaccines cause autism and other harms. I know it's easy for most of us to say "they won't talk about X, therefore they are a shill/controlled opposition", but I think we need to think and apply a more nuanced understanding and what kind of forces people like Ron Paul, RFK, or any other anti-establishment candidate are up against, and what their underlying motivations might be. At the end of this clip, the WAC journalist asks Ron Paul why he won't speak about the truth on 9/11, and Ron Paul says it's because he can't handle the controversy that would come with it because he already has too much on his plate for talking about the federal reserve. When you hear that, what do you think? Controlled opposition or shill?."