Catholics should have an interest in the truth. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to have a true understanding of everything that happens everywhere in the world and has ever happened anywhere in the world. Today's democratic man is obsessed by world politics because he finds it so much more interesting than living his own life well.
But the article printed here is not concerned about truth. It is concerned about assigning culpability for an event. There's a difference. How does the Bishop not know that the terrorists themselves did not lace the elevator shafts of the Towers with explosives before flying planes into them? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. But why use the suspected presence of explosives to shift blame, rather than to alter the sequence of events of the terrorist act. This is what we would do when presented with evidence in any other field. It's called Occam's razor.
It's bad enough to be obsessed by conspiracy theories, but to impute a flawed Catholicism to those who do not abide the conspiracy theories is offensive.
I personally have been very active in my government. My sister is a high-ranking official in the Bush Administration. I am generally aware of the evil around me. I am not sitting back and doing nothing -- or whatever it is that the Bishop is worried might happen if we don't believe that government is evil.
I understand that the Bush Administration is thoroughly obscene in the way they have grown the power of government. I fight this. I am fighting this financial "bailout" plan.
So I would respectfully ask the Bishop to come out and explain exactly what he means to accomplish by saying what he says, and how this relates to being better Catholics. And I would suggest that there is a better way to accomplish whatever good he wishes to accomplish by a more salutary means than promoting a conspiracy theory. _________________ What a beautiful day for an auto-da-fe!
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 Posts: 418 Location: California
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject:
The explanation why the twin towers fell is simple. Documentaries and studies have shown through the expertise of building inspectors, steel inspectors, and scientists that the steel used for the towers was weak, shoddy, and not up to code. Like in many other instances, our cheap minded capitalistic builders cut corners in the name of cost. The steel was not up to standard and was improper according to steel thickness requirements.
The biggest problem is that Bishop Williamson just cannot bring himself to understand the these attacks were the result of Islam. Despite all the New World Order problems in geopolitics, Islam has emerged as a real threat and they are embolden.
It is amazing that given that Islam is about to conquer Europe, Bishop Williamson seems to have no clue that Islamic terrorists were conducting terrorism on the U.S. throughout the 90's.
I know Bishop Williamson knows history and Islam's goal of conquering the West for centuries throughout attempts like Tours, Vienna, and Lepanto.
Why is he then so unaware that Islam has come back with this same goal in this century?
I hope he wakes up to the threat of Islam, which is closer to victory than ever before.
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: BpW Responds to the AQ Thread on 9/11
The words of Bishop Williamson are, in my opinion, more important than anything our bumbling New World Order puppet president has said. Just study the facts regarding the Twin Towers, TWA 800, Oklahoma City, Waco, Shifty Paulsen's bailout, and so on. Doing proper research, and following the money trail will give you the treasure map necessary to understand the New World Order. Reading what Pope Saint Pius X had to say about the One World church dovetails nicely. Same game, different cast of characters. I pray at least 5 decades of the Rosary daily to help in my daily struggle as I fear for my children's future. I am blessed for so many reasons, not the least being my daughter being confirmed by Bishop Williamson, serving as an acolyte a few times for him, and returning to Tradition after years of nothingness. Why were my eyes opened? Not sure. Like the Supertramp song says, "...When all the world's asleep, the questions run so deep for such a simple man".
Catholics should have an interest in the truth. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to have a true understanding of everything that happens everywhere in the world and has ever happened anywhere in the world. Today's democratic man is obsessed by world politics because he finds it so much more interesting than living his own life well.
But the article printed here is not concerned about truth. It is concerned about assigning culpability for an event. There's a difference. How does the Bishop not know that the terrorists themselves did not lace the elevator shafts of the Towers with explosives before flying planes into them? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. But why use the suspected presence of explosives to shift blame, rather than to alter the sequence of events of the terrorist act. This is what we would do when presented with evidence in any other field. It's called Occam's razor.
It's bad enough to be obsessed by conspiracy theories, but to impute a flawed Catholicism to those who do not abide the conspiracy theories is offensive.
I personally have been very active in my government. My sister is a high-ranking official in the Bush Administration. I am generally aware of the evil around me. I am not sitting back and doing nothing -- or whatever it is that the Bishop is worried might happen if we don't believe that government is evil.
I understand that the Bush Administration is thoroughly obscene in the way they have grown the power of government. I fight this. I am fighting this financial "bailout" plan.
So I would respectfully ask the Bishop to come out and explain exactly what he means to accomplish by saying what he says, and how this relates to being better Catholics. And I would suggest that there is a better way to accomplish whatever good he wishes to accomplish by a more salutary means than promoting a conspiracy theory.
Good post. I wonder if the other SSPX bishops agree with Bishop Williamson on this matter? I know not all SSPX adherents agree with it.
The explanation why the twin towers fell is simple. Documentaries and studies have shown through the expertise of building inspectors, steel inspectors, and scientists that the steel used for the towers was weak, shoddy, and not up to code. Like in many other instances, our cheap minded capitalistic builders cut corners in the name of cost. The steel was not up to standard and was improper according to steel thickness requirements.
The biggest problem is that Bishop Williamson just cannot bring himself to understand the these attacks were the result of Islam. Despite all the New World Order problems in geopolitics, Islam has emerged as a real threat and they are embolden.
It is amazing that given that Islam is about to conquer Europe, Bishop Williamson seems to have no clue that Islamic terrorists were conducting terrorism on the U.S. throughout the 90's.
I know Bishop Williamson knows history and Islam's goal of conquering the West for centuries throughout attempts like Tours, Vienna, and Lepanto.
Why is he then so unaware that Islam has come back with this same goal in this century?
I hope he wakes up to the threat of Islam, which is closer to victory than ever before.
One way to go about this would be to answer his questions. If anybody cares to do so, I'd be interested. Here they are:
Quote:
1. How could kerosene burning at 850° Centigrade melt each Tower’s 47 central columns made of steel which melts only at 1500° Centigrade?
2. Secondly, the South Tower plane cut within, but across, its South-East Corner – then how did the Tower fall not towards the South-East but vertically downwards, “within its footprint” as in a perfect demolition?
3. Thirdly, if (as we are told) the concrete floors pan-caked on top of one another, then how did both Towers collapse at the speed of gravity, and how, pray, did the 47 steel columns (which carried the floors and were not carried by them) not remain standing?
For many of my friends, family, and acquaintances who are stuck in a pit outside the Church in sin, falsehood, modernism, liberalism, and every other sort of lie, if I were to go to them speaking of this 9/11 stuff I wouldn't be throwing them a rope to get out of the pit, I'd be giving them a shovel and telling them to go dig themselves out of the pit. Being a bishop, I guess Bishop Williamson can speak with a different authority and angle on these issues, but if I were to speak on them the same way the bishop does, I would probably lose souls whom I could have helped. Well, that's the way I would feel about it if I was seriously thinking of discussing this stuff with those non/fallen away Catholics who are not in state of grace and outside the Church. I hope this isn't the case for Bishop Williamson. Does this talk really further the cause of Tradition and aid in recovering again the most renowned Temple in all the world(2 Maccabees 2:23)-the visible Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ?
I find the bishop's questions and statements compelling to make an argument, but here is where I have a problem... It is not the role of the clergy to make such statements as it only incites confusion and political minded statements about what should be a religious occasion for them to read the words of a bishop.
I'm reminded of the words of St. Anthony Mary Claret who was surrounded by Masons, but refused to name them or point them out, he only chastised their ideas as incompatible for Catholics and warned of any affiliation with them as a incompatible with sanctity. The same can be said of many other holy clerics who were surrounded by evil Communists, Mason, and Fascists, and their response was to oppose the error and expose it, but not get caught up in the specific political aspects, and never make it a focal point of their talks, sermons, or writings. I can see such clerics making personal attacks of such evil people, but never in the official capacities to the public.
If I'm not mistaken Christ commissioned the Apostles to preach, teach, and sanctify. Bishop Williamson must be one of the finest speakers on all things Catholic. He is a good example of praying after Mass to give Thanksgiving, giving fantastic sermons about the faith, and he really cares for souls. I cannot help but feel sorrow for such statements, not because they are true or false, but I cannot see the reason to make such statements by a Catholic bishop as it distracts from the mission of Christ.
Padre Pio was asked what he was thinking about when someone saw him worried and he mentioned the Great Chastisement. When pressured to ask what he saw his response was perfect: Pray, hope, and do not worry
That's how clerics are to view political matters. If I'm wrong please cite some evidence of such, and I'll be happy to see other views.
I find the bishop's questions and statements compelling to make an argument, but here is where I have a problem... It is not the role of the clergy to make such statements as it only incites confusion and political minded statements about what should be a religious occasion for them to read the words of a bishop.
I'm reminded of the words of St. Anthony Mary Claret who was surrounded by Masons, but refused to name them or point them out, he only chastised their ideas as incompatible for Catholics and warned of any affiliation with them as a incompatible with sanctity. The same can be said of many other holy clerics who were surrounded by evil Communists, Mason, and Fascists, and their response was to oppose the error and expose it, but not get caught up in the specific political aspects, and never make it a focal point of their talks, sermons, or writings. I can see such clerics making personal attacks of such evil people, but never in the official capacities to the public.
If I'm not mistaken Christ commissioned the Apostles to preach, teach, and sanctify. Bishop Williamson must be one of the finest speakers on all things Catholic. He is a good example of praying after Mass to give Thanksgiving, giving fantastic sermons about the faith, and he really cares for souls. I cannot help but feel sorrow for such statements, not because they are true or false, but I cannot see the reason to make such statements by a Catholic bishop as it distracts from the mission of Christ.
Padre Pio was asked what he was thinking about when someone saw him worried and he mentioned the Great Chastisement. When pressured to ask what he saw his response was perfect: Pray, hope, and do not worry
That's how clerics are to view political matters. If I'm wrong please cite some evidence of such, and I'll be happy to see other views.
Your worries arise from the pre-supposition that, as you state,"It is not the role of the clergy to make such statements" because their job is to preach, not get involved in politics. What underlies your idea is that church and state are somehow separate, while every Catholic who knows the true mind of the Church knows that while the two are distinct, they are not to be separated. I would invite you to get to know your own Catholic history. The bishops were in every Catholic country part of the political order. Do you think it was a protestant invention that bishops are in the House of Lords in the English Parliament? No. The Catholic bishops all had a political role as well as a religious one because Christ is head of the Ecclesiastical as well as the political order. Modern man had relegated religion to "spiritual" things only, which means, things which have no real bearing on the real world in his eyes at least. But the Church has over and over in the past intervened in politics. While it is the primary role of the bishop to preach the truths for salvation, it is not the only one. We must rid ourselves of this liberal and un-Catholic separation of the Faith from politics, economics, etc. since Christ rules over all of these things. Your thinking unknowingly leads to the "keep religion in the sacristy" mentality against which Blessed Pius IX fought. Do you think the popes did not deal with purely political matters when they ruled as the temporal king the papal states for a thousand years? _________________ http://credidimuscaritati.blogspot.com
The bishop mentioned in a previous article that we should be careful not to treat our government as a religion...or words to that effect. It seems that we Americans sometimes view our government as being infallible, when that designation can really only apply to the Church.
From an early age, American schoolchildren are taught to almost venerate the early figures in American history. There were the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, who were escaping persecution in their country, in order to supposedly establish 'freedom of worship.' They endured many hardships, and were helped by the Indians. (My Puritan ancestors arrived at Plymouth Rock five years after the Mayflower left England in 1620).
Then there was the Boston Tea Party, another noble act of protest against the oppressive taxes that England levied on the colonies. Enter on the scene the noble patriots, such as Samuel Adams, Ben Franklin, and George Washington. We cannot forget the saintly George and the story about the cherry tree. Then there's the all-important American Revolution, and the post-enlightenment ideals which infused it. I don't believe, however, that our founding fathers had bad intentions. Most of them were not Catholics, so they didn't have a proper understanding of original sin. But we see all around us the consequences of that lack of understanding.
Then we have on the scene Honest Abe and the Civil War. Lincoln believed he was doing the right thing regarding the war, but it allowed the bankers to get a foothold on this country, because Lincoln need to borrow from them for the war.
Something that the Bishop probably doesn't understand is how much we Americans love our country, despite its problems. This love, I think, goes beyond the saintly qualities ascribed to our history, but we must be careful to not see our government as infallible, and incapable of perpetrating evil.
Bishop Williamson has a layperson's understanding of physics and engineering. His statements regarding the physics of 911 are similar to a rabid protestant's statements regarding devotion to Mary, taking second-hand accounts from crackpots and whacko's as fact. They are a distraction at best, and waste his pulpit and position.
I don't really agree or disagree with what Bishop Williamson says, and I think bishops always have a right to speak on such matters (political, economic, etc...). However, I question the prudence in speaking on the dynamics of what occurred on 9-11.
Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 556 Location: slightly over the edge
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject:
Ahhh...The cheap shot crowd has arrived again. The standard wind-bags of this forum who are so quick to pull the ''crack-pot'', ''wacko'' and ''You hate your country if you question your government" trigger, are once again trashing the good Bishop without addressing the actual questions put forward to them by him. I have no doubt, we all will be expected to take their opinions over 550+ engineers and architects, 300+ proffessors, 120+ pilots and aviation proffesionals, 140+ senior military, intelligence service, law inforcement and government officials as well as 210+ 911 survivors and family members. http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Since they still haven't responded to this link previously posted, I'm sure it will either be ignores and/or they will butcher the one mormon out of the bunch or seek to mis-direct by wasting more of our time with Batboy and the likes. Being they've had no trouble showing disrespect to the Clergy, I'm sure they won't have a problem badmouthing the 911 survivors and their families who don't buy the rot that has been fed to them. If people on this forum can't at least respond to the Bishop's (as well as all of the above listed's) questions with some sense of civilty, than they should just holster their mouths until they have something besides blanks to fire. _________________ Too soon old, too late smart!
-
Bishop Williamson has a layperson's understanding of physics and engineering. His statements regarding the physics of 911 are similar to a rabid protestant's statements regarding devotion to Mary, taking second-hand accounts from crackpots and whacko's as fact. They are a distraction at best, and waste his pulpit and position.
Why don't you answer the Bishops questions if you are willing to comment.
There are a lot of professional engineers who also question the "official story".
One way to go about this would be to answer his questions. If anybody cares to do so, I'd be interested. Here they are:
Quote:
1. How could kerosene burning at 850° Centigrade melt each Tower’s 47 central columns made of steel which melts only at 1500° Centigrade?
2. Secondly, the South Tower plane cut within, but across, its South-East Corner – then how did the Tower fall not towards the South-East but vertically downwards, “within its footprint” as in a perfect demolition?
3. Thirdly, if (as we are told) the concrete floors pan-caked on top of one another, then how did both Towers collapse at the speed of gravity, and how, pray, did the 47 steel columns (which carried the floors and were not carried by them) not remain standing?
The answers to these questions can be found at any 9/11 Debunking site, or better yet, read the final NIST reports for the most detailed explanations.
Some very brief answers:
1 - The steel didn't have to melt. It only had to be weakened by heat to the point that it could not carry the load it was made to bear. And "softened" steel would not cause the builidng to "wilt." That is silly. Weakened steel would cause the complex inner structure to buckle at its weakest points.
2. It is obvious from photos that the top part of the building did initially pivot in the South East direction, but when the foundation at the damaged floors was obliterated, gravity would cause the tremendous weight to go straight downward. Gravity does not move sideways.
Also, the collapse did not look like a "perfect demolition" to the trained eye.
3. The buildings did not collapse at the speed of gravity. This should be obvious because you see in every video of the collapse debris from the building falling at a much faster rate than the building itself.
The 47 steel columns did not remain standing because the building wasn't built around them. They were integrated to the rest of the structure.
Catholics should have an interest in the truth. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to have a true understanding of everything that happens everywhere in the world and has ever happened anywhere in the world. Today's democratic man is obsessed by world politics because he finds it so much more interesting than living his own life well.
But the article printed here is not concerned about truth. It is concerned about assigning culpability for an event. There's a difference. How does the Bishop not know that the terrorists themselves did not lace the elevator shafts of the Towers with explosives before flying planes into them? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. But why use the suspected presence of explosives to shift blame, rather than to alter the sequence of events of the terrorist act. This is what we would do when presented with evidence in any other field. It's called Occam's razor.
It's bad enough to be obsessed by conspiracy theories, but to impute a flawed Catholicism to those who do not abide the conspiracy theories is offensive.
I personally have been very active in my government. My sister is a high-ranking official in the Bush Administration. I am generally aware of the evil around me. I am not sitting back and doing nothing -- or whatever it is that the Bishop is worried might happen if we don't believe that government is evil.
I understand that the Bush Administration is thoroughly obscene in the way they have grown the power of government. I fight this. I am fighting this financial "bailout" plan.
So I would respectfully ask the Bishop to come out and explain exactly what he means to accomplish by saying what he says, and how this relates to being better Catholics. And I would suggest that there is a better way to accomplish whatever good he wishes to accomplish by a more salutary means than promoting a conspiracy theory.
Good post. I wonder if the other SSPX bishops agree with Bishop Williamson on this matter? I know not all SSPX adherents agree with it.
You may be surprised. Probably most people outside the US have the same view as the good Bishop.
Unless you've lived outside the US, you can't understand the news bubble many Americans live in. Sometimes we need to step back from our patriotism to really "see" where this country is headed.
Catholics should have an interest in the truth. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to have a true understanding of everything that happens everywhere in the world and has ever happened anywhere in the world. Today's democratic man is obsessed by world politics because he finds it so much more interesting than living his own life well.
But the article printed here is not concerned about truth. It is concerned about assigning culpability for an event. There's a difference. How does the Bishop not know that the terrorists themselves did not lace the elevator shafts of the Towers with explosives before flying planes into them? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. But why use the suspected presence of explosives to shift blame, rather than to alter the sequence of events of the terrorist act. This is what we would do when presented with evidence in any other field. It's called Occam's razor.
It's bad enough to be obsessed by conspiracy theories, but to impute a flawed Catholicism to those who do not abide the conspiracy theories is offensive.
I personally have been very active in my government. My sister is a high-ranking official in the Bush Administration. I am generally aware of the evil around me. I am not sitting back and doing nothing -- or whatever it is that the Bishop is worried might happen if we don't believe that government is evil.
I understand that the Bush Administration is thoroughly obscene in the way they have grown the power of government. I fight this. I am fighting this financial "bailout" plan.
So I would respectfully ask the Bishop to come out and explain exactly what he means to accomplish by saying what he says, and how this relates to being better Catholics. And I would suggest that there is a better way to accomplish whatever good he wishes to accomplish by a more salutary means than promoting a conspiracy theory.
Good post. I wonder if the other SSPX bishops agree with Bishop Williamson on this matter? I know not all SSPX adherents agree with it.
You may be surprised. Probably most people outside the US have the same view as the good Bishop.
Unless you've lived outside the US, you can't understand the news bubble many Americans live in. Sometimes we need to step back from our patriotism to really "see" where this country is headed.
Oh, you're absolutely wrong here. The conspiracy theories are a uniquely American and Australian phenomenon. Civilized people do not have a compelling psychological need to dabble in this nonsense.
Der Spiegel called America's obsession with 9/11 conspiracy theories to be a part of the "derangement" of American society. _________________ What a beautiful day for an auto-da-fe!
Bishop Williamson has a layperson's understanding of physics and engineering. His statements regarding the physics of 911 are similar to a rabid protestant's statements regarding devotion to Mary, taking second-hand accounts from crackpots and whacko's as fact. They are a distraction at best, and waste his pulpit and position.
Why don't you answer the Bishops questions if you are willing to comment.
There are a lot of professional engineers who also question the "official story".
I am not willing to wade into that tar baby, especially on this forum. The technical aspects have been amply answered elsewhere, and the information is widely available. Staying away from conspiracy nut sites is the first step to understanding. Furthermore, the subject has next to nothing to do with the Catholic faith. There are enough rabbit trails here without adding this one to the list.
Bishop Williamson has a layperson's understanding of physics and engineering. His statements regarding the physics of 911 are similar to a rabid protestant's statements regarding devotion to Mary, taking second-hand accounts from crackpots and whacko's as fact. They are a distraction at best, and waste his pulpit and position.
Why don't you answer the Bishops questions if you are willing to comment.
There are a lot of professional engineers who also question the "official story".
I know a few engineers. They all question the "official" story--but not at work. Making a comment like that at work got one friend of mine removed from a project. If you want to keep your job, you keep your mouth shut. That's why only the "official" version gets any play.
Catholics should have an interest in the truth. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to have a true understanding of everything that happens everywhere in the world and has ever happened anywhere in the world. Today's democratic man is obsessed by world politics because he finds it so much more interesting than living his own life well.
But the article printed here is not concerned about truth. It is concerned about assigning culpability for an event. There's a difference. How does the Bishop not know that the terrorists themselves did not lace the elevator shafts of the Towers with explosives before flying planes into them? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. But why use the suspected presence of explosives to shift blame, rather than to alter the sequence of events of the terrorist act. This is what we would do when presented with evidence in any other field. It's called Occam's razor.
It's bad enough to be obsessed by conspiracy theories, but to impute a flawed Catholicism to those who do not abide the conspiracy theories is offensive.
I personally have been very active in my government. My sister is a high-ranking official in the Bush Administration. I am generally aware of the evil around me. I am not sitting back and doing nothing -- or whatever it is that the Bishop is worried might happen if we don't believe that government is evil.
I understand that the Bush Administration is thoroughly obscene in the way they have grown the power of government. I fight this. I am fighting this financial "bailout" plan.
So I would respectfully ask the Bishop to come out and explain exactly what he means to accomplish by saying what he says, and how this relates to being better Catholics. And I would suggest that there is a better way to accomplish whatever good he wishes to accomplish by a more salutary means than promoting a conspiracy theory.
Good post. I wonder if the other SSPX bishops agree with Bishop Williamson on this matter? I know not all SSPX adherents agree with it.
You may be surprised. Probably most people outside the US have the same view as the good Bishop.
Unless you've lived outside the US, you can't understand the news bubble many Americans live in. Sometimes we need to step back from our patriotism to really "see" where this country is headed.
Oh, you're absolutely wrong here. The conspiracy theories are a uniquely American and Australian phenomenon. Civilized people do not have a compelling psychological need to dabble in this nonsense.
Der Spiegel called America's obsession with 9/11 conspiracy theories to be a part of the "derangement" of American society.
The French Press was all over the Pentagon story within weeks of the event. I believe their theory was a drone hitting the building.
I'm always a little bemused by the completely different take other countries put on our military moves. America thinks we're going after the bad guy, we're gonna set things right. How naive! Europe and Canada see it as a tactic to get control over the oil. The only way I can stand to look at it is to think, "Well, our troops have the right heart, thinking they're doing the right thing, but our leaders are using them for their own interests, not for the good of the nation.
One way to go about this would be to answer his questions. If anybody cares to do so, I'd be interested. Here they are:
Quote:
1. How could kerosene burning at 850° Centigrade melt each Tower’s 47 central columns made of steel which melts only at 1500° Centigrade?
2. Secondly, the South Tower plane cut within, but across, its South-East Corner – then how did the Tower fall not towards the South-East but vertically downwards, “within its footprint” as in a perfect demolition?
3. Thirdly, if (as we are told) the concrete floors pan-caked on top of one another, then how did both Towers collapse at the speed of gravity, and how, pray, did the 47 steel columns (which carried the floors and were not carried by them) not remain standing?
The burden of proof lies upon those who doubt the plane crashes had anything to do with the collapse of the towers. So we would have to ask the conspiracy theorists to prove their theories.
I have a few questions for the conspiracy theorists:
1. Where, exactly, were the demolition explosives planted in the towers?
2. When were they planted?
3. Who planted them?
4. How come there are no witnesses to anyone planting explosives prior to 9/11?
Ahhh...The cheap shot crowd has arrived again. The standard wind-bags of this forum who are so quick to pull the ''crack-pot'', ''wacko'' and ''You hate your country if you question your government" trigger, are once again trashing the good Bishop without addressing the actual questions put forward to them by him. I have no doubt, we all will be expected to take their opinions over 550+ engineers and architects, 300+ proffessors, 120+ pilots and aviation proffesionals, 140+ senior military, intelligence service, law inforcement and government officials as well as 210+ 911 survivors and family members. http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Since they still haven't responded to this link previously posted, I'm sure it will either be ignores and/or they will butcher the one mormon out of the bunch or seek to mis-direct by wasting more of our time with Batboy and the likes. Being they've had no trouble showing disrespect to the Clergy, I'm sure they won't have a problem badmouthing the 911 survivors and their families who don't buy the rot that has been fed to them. If people on this forum can't at least respond to the Bishop's (as well as all of the above listed's) questions with some sense of civilty, than they should just holster their mouths until they have something besides blanks to fire.
See http://www.debunking911.com/ as one example of science and logic used to demonstrate the lunacy of the conspiracy nuts. There are many more. And until you can show me one post that I've ever made that even suggests ''You hate your country if you question your government", don't bother posting again until you apologize.
The burden of proof lies upon those who doubt the plane crashes had anything to do with the collapse of the towers. So we would have to ask the conspiracy theorists to prove their theories.
I have a few questions for the conspiracy theorists:
1. Where, exactly, were the demolition explosives planted in the towers?
2. When were they planted?
3. Who planted them?
4. How come there are no witnesses to anyone planting explosives prior to 9/11?
Actually, all those questions are answered in the video Bp Williamson refers to.
Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 556 Location: slightly over the edge
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject:
Et cum said "And until you can show me one post that I've ever made that even suggests ''You hate your country if you question your government", don't bother posting again until you apologize."
Et Cum,
I didn't say that you did. A croud is not one and I did speak in the plural. Quote from Miserere: "Wonder how long the good Bishop has disliked America."
I spoke to the Bishop while he was in Denver and I can assure you that he has a genuine love for this country. And if the standard on this forum allows for terms like "crack pots," "nuts," and "wackos" to be used, then terms like "windbags" should work just dandy. Certainly none of us are that thin-skinned here, are we? Or, are we???? _________________ Too soon old, too late smart!
-
The explanation why the twin towers fell is simple. Documentaries and studies have shown through the expertise of building inspectors, steel inspectors, and scientists that the steel used for the towers was weak, shoddy, and not up to code. Like in many other instances, our cheap minded capitalistic builders cut corners in the name of cost. The steel was not up to standard and was improper according to steel thickness requirements.
The biggest problem is that Bishop Williamson just cannot bring himself to understand the these attacks were the result of Islam. Despite all the New World Order problems in geopolitics, Islam has emerged as a real threat and they are embolden.
It is amazing that given that Islam is about to conquer Europe, Bishop Williamson seems to have no clue that Islamic terrorists were conducting terrorism on the U.S. throughout the 90's.
I know Bishop Williamson knows history and Islam's goal of conquering the West for centuries throughout attempts like Tours, Vienna, and Lepanto.
Why is he then so unaware that Islam has come back with this same goal in this century?
I hope he wakes up to the threat of Islam, which is closer to victory than ever before.
Archbishop Lefebvre understood the onslaught of Islam. I remember reading an Angelus issue where he stated the danger Islam presented to France.
'In 1990, Lefebvre was convicted in a French court and sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 francs when he stated that, as a result of Muslim immigration into Europe, "it is your wives, your daughters, your children who will be kidnapped and dragged off to a certain kind of places as they exist in Casablanca".' Wikpedia
Bishop Williamson is welcome to his opinions on September 11, but just because he is a Catholic clergyman doesn't mean we have to accept his opinion as fact.
I'm very disappointed this pov of conspiracy theories has infected so many in our nation, but especially within Catholic circles. Being we're taught to believe how reasonable our faith is, it's hard to accept that those same people would fall so easily into these views which are not based on reason at all. _________________ "If you judge people, you have no time to love them."
Oh, you're absolutely wrong here. The conspiracy theories are a uniquely American and Australian phenomenon. Civilized people do not have a compelling psychological need to dabble in this nonsense.
Conspiracy theories are endemic to our age. If you live in either a communist/socialist or a democratic/parliamentarian country - and who doesn't - it's the framework of our political view.
In our area of eastern Canada the freemasons rule. Yes, there's lots and lots of evidence. Is this no longer therefore a theory?
The question then is really - can political scepticism be usefully married to Catholic hope? I think that this is what the good Bishop is demonstrating in his argument.
Oh, you're absolutely wrong here. The conspiracy theories are a uniquely American and Australian phenomenon. Civilized people do not have a compelling psychological need to dabble in this nonsense.
Conspiracy theories develop in big countries that are secure. When you live in a place where your enemy is a few streets away from you (Lebanon, Bosnia, Rwanda for instance) you don't have time for theory. You get... the real thing.
Films like 'Mars Invasion' did well in the 50ies in the USA. The had NO success in Europe for that was 10/15 after the GERMAN army crossed the mainland in all directions, and the SOVIET army and the AMERICAN army did the same. You don't need 'Ants Invasion' or 'Mars Attack' to frighten you when you lost you house and one limb in the real thing.
1933 - USA - King Kong (a movie)
1933 - Europe - Adolf Hitler (a real life character)
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1702 Location: Falmouth, Maine
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject:
Bishop Williamson sounds like Rev. Wright here. He's lost all credibility with me.
This is a good article about what really caused the WTC collapse...that is the jet fuel, the fire, and the impact of the aircraft. _________________ Darryl
Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus
Bishop Williamson sounds like Rev. Wright here. He's lost all credibility with me.
This is a good article about what really caused the WTC collapse...that is the jet fuel, the fire, and the impact of the aircraft.
Sounds like you have drunk the koolaid of the Limbaugh and Hannity crowd.
When you get some time find out how a 270,000 lb plane with a 125 ft wing span (Boeing 757-223)with fuel hitting the Pentagon Wall at about 530 mph creates only a hole less than 20 ft diameter and doesn't significantly damage the adjacent area around the impact?
But one airliner of roughly the same size will bring down one of the twin towers?
Have you checked under your pillow to see if the tooth fairy has left you any money?
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1702 Location: Falmouth, Maine
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:42 am Post subject:
The construction of the Pentagon is a lot better and a lot stronger than the construction of the WTC. Don't be a moron because the only one that has drunk the kool aid is you and Bp Williamson. _________________ Darryl
Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus
Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on September 11
Engineers tell why the World Trade Center twin towers collapsed
In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.
What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.
3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.
Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high. _________________ Darryl
Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus
The construction of the Pentagon is a lot better and a lot stronger than the construction of the WTC. Don't be a moron because the only one that has drunk the kool aid is you and Bp Williamson.
Yeah right.....sure...... the construction of the pentagon was so strong that the area around the approx. 16 ft diameter hole was barely damaged.
The wings of the airplanes didn't even make a mark on the building.....
What are they been putting in those novus ordo cookies you been eating?
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1702 Location: Falmouth, Maine
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject:
amadaeus wrote:
Petertherock wrote:
The construction of the Pentagon is a lot better and a lot stronger than the construction of the WTC. Don't be a moron because the only one that has drunk the kool aid is you and Bp Williamson.
Yeah right.....sure...... the construction of the pentagon was so strong that the area around the approx. 16 ft diameter hole was barely damaged.
The wings of the airplanes didn't even make a mark on the building.....
What are they been putting in those novus ordo cookies you been eating?
You are drinking the Michael Moore kool aid again. Something that a traditional Catholic should never do. _________________ Darryl
Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1702 Location: Falmouth, Maine
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject:
amadaeus wrote:
Petertherock wrote:
You are drinking the Michael Moore kool aid again. Something that a traditional Catholic should never do.
Well I would debate whether you even know what a traditional Catholic should believe since you attend the novus ordo.
But I digress...........
WWRLD?
I don't attend the NO by choice. I attend out of obedience to the Holy Mother Church which every traditional Catholic is obliged to do. _________________ Darryl
Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus
on Wed Dec 17 at 4:00 pm
I don't attend the NO by choice. I attend out of obedience to the Holy Mother Church which every traditional Catholic is obliged to do.
Petertherock wrote:
on Fri Dec 19 at 6:11 pm in the thread "Bishop: Church teaching on birth control could be wrong..."
I do believe the first and foremost thing I must do is to completely disassociate myself with the NO church. It is clear to me that going back to the NO has not helped me and in fact has helped to aid me in sin...as others have said on here and up until now I have refused to listen and believe...the NO is damaging to the faith. I have found that out first hand over the last week.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
