How did my imagery reeked of Wile E. Coyote? I said the wings would have been cut off. Go look at any other pictures of plane crashes and there is always huge debris laying everywhere, usually wings. That was not the case here.
Planes also don’t normally slam into large, re-inforced concrete structures that are fronted with limestone. Remember, this building was built as the HQ for the War Department during WWII It was built, not exactly to be a bombshelter per se, but with the knowledge that it might get bombed someday.
Most planes don’t crash into columns which would sheer off the wings.
Normally they would, but I seriously doubt the terrorists would do that as their intent is to cause the MAXIMUM amount of damage.
Right, that is what I meant. Under normal circumstances.
Right, that is what I meant. Under normal circumstances.
Those that keep asking “where are the wings” are not considering the fact that the plane that hit the pentagon had fuel in the wings. The wings are the last thing we would expect to find intack.
I should have made it clear that I was adding support to Brendan’s comment.
Right on target! Besides the passengers. Oh, wait, they were raptured or elite conspiracists or ??.. something?
It just shows you how out of touch and ignorant Abbott is on the subject. I said that Williamson was interviewed by Bernard Janzen in 2003 (titled “Behind the Headlines”) on this same subject. We are talking about something that is well known about Bishop W and it is being presented mysteriously as if it is recent news and of course it’s also being presented in a negative light.
Since the post-conciliar novelties are still present, it’s a prudent idea to keep reminding people of the oddities of the recent past. Especially in light of the efforts to ram a canonization through on JPII.TIA likes to pile up as much as they can on what they perceive to be the horrors of the papacy like the Pope wearing sunglasses and then keep it on the site even after the Holy Father dies.
You read what “whole thing”? You certainly didn’t attend the conference and you haven’t heard the interviews.
Then you are the perfect patsy for propaganda. All that has to be done is a third person has to tell you “He said… the sky is green and etc…”
Years ago, I was virtually the only supporter of Bishop Williamson willing to defend him on anything. Most trads either buy into the propaganda about him because they don’t know his real arguments or they are intimidated by the vitriol launched against him instead of reasoned argumentation.
If I ever see him doing or saying anything that I think is loopy, I’ll express it based on reason. I certainly won’t run around complaining, “He’s a nut. I don’t need to research him. I don’t need to hear him personally. He’s a nut and the press reporting on him is infallible.”That’s probably a conspiracy in itself though.
Charm only goes so far if you’re full-bore nuts. Williamson may be able to get away with saying he believes the US military fired a missile into the Pentagon, but he’d better not scream it.
Again, I’ve been asked and I’ve answered again over and over and over again.
And he didn’t deny it in one of them, did he?
There goes the gymnastics again. Good old George didn’t have a website did he. Williamson has quite often used the SSPX site to put forth corrections. Who knows? Maybe he’ll put out a correction in a few weeks. That said, he hasn’t yet on the gas chamber quote. In fact, he has spoken to them already with no correction so we can assume it to be true.
You protest because you have to. One of the major leaders in your little world has spewed some very loopy things and you have to dismiss them or it lessens your arguments when you say “Listen to him”. The sad thing is that most of us would be more inclined to listen to you if you just admitted that he puts forth some loopy ideas but not all of them are loopy. That would be far better for your cause then to try and dismiss them over and over again claiming context problems that aren’t there. I encourage people to read his letters posted on the site run by his group all of the time because they show, in context, just how loopy he is.
Again, he’s been asked about the quote and his only defense was that he was arguing against the enemies of Christ. He never said that he didn’t say it. We can assume it to be true. Secondly, context has nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with the loopiness of the comment. Gerard, do you believe that there were no Jews killed in gas chambers?
I will add my two bits also.
Just to set the record straight, Parson Weems’ biography of Washington, which is the only source for the cherry tree story, was written long after Washington’s death, so he couldn’t very well deny it.
I find this a very strange attitude. You are virtually idolatrous of the U.S. Government.
I’m wondering how much worse the unsupported ad hominems can get.
That is truly funny. You really have no idea about the man.
That’s right. Get him to a Clown Mass or a Charismatic “Healing” someone can speak in tongues to give him deliverance.
Why not?