SSPX and 9/11

[pnewton]

I don’t know. How did Bishop Williamson describe it?

Apparently, neither does Bishop Williamson. He based his opinion on the structural arguements, according to what he has said publically, and has not addressed issues that make this conspiracy theory untenable.

Maybe all the passengers are being held in a secret part of Gitmo.

 

[fatima1917]

Apparently, neither does Bishop Williamson. He based his opinion on the structural arguements, according to what he has said publically, and has not addressed issues that make this conspiracy theory untenable.

Maybe all the passengers are being held in a secret part of Gitmo.

Not Gitmo, they are being held at the secret movie set where the US Government faked the moon landings.

 

[pnewton]

Yup that is for sure. If you have a discussion with a SSPSer the clown masses will surely show up sooner than later. So a few clown masses and off we go appointing bishops without Papal approval. You SSPXers are so predictable.

I am glad I am not the only one who noticed that.

 

[Patrick2340]

Unfortunately, your assertion that there is only one consensus on how the buildings fell is wrong. There are multiple speculations by people who don’t think it was either an allowed terrorist attack or a “Boston Tea Party” style of deception who differ on how the towers fell.

You have the pancake theory, and you have the idea that the truss system was heated, sagged and pulled the outer walls into the building causing the collapse. There are few other hypotheses as well.

There are also differing opinions about the jet fuel and nature of the fire.

Even among those that believe the most common understanding of the attack there are differences of opinion.

I’m sure Bishop Williamson has heard multiple opinions about the nature of the collapse.

Where, in the quote you used from my post, do I assert that I am offering the one and only explanation of what might have happened? I was simply rejecting Bishop Williamson’s erroneous statement that the steel in Twin Towers had to have melted in order for the structure to collapse. He is obviously wrong in that assertion. I proffered a reasonable and likely explanation. If others choose to believe a more spectacular and insidious explanation when a reasonable explanation is available, I suppose that’s their problem. Of course, there are people who think Elvis, Jim Morrison, and Adolf Hitler are still alive too.

 

[Brendan]

You can’t possibly think that, that is what he meant.

In fact you are actually quoting the Popular Mechanics ad-homimen used by one of their writers who used the exact same misrepresentation.

It’s called setting up a straw man.

No, it’s called being factual. I was unaware of Popular Mechanics using that example, the imagry that Joey presented in the post just reeeked of Wile E. Coyote.

You’re obviously trying to belittle the point that the poster pointed out that there was no wreckage resembling the wings near the impact point.

There was lots of airplane wreckage at the site, including the tail section: did you really expect fuel laden wings to remain intact?

What else does the TV tell you to think?

Absolutely nothing. We don’t watch TV in our house, with the occassional exception of EWTN or the Weather channel when there is a storm coming (which is the only reason we keep cable at all)

On the other hand, I AM an engineer, granted in the automotive arena, not aeronautical. But I do crash things into other things to see what happens.

And crashing a fuel landed plane into a reinforced concrete wall is exactly what happened at the Pentegon.

 

[bear06]

Gerard,

Why are you defending him on this? Don’t you see that he destroys the credibility of the SSPX? And that you hurt your own credibility by defending him?

It seems terribly ironic to me that you constantly point fingers at anyone who defends the Pope saying that “they find the Pope irresistable”, when apparently, you find Bishop Williamson irresistable.

Are you also going to defend Bishop Williamson’s statement that the Holocaust did not occur and that no Jews dies in the gas chambers?

What I find really ironic is that he defends people who characterize the papacy as clownish (more than one papacy) and yet gets defensive if someone points out that Bishop Williamson has extremely wacky views on many things. So, in other words, he doesn’t always defend people attacked by bullies unless they agree with him.

So, next time you’re deciding what is and is not charitable, you might want to look in a mirror first.

And, BTW, it can be Barque or Bark. Just because you prefer one spelling doesn’t make the other one wrong.

Williamson and the gas chambers is cited here and, to my knowledge, has never been refuted except to say that the people who reported it are just a bunch of nutjobs with an axe to grind against the SSPX which is the usual highly inteliigent response. .
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id9.html

I think it’s funny that Bishop Williamson seems to want to weigh in on every “debatable” situation. Well, at least I haven’t heard anything on JFK. I’m still reeling from his letter on the Sound of Music (and yes, Gerard, I have read the whole thing and thought it to be wacky).

 

[fatima1917]

Wonderful quote from the site above:

"But the fact that it (SSPX, ed.) did go into formal schism, just on the verge of an accommodation with Rome, illustrates a kind of general law about schism itself. It is the problem of egoism. Once you have taken a stand in opposition to authority, once you build churches, once you have properties and benefactors and mortgages, once you pour into your people a crusading, persecuted spirit and become a kind of god to your world-wide flock once all of this has happened, it is tremendously difficult to bow your head again to the institution you have fought for so long, with the added humiliation of losing all your property and your power. It is why the Old Catholics, for example, still exist as varied dots of egoism after a century and a half, or why the Anglican Church still exists as a husk without a doctrine after four centuries.

Protest movements of any kind, once they build a separate church, take on a life of their own, even though it is a half life. Almost never do they climb back into the Church (unless they are coerced, and that kind of stuff went out after the horrors of the Thirty Years War). Instead, the first infidelity makes the next one that much easier, until in the end you have ex-Lefebvrite and sede vacantist Father Sanborn with his own tiny sect in Michigan or ex-Lefebvrite Father Clarence Kelly forming his own Society of Pius V, or ex-Lefebvrite, ex-Kellyite Father (now Thuc line Bishop, 1996) Dolan hooking up with the Mount St. Michael cult in Spokane, Washington."

 

[GerardP]

No, it’s called being factual. I was unaware of Popular Mechanics using that example, the imagry that Joey presented in the post just reeeked of Wile E. Coyote.

Really? You really think that the poster you replied to was expecting “wing shaped” cutouts in the buildings? That was a factual response? Strange how you verbatim quote the same non-scientific straw man as the Pop Mechanics kid did.

There was lots of airplane wreckage at the site, including the tail section: did you really expect fuel laden wings to remain intact?

Do you have a picture of wreckage of wings? What pictures do you have?

Absolutely nothing. We don’t watch TV in our house, with the occassional exception of EWTN or the Weather channel when there is a storm coming (which is the only reason we keep cable at all)

Do you know of EWTN ever making corrections on the air of errors presented in their shows? Just curious.

On the other hand, I AM an engineer, granted in the automotive arena, not aeronautical. But I do crash things into other things to see what happens.

That will come in handy if the Bishop ever wants to discuss Princess Di.

And crashing a fuel landed plane into a reinforced concrete wall is exactly what happened at the Pentegon.

What details did Bishop Williamson make to support his position?

 

[I_Believe]

Gerard, do you even fathom the ** possibility **that the fuel in the wings may have blown them into tiny pieces ?

Denial is not a virtue.

 

[GerardP]

What I find really ironic is that he defends people who characterize the papacy as clownish (more than one papacy) and yet gets defensive if someone points out that Bishop Williamson has extremely wacky views on many things.

Correction: I defend people who rightly point out clownish behavior by the Popes that is not in keeping with the dignity of the papacy.

The huge distinction that many posters don’t seem to be able to get is that I don’t call the Pope “a kook” even if he does something “kooky” and I certainly don’t make judgements based on thirdhand references.

So, in other words, he doesn’t always defend people attacked by bullies unless they agree with him.

No. A bully is someone who tries to basically out shout their opponent with the use of vitriol. Calling Williamson a kook based on thirdhand evidence of a debatable point is far different than saying that the Pope is behaving clownishly when he’s

So, next time you’re deciding what is and is not charitable, you might want to look in a mirror first.

I’ve asked a few people to refer me to what they think is uncharitable. I’ve yet to see a reference.

And, BTW, it can be Barque or Bark. Just because you prefer one spelling doesn’t make the other one wrong.

Your right. I’ll remember that.

Williamson and the gas chambers is cited here and, to my knowledge, has never been refuted except to say that the people who reported it are just a bunch of nutjobs with an axe to grind against the SSPX which is the usual highly inteliigent response. .
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id9.html

I’ve been to that site before. I was asking if anyone has the sentence before it or after it. Bishop Williamson doesn’t just shout out convenient phrases like that from silence.

I think it’s funny that Bishop Williamson seems to want to weigh in on every “debatable” situation.

I think it’s funny that this is an issue that is almost 5 years old. Why does it suddenly warrant media traction now?

Well, at least I haven’t heard anything on JFK.

If I remember he said he believed Oswald was a patsy for larger players.

I’m still reeling from his letter on the Sound of Music (and yes, Gerard, I have read the whole thing and thought it to be wacky).

You mean you “'feel” it was wacky. I don’t see where he was wrong in his analysis of the film and it’s inherent weaknesses.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard, do you even fathom the ** possibility **that the fuel in the wings may have blown them into tiny pieces ?

Denial is not a virtue.

Yes I do “fathom” the possibility that the events occurred as reported. Do I have absolute certainty? No.

And I for a fact know that bishop Williamson is open to the possibility that he’s wrong.

Does that mean that I’m going to take a sentence here or there and automatically dismiss someone as a “kook” because they disagree with the popular version of events? No.

I try to give all sides an open minded hearing. As an outside example, I’ve read and watched a lot of the “Global Warming” advocates on their positions and I’ve read and watched a lot of varying and opposing views. After consideration and looking at all sides available, I’m of the belief that “man-made” global warming is a scam promoted by activists with a left-wing agenda. (shall I use the word conspiracy?)

I’m also no longer a believer in Evolution due to stronger arguments against it than for it.

But the interesting thing is that the attempt to stamp out the debate is always done in the same mode by the people with the dominant view. Ad hominems, reframing, straw men, selective quotes etc.

 

[GerardP]

Wonderful quote from the site above:

"But the fact that it (SSPX, ed.) did go into formal schism, just on the verge of an accommodation with Rome, illustrates a kind of general law about schism itself.

Only if you ignore certain events and positions. The quote is also a non-sequitur.

It is the problem of egoism. Once you have taken a stand in opposition to authority, once you build churches, once you have properties and benefactors and mortgages, once you pour into your people a crusading, persecuted spirit and become a kind of god to your world-wide flock once all of this has happened, it is tremendously difficult to bow your head again to the institution you have fought for so long, with the added humiliation of losing all your property and your power.

That’s a very twisted perspective on the SSPX.

It is why the Old Catholics, for example, still exist as varied dots of egoism after a century and a half, or why the Anglican Church still exists as a husk without a doctrine after four centuries.

What about the Orthodox? Why didn’t he include them?

Protest movements of any kind, once they build a separate church, take on a life of their own, even though it is a half life.

This could be applied to Vatican II.

Almost never do they climb back into the Church (unless they are coerced, and that kind of stuff went out after the horrors of the Thirty Years War). Instead, the first infidelity makes the next one that much easier, until in the end you have ex-Lefebvrite and sede vacantist Father Sanborn with his own tiny sect in Michigan or ex-Lefebvrite Father Clarence Kelly forming his own Society of Pius V, or ex-Lefebvrite, ex-Kellyite Father (now Thuc line Bishop, 1996) Dolan hooking up with the Mount St. Michael cult in Spokane, Washington."

Funny how he’s referring to people who were tossed out of the SSPX by LeFebvre and Bishop Williamson for promoting sedevacantist positions.

You can’t fault an organization for having infiltrators and dissidents and exonerate the Church for having infiltrators and dissidents when the whole of “Christianity” is the Catholic Church and those that split from Her.

Why should the SSPX be exempt from the same perennial problems of the rest of the Church?

 

[GerardP]

Where, in the quote you used from my post, do I assert that I am offering the one and only explanation of what might have happened?

You wrote about three paragraphs asserting what the range of temperatures would have been and extrapolated how the building fell down.

You didn’t offer any alternatives. I referenced the recent explanation of the beams sagging from the heat and pulling the outer walls inward which caused the collapse.

I was simply rejecting Bishop Williamson’s erroneous statement that the steel in Twin Towers had to have melted in order for the structure to collapse. He is obviously wrong in that assertion.

Are you sure that that is his assertion? Or are you relying on second or thirdhand information?

I proffered a reasonable and likely explanation.

Yes you did.

If others choose to believe a more spectacular and insidious explanation when a reasonable explanation is available, I suppose that’s their problem.

Do you advocate ad hominem attacks against them?

Of course, there are people who think Elvis, Jim Morrison, and Adolf Hitler are still alive too.

Yes and there are people that believe Pius XII was in Hitler’s pocket, that the Inquisition was a great evil institution that butchered millions. And there are history books that teach that the Church was against Columbus’ expedition because the Church said the world was flat. What’s your point?

 

[bear06]

Correction: I defend people who rightly point out clownish behavior by the Popes that is not in keeping with the dignity of the papacy.

The huge distinction that many posters don’t seem to be able to get is that I don’t call the Pope “a kook” even if he does something “kooky” and I certainly don’t make judgements based on thirdhand references.

 

[pnewton]

I’ve asked a few people to refer me to what they think is uncharitable. I’ve yet to see a reference.

I did. You did not deny the charge, but just responded that I spew my own venon. I then acknowledged that you might be right.

You mean you “'feel” it was wacky. I don’t see where he was wrong in his analysis of the film and it’s inherent weaknesses.

He said thought , not felt. The fact that you do not agree with him is no reason to question that he bear acted on feelings. Even if we are unintellegent CAF posters does not change that fact that we try to reason, despite our intellectual handicaps.

 

[bear06]

That will come in handy if the Bishop ever wants to discuss Princess Di.

I’m sure that’ll be next.

 

[pnewton]

Protest movements of any kind, once they build a separate church, take on a life of their own, even though it is a half life.

Except for the “build a separate church” part. The Church today sitll uses all the same structure, both physically and authoritatively. Hence the “Vatican” part of Vatican II.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

IvanKaramozov;3016330:

I was imitating our friend’s brilliance in saying that anyone didn’t think his was was an idiot.

k

There’s no need to put quotes around the word Bishop. He’s a genuine bishop. Rome doesn’t dispute that. So, you shouldn’t either. But what the heck, facts or the lack of facts hasn’t stopped a lot of posters from coming to conclusions.

Alright, I will accecpt that I should not have put quotes around his name. I did not deney outright that he was a Bishop, I did imply that I had doubts as to his status as a Bishop, which I did, if he is regonised by the Church, then I naturally recognise him as well

Tell me, what exactly is the bishop’s argument? Or are you just reading two sentences from a thirdhand source?

I beleive he refrenced that steel beams. I feel comftoriable putting out that anyone who is a “9/11 Truther” or holds their views is simply delusional.

An article in Popular Mechanics is now the god “Science.”

This was posted earlier in the thread and a rebutting post and link was made.

No, however it is a respectiable source, which fairly roundly refuted some arguments. There are plenty of refutations of 9/11 conspiricy truth non-sense.

A few moments checking their sources puts their claims in dubious light(to be mild)

I appeal to the authority of Noam Chomsky, it is not true evidence, however it does lead one to ask, when Noam Chomsky points out that the chances of a conspiricy theory being true are extreamly low, it is something to consider.

 

[GerardP]

It’s all a matter of opinion then, isn’t it? I feel perfectly fine in my belief that Bishop Williamson has some serious issues.

How you feel is irrelevant to me. I’m curious about your reasoning behind your beliefs.

And most of it is not based on any third parties but through his very own letters.

Which ones?

Incidently, Williamson responded to the third party and didn’t make one denial. HIs statement was that he was taking on the enemies of Our Lord in his statement. He never said he didn’t say it.

Who was the third party? I don’t believe that party has ever been named as far as I’ve been able to determine.

Give it up. Bishop Williamsons own letters are damning enough if you truly don’t believe the gas chamber incident.

No they aren’t. They are usually very good letters.

Maybe hypocritical is a better word.

No. Uncharitable is the word I was looking for.

Again, Williamson has never denied it. If you have something I haven’t seen, feel free.

I keep asking for the context of the statement. You seem to think that the only safe answer is a denial. The historical events of WWII have changed so many times during my life, I’m not about to hold to anything as a religious truth.

LOL! Most of the incidences on TIA are more than 5 years old!!! Again, the hypocrisy is deafening. It’s fine to post it as long as it doesn’t offend someone that you agree with.

TIA isn’t pretending to be an “up to date” news agency like renew america. They keep an archive of data and track the trends in the Church. If they acted like “suddenly” as of Nov 2007 liturgical abuse has been discovered in the Church, then I could see you citing me for hypocrisy. But they didn’t, so you can’t.

Well, it doesn’t surprise me.

Quite a few people don’t believe Oswald acted alone. Wasn’t there news last week about a different attempt on Kennedy’s life just prior to the Dallas shooting?

Not surprised here either. Sorry, this one was over the top. But then again, ideas aren’t for true girls.

This is part of the general trend. No one actually goes through the analysis that Bishop Williamson presents about the film and offers a real counter argument. Probably due to the fact that he’s right. Instead snide comments are the only retort left.

 

[bear06]

How you feel is irrelevant to me. I’m curious about your reasoning behind your beliefs.

Read, Gerard, read. You’re launching into a circular argument.

Which ones?