Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
+JMJ+ Jesus have mercy, on the poor souls in Purgatory.
We remember.
Lord have justice.
Jimmy, any thoughts on all the conspiracy stuff that’s out there? I have a priest friend who is convinced that the gov’t did it. I have trouble with that seein as how it would have been revealed by now….
Greetings Stephan,
I’m not Jimmy but I can’t resist commenting.
I’m a physicist and have studied some of the conspiracy theories and what appears to have happened and I’ve concluded that all of the conspiracy theories are a bunch of hooey (to get technical). I’m not going to get into details, but I do have two things that you might want to think about.
Government is generally the most incompetent way to get any thing done. Think of hurricane Rita. In order for our government to have done what is claimed by the conspiracy theorists, it would have required unbelieveable timing and control of events. Where else has the US govt. ever exhibited this kind of precision and control? I would maintain NEVER.
Secondly, anyone who actually believes this was a false flag operation carried out by our govt. against its own people should be out in the streets trying to overthrow it. Such a monstrous govt. would have lost all legitimacy and should be overthrown immediately. The fact that these conspiracy theorists aren’t doing that indicates to me that they don’t really believe what they’re selling either.
Curious,
I’m curious. What do you make of building Wtc building #7? Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
Thanks.
Herbert VanderLugt
Hello Herbert,
No, I’m curious. đ
I have not studied WTC7 in much detail because I’m pretty sure the WTC1 and 2 collapses make physical sense (without thermite or controlled demolition) and WTC 7 is really a sideshow. However, looking at the violence of the collapses of the two big ones, I don’t find it difficult to accept that WTC 7 was fatally damaged from these collapses. Sorry, but that’s all I have.
Thanks for your time. I would recommend looking into that collapse due to its unique collapse, etc. Again, thanks!
Peace to you!
Herbert VanderLugt
Sorry, I am grammatically impaired today . Instead of getting redundant above, I meant to refer to the peculiarities of bldg 7’s collapse, which included achieving a state of free fall for ~2.5 of its 6.5 second collapse… Not to mention the sudden onset of its collapse. As a matter of fact, as I’ve heard it presented by certain apparently knowledgeable folks, the thinking *should* work in the opposite direction… That is to say incredulity concerning the collapses of the twin towers should begin AFTER consideration of the peculiarities surrounding bldg 7’s collapse. Whereas, in your mind, the significance of bldg 7’s collapse follows from your conclusion concerning the believability if the Towers’ collapses. So what I’m trying to say is that people who’d otherwise not question the collapses of the Towers, came to grow skeptical AS A RESULT of conclusions they drew concerning the collapse of bldg. 7. Make sense? Thanks again, kindly.
Herbert VanderLugt
Government is generally the most incompetent way to get any thing done.
That’s what they’d like you to think. As Mulder argued, there is a shadow government inside the government that is really efficient – an cahoots with aliens đ
The Chicken
ahem, “and in cahoots with aliens.” (Who, no doubt, can check a comment before posting it).
The Chicken
Stephan, I just searched this topic and it looks there was just a debate hosted by Toronto’s KPFA the other night. I haven’t listened to it, obviously. But it may be with the listen. Though this isn’t directly a “Religious” issue, because of it’s religious/cultural implications,who knows,, maybe Jimmy Akin would even be so gracious as to present a podcast on this topic someday sorta like the awesome, thoughtful, informative one he just had re: the FSM ! Here’s where I found the info: http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3/20110519-kpfa-david-ray-griffin.mp3
Thanks again!
Herbert VanderLugt
Does anyone remember the Lusitania?
Hello Herbert,
When I get time, I’ll look into WTC 7. However, the same “free fall” claims have been made about WTC 1 and 2 and these claims are patently false. WTC 1 fell in about 15 seconds, 2 in about 22 seconds. Free fall time was 9 seconds. The environment around the buildings was so off scale because of the big collapses that I think we are really in unknown territory about the behavior of neighboring buildings in the hours which followed.
Incidentally, KPFA (at least the one in Berkeley) is about as far to the left as you can get. I wouldn’t consider it a reliable source of information. I’d consider the left wing equivalent of Coast to Coast AM.
Peace and best wishes to you also.
Hello Chicken,
Or should I say cluck? Are you aware that one of the conspiracy theories is that Lizard people have infiltrated the government and are somehow tied up with 9/11? I think its an internet joke, but can’t be sure.
Curious-
Can we both be curious!? Ha ha ha!
Thanks for your response to me. But seriously, I want to be clear. I am just some guy with ZERO architectural/engineering cred. However, it is indeed the case the case that wtc 7’s collapse did match A free fall acceleration curve for just over two seconds. I say this with confidence b/c Dr. Shyam Sunder, the individual in charge of the investigation of the collapse (through the National Institute of Standards and Technology) said so. And he’s not some leftist theorist. He’s the Federal agent appointed by our Government to investigate the collapse!
One thing I’ve noticed about asking questions about this topic, is that people kill the conversation before it begins, usually based upon an a priori rejection of the claims of the anti-government conspiracy theorists. This is why I’d love to see a Jimmy Akin or someone else with a razor sharp intellect (informed by Catholic sensitivities) really explain the ins and outs of the competing claims involved in this 9/11 debate (if you could even call it a debate).
And that’s why I asked you for your insight, you being a physicist!
Thanks again for your time. Herbert
Hello Herbert,
Alright, I have to admit you teased my interest on WTC7. I have done a little looking and found a debunker website which gives some good explanations of the WTC7 collapse. That site is here: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
I find the explanations there pretty convincing. Again, truthers seem to have taken pictures and dialog out of context. Also, the time of collapse IS much longer than the free fall time. This could still be consistent with part of the collapse trajectory being free fall, maybe, have to think about that one. Also, I’d need to look at what exactly Dr. Sunder said. A number of facts discussed in the article which are often left out of the truther discussions;
1. There was a huge gash on the south(? sorry, have only started looking at this) side which was a difficult angle to view. As time passed footage of this side emerged. This gash was huge and it appears that the building collapsed in the direction of this weakneess.
2. The building had large, uncontrolled fires which FDNY was not able to put out for hours (no water pressure). These fires could well have been fueled by heating oil and/or transformer oil which was in the location of the gash. Many truther sites show pictures of the early fires; later, smoke was gushing out of many floors simultaneously.
3. The design of this building was again some kind of tube design which is not like the normal steel frame construction used in most skyscrapers. These tube designs appear to be much more susceptible to fire.
4. Although the collapse looks symmetric on first viewing (which was from quite a distance away), there is good photographic evidence that the collapse occured in stages and the building collapsed onto the weakened gashed side.
Out of time, and I have not read any of the NIST reports, but I think I’ve done all I can for this thread. Again, best wishes to you.
As to Jimmy commenting, that’s always a bonus! However, having a degree in the social sciences (which is what alot of 9/11 “scholars” seem to have) does not make them experts on structural collapse or the behavior of materials to violent forces.
Curious,
Re: the Towers’ collapses. If freefall is 9 seconds, I must say 15 seconds sounds to me like a pretty rapid collapse, just moments behind actual free fall. I did search the web and find a list of some 1,500 Architects and Engineers (headed up by a fellow by the name of Richard Gage) who write off the possibility of the collapses of these bldgs. being caused by two planes alone. The symmetrical nature of the collapses, not to mention the outward projection of heavy materials over many meters, as well as the “Swiss-cheesing” of steel girders, as well as the presence of metallic microspheres found in the dust from the Towers (which indicate the literal vaporization of steel during the collapses) as I understand it, are other considerations that lend to the implausibility of the whole situation in the minds of these Architects and Engineers. But what do I know!? What I’m looking for is a reasoned Catholic response to the claims of these APPARENTLY well-intentioned professionals.
Re: liberal radio. In my experience, truth and insight are often found in the most unexpected of places!
Again, thanks
Herbert
Hello Herbert,
I don’t have any more time for this. But I did look up Gage and found a 9/11 debunking website which has info on Gage which makes you wonder about his credentials. http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ae911truth
For that matter, you don’t know who I am. Even if I am a physicist, that doesn’t mean I know everything about buildings, just as being an architect doesn’t necessarily make one an expert on the WTC in extreme conditions.
This has been interesting armchair exercise, but I stil come back to the original point. If the 9/11 truthers are correct, this govt. should be overthrown; it is not an armchair exercise. However most of these people are treating it as one.
I also have not touched on another internal contridiction of the 9/11 truthers. Most of these people will talk about that stupid Chimpy McBush who couldn’t even string two sentences together. Yet in their next breath, our govt. is capable of an incredibly orchestrated military coup which Chimpy must have been in on. So was Bush the antiChrist or a chimpanzee?
Then there’s the issue of secrecy. The US govt. couldn’t keep the secret of the atomic bomb for a few years. How many top secret programs are leaked all the time? Yet somehow this huge plot has been kept secret? It just doesn’t parse.
Again, best wishes and maybe we’ll cross paths again on JA.
Thanks again, you make some good points. Looking forward to getting Mass Revision.
Herbert
For anyone who’s interested, I just watched the following video. And once again, it really makes me long for a Catholic response from a trusted source such as Catholic Answers or Jimmy Akin.
Peace to you all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Jimmy, it’s great that you’re so into neat cooking recipes and a whole bunch of cool sci-fi fiction that you’re happy to analyze and pick apart, etc. But for this lay catholic, it would be great if you took just ten minutes from the hours of time you spend watching Dr. Who and dedicated them to the viewing of the video at the link I pasted above. There are, after all, over 1,500 architects and engineers who have signed on with this Richard Gage fellow. Then maybe you could provide us with a thoughtful Catholic response to what these engineers are saying. It’s really hard for me b/c as far as I’m concerned, whether it’s Dr. Who or a response to a very challenging question on Catholic Answers Live, anything you address is dealt with thoughtfully and with great insight. I am not exaggerating when o say I LONG for a thoughtful catholic response to the link above. Sincerely, Herbert Vanderlugt
Herbert: I appreciate your confidence, but I don’t know how much I have to say on this issue. Unlike my father and brother, I am not an engineer. Personally, I am skeptical of theories that there was a conspiracy on the U.S. side regarding 9/11 (there was a conspiracy on the part of al-Qa`eda). I would suggest looking at the material that Popular Mechanics has produced on the subject. They’ve done a significant amount of work on the subject and, unlike me, they have the kind of background needed to give an informed opinion on the architectural and engineering issues. Wish I could be of more assistance.
Jimmy, I am thankful for your response. I must say, though, that one needn’t be an engineer to view and respond to the video I linked. The individuals on the video are the engineers. You and I are the lay people, who despite our lack of technical expertise, must formulate some sort of response to the claims of the professionals in the video. So in a way, what i am wishing for is specifically a lay-Catholic response to the claims made by the figures in the video. How do we “in the pews” make sense of this stuff? I TOTALLY respect your choice not to share with me your from-the-hip reactions to the video. But if you’re up for it, have your Brother and your Father view the brief video I linked and see if that leads you to draw further conclusions concerning the matter.
And for the record, let me be clear, I have not suggested, nor do i intend to suggest that there was a “conspiracy on the U.S. Side.” The architects and engineers in the video, as far as I have seen, aren’t suggesting that there was a US conspiracy to drop the towers, either. What they are saying is that the collapses of all 3 towers (complete with Swiss-cheesed steel girders) cannot be explained by plane impacts and ensuing fires. If there were forces at work on 9/11 beyond those of Al Qa’eda, the architects and engineers aren’t speculating about who such shadowy conspirators may be. They are calling upon Congress to consider the evidence they’ve examined, and allow forensic science to assume the role it should. Again, thanks for your personal response! Herbert Vanderlugt
I’ll just pop my head in here and ask a question, since I haven’t seen the video: unless the government is in possession of an x-ray laser outside of the range of human vision, there are only two ways I can think of that explosive superheating is not the root cause of the collapse: 1) internal controlled detonation timed with the plane crashes or 2) corrosive material packets timed with the pane crashes. I cannot see how a conspiracy could even begin to work in conjunction with the plane crash. It may be possible that the buildings were constructed in a way not reported in the original building specs and included unstable organic compounds lining the steel girders, but there would have to have been a massive conspiracy of silence for either explosives, acid, or organics to have been included, since none of these conform with ASME code.
If I get the chance, I will watch the video. I am not an engineer, but I was a visiting scholar in an engineering department supposedly working on acoustical issues a few years back (I was also expert on finite element modeling of structures, so I have a little knowledge of the field).
On the other hand, I fail to understand what a “Catholic” response would be. As Jimmy points out, fundamentalist Islamists committed an atrocity by deliberate organized consent. That is immoral. If there were another, separate conspiracy, then, it too would be immoral. That is as far a Catholic moral theology goes. Is there anything else you expect Catholic moral theology to say? Catholics must admonish sinners, but forgive offenses, no matter who commits them.
The Chicken
Hello, Chicken- Thanks for writing. When I say that I’m seeking a “catholic” response to the video and the claims of the people in it (along with their call for a new and honest investigation), what I am really saying is that I want an “honest” response from a catholic I trust.
But in this uptight political env’t I find very little thoughtful consideration of such topics. Oftentimes conversations don’t even get off the ground. You, for example, seem to dismiss the possibility of some sort of demolitions being involved inthe day’s destruction not b/c of forensic considerations, but b/c you cannot imagine a way in which the plane impacts could be made to work in conjunction with explosives to achieve the collapses of the buildings. But these speculative matters are precisely what the architects and engineers are avoiding. They are talking forensics. Because if the forensic evidence DOES INDEED conclusively indicate that demolitions did play a role in those terrible attacks, then our inability to conceive of how such a thing could be possible goes out the window and we’re forced to rethink the 9/11 Commission’s findings.
Further, Though it used to work on most people, we have reached a point in time at which these architects and engineers cannot be written off as quacks. At one time, maybe. But no longer. There are serious credentials on the side of those who question the official story. And if those skeptics are onto something, then prominent Catholics, carrying the banner of truth should be right there beside them, it seems. As Geraldo says in the video, it’s due to the testimony of these architects and engineers as well as the victims’ family members that he has become more open-minded to those who question the “official story” concerning 9/11.
One last thing- Though Popular Mechanics could provide some graphics and illustrations to clearly explain things from their perspective, they are really doing nothing more than repeating what the NIST (mentioned in the video) says about the attacks. And that is precisely what the architects and engineers are questioning.
Dear Herbert,
You wrote:
You, for example, seem to dismiss the possibility of some sort of demolitions being involved inthe day’s destruction not b/c of forensic considerations, but b/c you cannot imagine a way in which the plane impacts could be made to work in conjunction with explosives to achieve the collapses of the buildings.
No, that’s not what I said. I can certainly imagine how the plane’s impact could trigger secondary explosions. What I can’t imagine is the level of joint agreement necessary to both pull it off and to cover it up. It’s like the bad argument some people give to imagine that the Resurrection was faked, only in reverse. It would take too many people being absolutely coordinated in a lie to pull it off. I find it hard that not one person involved in planting said explosives would not have cracked, by now.
The Catholic response is simple. A grievous sin was committed that day. The guilty will be punished, either in time or eternity. There is no catholic response to an engineering question. Engineering belongs to the Natural Law and is rather agnostic to morality. Finding out the truth is a form of hungering for justice and if that’s what you want to hear, it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to seek further understanding of what happened. Unfortunately, we may never know, if, in fact, anything else happened, but God knows and in his time and in his way, the truth will out. Trust is essential for a Catholic as well as justice.
The Chicken
” Finding out the truth is a form of hungering for justice and if that’s what you want to hear, it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to seek further understanding of what happened.”
Chicken- that’s what I’m looking for, I guess. But I don’t wish for my search to be a one-man endeavor. That’s why I’m reaching out to other Catholics. Especially ones whose opinions and perspective I’ve come to trust.
Dear Herbert
Some thoughts on global conspiracy theories in general and 9/11 in particular.
Is your belief an empirical one?
This is an empirical question based on observable evidence. Truthers claim there is observable evidence. What, if any, empirical evidence would convince you that there was no government conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers?
If there is no empirical evidence which would convince you, then there is no point in your asking further empirical questions. Your âfaithâ will not be shaken by any amount of empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence which would likely convince me of a US government conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers would include: confessions by those who eg laid the alleged explosives or remotely controlled the planes. Leaked correspondence by senior officials might also be good evidence. But nothing like this has reached even Wikileaks. None of the hundreds of people who would have to have been involved in a conspiracy of this size has talked to the media or their spouses or best friends who have then gone outraged to the media. The media would pay huge amounts of money for such confessions â much more than for kiss-and-tell stories.
Some might think: no-one has blabbed because they would be killed (by the âshadow governmentâ) or the media are completely censored by the âshadow governmentâ, Jews, Freemasons or whoever. Whistleblowers could go to somewhere like Al-Jazeera or Wikileaks, set up their own blog, post a Youtube video or speak live to Alex Jones.
If the âshadow governmentâ was so efficient and powerful then why are whistleblowers like Alex Jones, David Icke etc. still alive and allowed to spout their conspiracy theories, live freely and get rich? Why have they not met with unfortunate âaccidentsâ or âillnessesâ? Why are they still alive? Why are their web sites still working and easily accessible? Compare what would happen to such people in eg China?
Consider the case of Julian Assange (of Wikileaks). It has been suggested that the rape charges against him are fabricated or exaggerated in order to silence him. Even if this is true, the worst that âthe governmentâ seems to be able to do to him is to threaten to lock him up for few years in a Swedish prison! Not quite a Soviet Gulag. The case is currently dragging through the British Courts â despite the fast-track European Arrest Warrant. Assange has caused great embarrassment to many governments and possibly risked the lives of secret agents and informers, yet secret services from many countries have not contrived an âaccidentâ or âillnessâ – they can only threaten a few years in a Swedish prison!
If even Alex Jones and Julian Assange are still alive, I donât think that any 9/11 whistleblower need fear for their life.
Yet no-one has confessed and blown the whistle â because there is no whistle to blow.
The US government is not very good at keeping secrets which are âjuicyâ.
The bigger and âjucierâ the conspiracy/secret the more difficult it is to keep it secret. Consider the Clinton-Lewinski affair. While only two people (Bill and Monica) knew – it remained secret. But as soon as Monica confided to one âbest friendâ it did not take long before the story spread. President Clinton was highly motivated to silence this, not only for his own political career but to avoid the wrath of Hillary. I imagine the Wrath of Hillary would be far worse than any public wrath. But âthe most powerful man in the worldâ, with all the resources of a superpower, was impotent in suppressing this âwhistle-blowingâ.
Of the many (hundreds?) people who would have had to have involved in any government demolition of the Twin Towers, none appears to have been racked with guilt, none appears to have said anything to their wife, best friend or drinking buddies. None of these spouses or friends seems to have put two and two together after 9/11 eg âWhat did you do today honey?â, âJust drilling holes in the foundations of the Twin Towers dearâ/ âJust laying some non-standard cable in the basement of WTC7â / âhad a weird assignment in Manhattan last week âŚâ. Telling someone to keep a job a secret is a sure-fire way of getting them to remember it and tell others â in strict confidence of course.
I am not aware of any of the WTC survivors noticing drilling into pillars (for explosives) or any unusual cabling in the days and weeks before 9/11. These would be needed in any controlled demolition.
Most global conspiracy theorists do not have a consistent narrative eg Were the towers designed to collapse? Were the planes unmanned and remotely-controlled? Were the buildings rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition? Yet they nitpick the mainstream view and claim a global conspiracy.
Curious and the Chicken have shown that to believe in this type of conspiracy requires you to believe in an hyper-efficient government which does not make ANY mistakes even in big one-off projects. Government is a lot more efficient than many anti-government folks imagine (eg NASA moon landings) but no one (not even the most ardent supporters of government intervention) believes that the level of efficiency and 100% secrecy needed for just one global conspiracy theory is humanly possible by a government or a private corporation.
You ignore a mountain of evidence (including repeated confessions/boasts by Osama Bib Laden on Al Jazeera and the 1993 attempt on the WTC) and nitpick a molehill of alleged discrepancies. BBC summary of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Consider also that your playing with a conspiracy theory might be an exciting game for you but that this type of denial is disrespectful to the dead and distressing to the bereaved. (A cousin of mine was murdered on 9/11).
Thanks Leo, I was going to say many of the same things – including that I had a cousin murdered that day as well.
Herbert, since you’re looking for a “Catholic” perspective on this, how about this one: beware pride. “By it the creature refuses to stay within his essential orbit; he turns his back upon God, not through weakness or ignorance, but solely because in his self-exaltation he is minded not to submit.”
I think many “truthers” refuse to submit to the easy, common explanations (evil men fly planes, planes hit towers, fires burn, towers fall) because they want science, not God, to rule over physics. And so man must be capable of discerning every last minute detail of that day or it’s taken as proof that a different evil hand must have caused those details to happen.
That’s not science, that’s egotism.
Leo- thanks for writing to me. But Alex Jones? David Icke? When I saw wtc 7 fall in a video I was confounded. If you watched the video I linked above, I would think you might be surprised by its collapse, also.
I have no “faith” when it comes to 9/11. I have lingering questions about the situation. Surely an honest person can look at that <7 second collapse (w/ its 2.5 second period of freefall) and draw the conclusion that it SEEMS to have been deliberately demolished as opposed to simply have collapsed due to fire.
It seems like you've understood me to be holding to a number of views that I never intended to express. If I were utterly convinced of one position, why would I be here asking for the input of other Catholics? I am not here to argue for some irrational foregone conclusion. Though there are many things about 9/11 which can certainly be readily explained, i am sincere when I say I long for a thoughtful, engaging consideration of those matters which aren't readily explicable. If that is something you or anybody else wished to do, I'd be encouraged! Thanks.
Chris, I am sorry to you both for having lost a loved-one on 9/11. But I can assure you that I understand God, not humans, to be in charge of the physical world. And as an adult convert to Catholicism, I can also say that I am not seeking to avoid submission. Rather, I am seeking to subject myself to truth whatever the situation or particular issue. That’s why I’m here ASKING for people to discuss matters that, to some, seem to validly challenge the commonly held narrative concerning the day’s tragic events (Swiss-cheesed steel among others).
One thing I notice about your comment as well as Leo’s is that neither addresses the concerns I’ve expressed. Your comment amounts to an ad hominem, suggesting that I’m prideful and/or egotistic, expressing my defiance of God by asking questions about what to some is a taboo topic.. And Leo’s touches upon global conspiracies, wikileaks, the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, and the possibility that I am coming to the table (psychologically) with a mindset that renders me incapable of even being realistic about 9/11 due to a particular irrational faith concerning the day’s events.
This exchange demonstrates the very thing that has led to the proliferation of conspiracy theories, I guess. It amounts to name-calling and a few off-the-cuff reasons why a conspiracy of such apparent magnitude couldn’t be possible instead of a reasoned consideration of the forensic claims related to the buildings’ collapses (who BTW find their validity in the laws of God’s created order, not man’s ability to access them through scientific analysis! Human scientific discovery, far from being a means of self-glorification, should be understood as a worthwhile human endeavor, expressing faith in reason and order in God’s creation). Thanks again.
Chris,
It may be worth it for me to point out that many of the architects and engineers who are calling for a new and honest investigation were people who’d assumed the very “easy” and “common” explanations that you cited above prior to their consideration of the events of the day from another perspective. You seem to characterize them simply as deniers, unwilling to face the facts. In reality, they are people who, having once believed as you do, eventually came to see the “facts” as they’d been presented as simply false.
The “truthers,” then, aren’t people simply unwilling to “submit” to your truths. Some of these truthers were members of the Army Corps of Engineers. Some are decorated veterans. Some are demolitions experts. At least one is an engineer who had a major role in the actual construction of the Twin Towers themselves. And what they have in common is this: none of them accept the idea that fires can cause freefall or near freefall collapse, Swiss-cheesed steel, pools of molten iron, and a whole host of other forensic realities.
And this is where I, as a Catholic, find the cricket-chirping most disturbing as it seems my would-be brothers in the faith, rather than coming alongside me to discuss these matters or kindly convincing me that my concerns are unwarranted (after criticizing my motives or discussing anything but what the architects and engineers are saying), don’t seem too interested in communicating much at all.
Obviously nobody here owes me their time or energy. But Chris and Leo, if you’re going to engage with me, you might as well stick with it. It would be easier to simply be ignored altogether than to be written off, if that’s what’s happening. Maybe I’m just too sensitive! Thanks again.
Leo- (If you’re still checking this site).
I’ve revisited your comments a number of times and I really feel as though you don’t seem to see me as a sincere fellow who has genuine questions. You seem to see me as an insensitive, irrational individual who dishonors the dead and disrespects the bereaved. I wonder what i said in this thread for you to see me in such a light. Allow me to respond to just one thing you said:
“Is your belief an empirical one?
This is an empirical question based on observable evidence. Truthers claim there is observable evidence. What, if any, empirical evidence would convince you that there was no government conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers?”
You are starting with the right question. And you’re right to acknowledge that these architects and engineers are claiming to have hard, empirical evidence to substantiate their call for a new investigation. But after you raise these valid points (the very things I’m asking for you or anyone else to speak to) you abruptly change the subject by asking me what it would take to basically prove a negative. One cannot prove a negative, right? Then you go on to discuss a whole bunch of other issues. It makes me wonder why you don’t just spare all the unrelated comments and address what the architects are claiming. Do you not think it hard for the architects to imagine some shadowy group pulling off a heinous feat of this magnitude? Of course they cannot imagine it anymore than you can. But that’s precisely why they’re appealing to what they KNOW about science to override what they DON’T KNOW concerning the means by which demolitions, etc. could have been placed. And if indeed hard forensic evidence (which you acknowledge they claim to have) forces them to accept such an otherwise unimaginable scenario, shouldn’t they be given a chance to have their painful conclusions considered, especially by Catholics, people who claim to follow Truth incarnate?
All in all, I’m confused by the fact that you took the time to discuss a whole bunch of things they are not claiming instead of, if it’s really so simple, just speaking directly to their claims and putting the whole thing to rest. Then, as I said, our exchange is followed by crickets chirping. Which makes me even more confused since youve already demonstrated yourself to be someone who isn’t opposed to writing a fairly lengthy comment here.
Thanks again.
Dear Herbert
For the sake of discussion letâs assume you are right and the US government did destroy WTC7. What is the consequence of that line of thinking?
It seems pointless for the US government to plan to demolish a building, unknown outside of Manhattan, co-incidentally with the Twin Towers. It only starts to make sense if WTC7 was part of a bigger plan which included a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. Even then, why include an obscure building like WTC7?
If WTC7 was destroyed by a deliberate act of the US government then what I say about the world view this entails follows eg Why is Alex Jones still alive, free and getting richer on 9-11 conspiracy theorizing? Why is the rest of government not hyper-efficient? Why are you not in prison as eg China? These questions are not an abrupt change of subject or putting words in other’s mouths but part of the wider picture which would allow such a conspiracy to occur.
You accuse me of suggesting views you do not hold – most of my comments were general. But go ahead and state your hypothesis positively rather than ask questions without answering other peopleâs. A common technique amongst many grand conspiracy theorists.
I have given you empirical evidence why I believe what I do and what would persuade me to the contrary. I think your last post indicates that there is no empirical evidence which could convince you there was no US government conspiracy. Itâs not about whether you can prove negatives or positives. It is about reasonable vs absolute proof â criminal courts do this all the time proving positives and negatives.
I am not impressed by the video you linked to. The explanations in my BBC link are more persuasive as well as Osama Bin Ladenâs repeated boasts/confession of responsibility. Some of your questions might be answered by the scientists and engineers at Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.
I donât know who you are and I cannot judge your heart. My long first response, and this, indicates that I have given you the benefit of the doubt.
Leo- thanks for taking the time to write. The fact that you wrote, however, doesn’t indicate you’ve given me the benefit of the doubt. You don’t seem to be picking up on what I’m trying to get across. For example, you’re suggesting that I’ve directly implicated the US Gov’t in the apparent demolition of wtc 7 (and according to the architects, etc. The Twin Towers, also) despite the fact that I stated clearly that I have not intended to do so. Further, IF the towers were demolished, the American people DO NOT know who could have pulled off such a feat. Period. That all 3 towers were demolished, however, is the claim made by these architects, etc. They claim to have direct forensic evidence to substantiate their claims, evidence which you’ve, thus far, not acknowledged, or dismissed w/ hand-waving comments. An appeal to a competing interpretation of the day’s events, for example (like those presented at various “debunking” websites) doesn’t do anything to further the conversation due to the fact that the debunkers’ arguments are precisely the arguments that the architects and engineers claim do not hold water.
Instead of speaking to the issues, you seem bent on focusing upon the untenable “worldviews” you’ve come to associate with such claims. You’ve also appealed numerous times to the speculative implausibility of there being some grander “conspiracy” at play on that tragic day. Still, however, you’ve not spoken to the forensic issues raised by these architects and engineers. You’ve not shown how your conspiracy (the one involving 19 Arab hi-jackers) accounts for the day’s events more plausibly than does the account proposed by the architects and engineers- tthe one that concludes that demolitions are all that could account for:
1 the utter pulverization of tons and tons of concrete
2 flowing molten steel/iron
3 Swiss-cheesed portions of steel
4 freefall collapse (wtc 7)
5 near freefall collapse (Twin Towers)
6 Iron-rich microspheres present in the wtf dust (which indicate the literal vaporization of metal)
7 large portions of the Towers being ejected latterally 100s of feet (which is inconsistent with a gravity-driven collapse).
9 and a whole bunch of other things!
Again, if you wish to speak to these issues, I’d be encouraged. So far you haven’t. We must allow ourselves to be guided by what we do KNOW happened (like the things i just listed) rather than the things we can’t imagine happening (like all the things you listed). Thanks again
Leo- Please remember, also, that when it comes to 9/11, we’re all conspiracy theorists (as Jimmy Akin sorta implied when he kindly chimed in). We are considering the merits of competing conspiracy theories. And to the extent we subscribe to one or the other, we’re conspiracy theorists. And as a matter of fact as I’ve continued to look into this more over the past few months, I’m thinking that there are more “credentials with a face” on the skeptics’ side of the aisle.
One side of this discussion has a bunch of architects and engineers on its side (along with an understanding of high school physics) as well as an acknowledgment of the actual forensic evidence we’ve got… and the other side has little more than the blessing of the Gov’t (FEMA/NIST) and the Mass Media. Thanks.
Leo- I hope you see my continued comments as a demonstration of my sincerity rather than a bigoted effort to prove some irrational point. But I am wondering if you would state exactly what I said that led you to state the following:
“I think your last post indicates that there is no empirical evidence which could convince you there was no US government conspiracy.”
1st, as I said, if the buildings were demolished, nobody knows who did it (hence the architects’ and engineers’ call for a new investigation). And 2nd, I think the key thing that I’d like to point out is the fact that, though you can certainly build a case for the extreme implausibility of there having been demolition charges placed in all 3 towers, your case doesn’t speak to the many factors that have convinced the architects and engineers of the use of demolitions of some kind to bring the Towers down.
Finally, this is not about worldviews or whatever (which, here at this website I assume to be Catholic and truly faithful to the Magisterium). This is about, as one of the engineers said (himself former Army Corps of Engineers), high school level physics. Remember I’m not here suggesting that there aren’t “debunking” articles and websites out there (like the stuff you’ve referred to). I’m here wondering how you and so many other Christians honestly account for the evidence for demolitions to which the architects and engineers are appealing. That’s the Catholic (read: honest) answer I originally asked for… The one that accounts for building 7’s freefall, for example. Leo, how do you honestly account for the fact that 2.5 seconds of wtc 7’s ~6.5 second collapse matched a freefall acceleration curve? If you’re going to judge me to be irrationally bound to my skepticism (like you seem to do in the quote above), but at the same time refuse to speak directly to the very incontrovertible point that has led to my incredulity, then I don’t understand how, between the 2 of us, you see me as the one who’s irrationally bound to his position. Herbert
Leo- I have reread our exchange numerous times, wondering why it is that our dialogue couldn’t have been more fruitful, wondering what I did to turn you and any others away. You mentioned that this theorizing might be exciting for me. But I assure you, what these skeptical scientists are questioning aren’t possibilities that I “enjoy” entertaining. If you think a guy like me is finding this stuff somehow exciting, or just being some sort of cheap intellectual thrill, you are mistaken. Again, if that WERE the case, why would I be hear imploring other Catholics to share with me just how they, as concerned citizens, process through this information? Have I been rude, unkind, or otherwise divisive?
Specifically, I asked how you make sense of building 7’s period of freefall collapse. You haven’t responded, but you had already referred to a BBC Summary of 9/11 conspiracies, one of which relates to building 7. Unfortunately, like our conversation, the BBC piece does little to address the actual points being raised by the architects and engineers of whom I speak. Only 2 out of the five points raised in that summary even have anything to do with the architects’ arguments. And concerning wtc 7, the BBC Summary doesn’t even get its facts straight. The BBC Summary says that wtc 7 approached freefall. The reality is, however, that its collapse, for roughly 2.5 seconds, MATCHED freefall. So my questioning has nothing to do w/ crazy conspiracies, but hard, honest questions. Why is it that I’m shunned for even asking these questions? I am honestly asking you or anyone else to simply address how they make sense of this stuff and somehow synthesize it w/in their Catholic worldview. Some say it’s pride that drives me. Some say I must find it strangely exciting. How about considering the possibility that I’m honestly curious?
One more thing, since you brought up Bin Laden’s personal confessions, I looked into that topic and found that our FBI’s position has been that we have no clear direct evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 (Bear in mind that is not my personal assessment of the evidence available, but the FBI’s). Further, there are serious, credible scholars who have gone on record stating that the Bin Laden confession tape of December 2001 is not authentic.
Since this thread began, I’ve read more about 9/11. As my first post here indicated, I already had my questions… But over the past weeks I’ve become more confused, mostly because Catholics I know almost treat the official narrative as an article of faith and when it’s threatened, they treat the questioner as someone who’s hardly worth their time, rather than a Catholic brother who is truly confused. Thanks again.