Wednesday January 19, 2022
SNc Channels:



Dec-09-2008 13:39printcomments

Catholic Bishop Publicly Criticizes Official Story of 9/11 (VIDEO)

Bishop Richard Williamson speaks out against the official theory of the events of 9/11.

Bishop Richard Williamson
Bishop Richard Williamson

(SALEM, Ore.) - I was flat out amazed today to hear a Roman Catholic Bishop state a number of points about September 11th 2001, that I have written about in the past. The facts that contradict the official story are endless, and I think anyone who looked at the story with an open mind can comprehend that the U.S. government's version of what happened that tragic day is literally, impossible.

The list of experts who agree is long, and they include dozens of college and university professors. This isn't a small matter.

If the Bush Administration's version of the events that day are not accurate and true, then we have been bamboozled in a way that almost defied comprehension. (see: Scholars and New York Firefighters Demanding Truth on 9/11 Events)

The tools of the trade; FOX NEWS pundits and their leagues of supporters, claim that it is un-American to question what happened on 9/11. In fact it is anything but that.

As you will learn in the video posted below, Bishop Richard Williamson speaks out against the official theory of the events of 9/11 in clear and unflinching terms.

I remember that morning very well, and recall being shocked as many Americans were, that the passports of the alleged terrorists floated down to the sidewalk below. That is just the beginning.

Firefighters, police, employees, reporters and civilians on the ground at the World Trade Centers talked about repeated explosions. Expert after expert has talked about the distinct sounds of explosions that happened at times that were not consistent with the actual plane crashes.

I lived in Las Vegas for many years and I have watched the city's buildings come down in seconds after being imploded. This is what Bishop Williamson believes happened in New York City on that fateful day.

The Pentagon

But this is just scratching the surface of the problems with the official story. My personal interest revolves around the Pentagon. That alleged 757 practically vanished into thin air. Plane crashes leave wreckage and pieces of people and all kind of things in the debris area.

I have a personal friend who dismantles 757's for a living and he said the nine foot diameter engine casings on that aircraft are made of titanium and they require immense heat to melt.

The Pentagon crash, which many people at the time reported to be either a missile or a small plane, involved an object punching through a number of inner walls, and left a hole that was totally inconsistent with a 757.

The only aircraft engine visible in the wreckage appeared to be from a 1950's era Navy jet fighter, the type of which were absorbed by Raytheon to be converted into drones; remote control full-size planes that could theoretically, be loaded with munitions and flown remotely into a target.

The biggest snag I found in the story came from a Popular Mechanics article that attempted to dispel the very points that I raise now. In the article, the writer confirms that little or no wreckage existed. He said that when the plane crashed, it turned into something "like liquid" and thus attempted to account for the missing plane.

Then when you keep reading, you reach the part where a different government talking head is obviously being asked hard questions by reporters.

The article quotes this man from the U.S. government, saying he "held parts of the crew's body parts and uniforms in his hands." This is amazing, since the whole plane turned to liquid according to their other source.

The uniforms and body parts of the crew, located in the very front of the airplane, would logically be the first thing to go and the last aspect any investigator would likely recognize. (see: Huge Contradictions in Official Theories on 9/11 Crash at Pentagon)

Besides, in environments like that, no government men in suits are just walking around picking up body parts. It is a biological hazard.

Could all of this be wrong? There are plenty who believe I am and they can also produce data to back up their point. Anyone who ever writes about this hopes it is not true. In Afghanistan, I got into a serious debate with a senior sergeant who I ended up becoming good friends with.

Tom Robers said he was at the Pentagon when it was hit and he swears that there is no doubt in his mind. Still, there remains one in mine, and that is why Tom and I almost went to blows over the matter in Kabul that day. Later, we learned to give each other some room on the subject and we had many spirited discussions. (see: What Really Hit The Pentagon?)

I do not profess to know what happened that day; that would be impossible and unfair to expect. I have attempted to go over the various discrepancies of the story in articles that are published on in the past, and I will again in the future.

After one of the stories was published, our Web Designer Matt Lintz caught a hacker trying to access As it turned out, it was the U.S. Air Force at a base known for surveillance work. (see: U.S. Air Force Hackers Caught in Their Tracks by

I am an aircraft crash site researcher, a reporter, photographer, and a military veteran who served in Marine aviation. Those experiences cause me to believe that these critical words of a Catholic Bishop are very worthy of our time. The most important thing to remember is that only truth matters, and life is short.

If we have been lied to because our outgoing government wanted to set into motion the events that led us to war, then we have a right to know. In reality, the U.S. government spent more money investigating President Bill Clinton's sexual escapades than it did investigating 9/11. That seems fundamentally wrong from any perspective.


Special thanks to YouTube user akhenaton2012

For the other side of this argument, check:

Popular Mechanics: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon


Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

John S January 15, 2011 10:28 pm (Pacific time)

Williamson is nuts. He says no jews went to the gas chambers;

Mr. Dickie Pope December 22, 2009 9:08 am (Pacific time)

If I state that 666,000,000 million 'ashkenazi' jews died in the 'Nazi haulocost' -'gas chambers'- does that make me a supporter of the party line implication that those who supported Nazism,by not speaking out loud enough,are guilty;and must be punished by silencing them, as has been done to both : the so called Catholic Church over the past 50 years and ,again,so called right wing extremists? Conversely,if I state that 666,000 Ashkenazi jews died in same method,does it make me a haulocost denier thereby inviting and JUSTIFYING ad hominem attacks against me? Thirdly,what force or political power group teaches you out there, who KKKnow that a particular # of said japhetic jews died in a certain WAY:where did they arrive at the #,and where is the DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE that any righteous court of law would justly concur with???AND...if no evidence is forthcoming why do you out there parrot the brainwashed ideology of the TYRANT STATE?!!!

Paddy December 29, 2008 5:27 pm (Pacific time)

Williamson isn't a great example of a catholic bishop. The SSPX, (the extremist branch of the catholic church to which Williamson belongs) has been in schism with the catholic church for years. Williamson was ordained without the consent of the Pope, by Bishop Lefebvre, the act of which caused the excommunication of Lefebvre.
Williamson loves a conspiracy. Holocaust? What Holocaust! To quote Bishop Williamson "There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers, it's all lies, lies, lies". The 9/11 conspiracy is just one more bat s&%t crazy band wagon that he has jumped on. If the author was looking for credible support of his article, he really missed the mark with Williamson.

Editor: The Bishop did not make the statement above; that allegation is not true and there is no credible evidence of it.  In fact, it is an absurd sign of the weakness that anyone like "Paddy" can raise in this case.  The Catholic Church is so corrupt that it can't even take the responsibility of properly sanctioning pedophile priests.  They just transfer them after they get "busted" and then the church discredits the victims later when it is time to own up to the cost of the tragic abuse that the system inflicted.  This man was regarded as a Bishop and most of us don't care about the little details that you and others like you attempt to spin into the story.  It is interesting that this man who seems to have a mind of his own, would make the statements that he made.  That is all the article is about.

 By the way, we have rules about using foul language here and you violated it.  Don't do it in the future.

Henry Ruark December 16, 2008 11:31 am (Pacific time)

PS: You asked wh I seek ID from some but not others. Allasame my old Latin tchr in h.s. (1934 !), who worked hard with few showing some promise for further learning. She beat more than Latin into my then-more malleable skull,but the Latin failed to stick, except impact on style, not necessarily good.

Henry Ruark December 16, 2008 11:09 am (Pacific time)

PS: Open record on geographic location well known. Do NOT include emailer in Op Eds since that was S-N policy when we began. Will welcome yours, look fwd to learning more, helpful exchange for any writer (always unconsciously or otherwise biased !). Who knows, we may be start of solid Obama fanclub !! For real change, that has to happen, widely and well, with solid effort for all of us inescapably involved. Membership doth not preclude honest,open,dialog to seek diection and depth in details involved.

PS December 16, 2008 10:30 am (Pacific time)

HR thanks for your explanation. I may consider sending you my private email address via snail mail to your current residential address which as you know is public record. I still would like to know why you request those addresses more frequently from people who offer a different perspective than yours. My opinions and any facts stated will always be sourced. If I neglect to put those links in a post (it happens) just ask for it . Thanks.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 7:41 pm (Pacific time)

To all: First thing I did for Editor Tim on invitation to write was rundown/proposal for Op Ed protocol. Sets out in detail what we do and why we do it that way. Available as printout on request with ID to Editor Tim, if I can get eMac with some indigestion to divulge it, at least in part, now. IF others have questions, will enjoy receiving them for any additional clarity we may find necessary. Thanks to all for patience and participation, well appreciated by all of us here. (Disclosure: We all in far-separated locations !)

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 6:30 pm (Pacific time)

PS et al: Emphasis on ID here is simple ethical requirement for all civil conversation, long recognized professionally. Its disregard in Internet blogs is what now threatens integrity and values of the current many-dialogs underway simply by vulnerability to political pandering. Any person engaged in dialog has as much and more right, on Internet, to same civilities and recognized practical protocol for clear exchange as in an ordinary conversation, don't you agree ? To take any other view is to propose possible easy-shot from behind-tree, as in real political assassination, well known to perpetrators used to using the tree technique. So my friends from Va. taught me long ago in Indiana U. very special sessions. Re APA and similar formats,required for truly professional reasons in some publications and a few channels, there's no necessity here for that strict format. But good faith and professional journalistic ethics does demand ID for msgs since that surely, inevitably shapes --or should !!-- how it is received. Re requirement here, for good reason management prefers to leave things a bit informal, but then does count on good faith and desire to learn and share rather than obvious distortion for p/p/pander purposes, which reduces this channel to very expensive and "unsustainable" free-fire zone. Surely anyone of your now demonstrated intelligence can and should be able to appreciate that necessity without the gun-at-head demanded of some of the lower levels within our total tribe? Re "my record", ref. was only to what is shown in STAFF, for immediate appreciation by all who relate to others here. Rest is far more checkered, diverse, perhaps even "fascinating"for some, and I feel fortunate to have survived some of it,as I know you do for yours, too...!! Do appreciate your thoughtful, civil reponse, and hope you will allow us to understand from whence you do cometh by simple facts-added, understood to be for purposes of clarity and good faith dialog. Be my guest, with best wishes for this and any following seasons we may both enjoy.

PS December 15, 2008 1:01 pm (Pacific time)

Fascinating and entertaining post HR. Please note that my earlier posts dealt with the related substance of the above article. Maybe you have a more focused response to those posts, i.e. , can you point out any factual errors as per those statements? Thanks so much. As far as plagiarism, are you familiar with the APA format (and other similar research writing formats)? Actually any statement that is by someone else that is not referenced does constitute plagiarism as per that format in it's strictist interpretation. Many people have had their professional degrees/licenses yanked for failing to reference fully, unless they hold elective office it seems. I frankly know nothing of your record, nor am I really concerned what you say if not referenced. I always respond to facts and offer my opinion regarding those facts. I will be happy to share my ID when this site requires it for all other posters. May I ask why you just want mine, or other posters who also share my accurate approach to facts? Thanks again HR.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 12:04 pm (Pacific time)

P.S.: At least we now returning to civil discourse rather than outright personal attack. Re further learning about necessity to move beyond "supposition", see my Comment under "Legal Fiction: Op Ed. "Socialist economists" from previous attack-line, tied to plagiarism-implied, actionable words for any pro-writer. Its application to economists is ALWAYS personal subjective interpretation, open to both def. of "socialist" and to personal evaluation of that entirely reasonable, rational, legal and widespread form of politics AND governance. Previous Op Eds have pointed out various ways in which we can, should --and now MUST--learn from its effective applications in some places and situations. "Socialist" and "communist",as well as "liberal", have too long been smear-and-fear words for neocon noise-machine use as tools for the unthinking masses. How do you wish to use them ? Honestly, or as more p/p ? You wrote: "...extrapolating", which admits precisely what is noted and reported in your stuff. Here's definition: extrapolate (as in "deduce") v. : gain knowledge of (an area not known or experienced) by extrapolating,. SO since "not known or experienced", yours (AND mine)are both basic personal interpretation --thus readers must define and evaluate what they get. That's why ID is so damned necessary...also why it is avoided so sedulously by those with reason to do so. SO, sir, whom might you be ? I asked if you were Percy Sanchez, of withdrawn-degree information, but no response. IF you military retiree as he stated he is that alone labels your every interpretation; as my ed./jrnlsm bkgrnd does mine, but mine is open to all to know on my side. Hope you consider this "civil" while still seeking foundation for any credibility on your part, sir.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 9:11 am (Pacific time)

To all: Recurring theme, woven in even here, has been salacious and overwhelming political corruption in Illinois -sure indicator that Obama must be guilty of someofit. Here's commonsense from " (For what it's worth, USA Today determined this week that "[o]n a per-capita basis ... Illinois ranks 18th for the number of public corruption convictions the federal government has won from 1998 through 2007," behind both Dakotas, Alaska, Alabama, Florida and several other states.) -------- See rest at link for detail relevant to this thread on how political panderers use media distortion on this. Look for attack on media/matters as funded by financier Soros, but never fact of billions he has spent to support and encourage democracy worldwide.

PS December 15, 2008 9:10 am (Pacific time)

HR your opinion is right on the mark as I extrapolated. Possibly you have some evidence that contradicts prevailing professionally developed evidence/conclusions, and you can offer some reasons why congress has not created an investigative body to question what professionals (and major msm sources) have been reporting about this event? Also maybe why the media has not jumped in on this matter in a more earnest way to help push congress along? Thanks and I appreciate your civil response for it really enables one to see where you're coming from in a clear and objective way. Note: You mentioned "Socialist economists?" You talking about that NY Tmes Nobel winner? Or referencing past administration cabinet members and staff? Thanks

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 7:34 am (Pacific time)

To all: For any who feel we're tough on PS et al, first principle we learned from my "four guys from Va.", long ago at IU, was to "consider content analysis as a balance-mechanism." You weigh weight of what was written, on both sides of the scale of balance and basic fact. Then simply observe where the scale-arrow ends up. When one side hangs heavy and never swings-back, then one gets really suspicious --and seeks out "who the h... wrote the stuff." Yes, that's a quote from tallest guy... ANY investigative reporter, from the first day, learns the same solid, sensible, rational and reasonable approach. Here we were presented by many minutia, clearly to diminish and damage the rapid national consensus noting "huge mandate for Obama", with one or two here never straying from their distorted-scale reading. That makes political/pander decision very simple and rapid, given total national consensus, which we reported. The decision to illuminate p/p when practiced here is our responsibility to readership. This open, honest, democratic dialog channel by S-N is NOT a "free-fire" political-feeling zone but a sharing-learning opportunity for all those who act in good faith here.

Henry Ruark December 14, 2008 7:37 pm (Pacific time)

PS: You seem not to understand, sir, that supposition does not an informed opinion make, but only provides the content for further mental effort by the opinioneer --always aided by the receiver knowing who the opinioneer really is. Yrs may reflect correctly what partial factual information it contains and still be far off the mark of reality when faced with additional insights, from whatever source they may come. Sorry if our dialog has now somehow seemed to upset your equilibrium, but that's the inevitable price some must pay for further learning via experience. So what do you really expect for your nickel ? Free-fire range for more p/p'd"opinion"? Or do you plan simply to "cut-and-paste" from some source, possibly even from "socialist economists" -- as you seem to feel others sometimes do ?? Credibility hangs on knowing source for what lies behind it, as well as openly proven responsibility and on-record accountability.

PS December 14, 2008 11:10 am (Pacific time)

HR could you please point out to me where my below post was factually incorrect? Possibly you are in receipt of some important evidence that gives potential investigative weight to this conspiracy? If you need direction on where you can send that evidence for professional review I will be able to assist you in that matter HR. Frankly I would love to see even a shred of evidence so a comprehensive investigation with congressional oversight could proceed so we could provide proof positive one way or another. Do you think congress would do anything HR? How about them sitting or possibly ignoring(?) an impeachment proceeding on Bush? You know why? Possibly you have a theory? Maybe they have just gotten so overloaded that they are staying away from all controversial matters. Of course that doesn't say much about their leadership. Thank you. Note: HR I used "informed" because that is what I became by observing and reading about the terrorist events on 9/11/01 by different professionals. I have not read or heard about "professionals" (experts in appropriate fields) that have provided another perspective. Have you? As you know belly-button feelings mean as much as those opinions from distractors of observable facts.

Henry Ruark December 13, 2008 4:10 pm (Pacific time)

PS: You wrote key words at end: " my opinion." BUT you give no solid reason why it is "informed" except your own interpretation of what sources ostensibly show. Dialog here strengthened when supported by direct-link to something more than personal feeling-interpreted. On record, you've avoided that at all costs on most here. Yr credibility lost long ago for those seeking reliable, responsible, rational dialog, sir. Try selling your stuff with no ID to any responsible daily newspaper, with same legal responsibilities faced here.

Henry Ruark December 13, 2008 4:04 pm (Pacific time)

Dennis: Just now encountering your civil and interesting dialog. Sorry to have missed it, but time here at premium due to recent events. Re yr exchange with Tim, do believe that proves up points re value of ongoing dialog here since obviously all have learned something by mutual participation. Best wishes for your future "intervention" here or in any other channel --that's part of civil dissent highly appreciated by any ethical editor.

PS December 12, 2008 2:02 pm (Pacific time)

Bottom line: What does this Bishop, regardless of his status in the church, bring to the table in regards to a professional assessment of what happened on 9/11/2001? Is he a scientist in any field that could address this so-called conspiracy? And if so, has he done a comprehensive investigation (within their field of expertise) that was peer reviewed as per his methodology at arriving at his conclusion(s)? Otherwise it's nothing more than a leap of faith opinion? Out of 535 elected to congress, why have they not pursued this so-called conspiracy? Opinions are fine, but after over 7 years no one has been able to provide one piece of evidence that this conspiracy has any merit, but there is plenty of evidence that supports what happened, happened as reported. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon was followed by air traffic controllers on radar that was taped. It disappeared from radar at the grid coordinates of the Pentagon. The Solicitor General was talking to his wife (taped) who was on that doomed plane shortly before it crashed. There were eyewitness reports. In regards to different metals that need high temperatures to melt, well how about air friction, e.g. , of a crashing space shuttle that nearly completely vaporized? This jet was loaded with fuel, hit a solid building (that kept the aircraft within it's structure) at 500+MPH. Conspiracies will always exist in some things, but in this 9/11 event there were too many professional witnesses for it to become worthy of being realisticly possible, in my opinion.

Dennis Couch December 11, 2008 12:17 am (Pacific time)

Tim (feel free to call me Dennis), this is according to the Catholic Church "his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority." I am hoping that you are aware that there are degrees of excommunication which depend upon the penalty. I have never heard of an excommunication expressed as a "simply" anything! A Cleric who is excommunicated (major) looses everything except his Baptism. A Baptism cannot be revoked. In all, there exists a multitude of different excommunication from the Catholic Church. Moot point tho because this is what Catholics know and what you will not take the time to research. I am sorry if I lead you to believe that the accused 258 (I believe) Priests were world-wide. This was the number of Priests here locally in the last 20 years. I am glad that Catholics are not judged by those who fail, but by those who prevail. Great Catholics are difficult to locate, since only 25% of the U.S. population is Catholic, hee hee! I do charitable work as a Catholic helping my fellow man, and it is not required they be Catholic. Interesting concept, no? My initial concern that prompted my comment was your gracing Williamson the title of Catholic Bishop. We covered a myriad of topics at your direction, and it made for some revealing insight. Thanks for your time & replies.  

Editor December 10, 2008 11:05 pm (Pacific time)

According to the Catholic Church, excommunication, in the sense of a formal proceeding, is not a penalty at all but simply a formal proclamation of a pre-existing condition in a more or less prominent member of the Catholic Church. When such a person commits acts that in themselves separate him from the communion of the faithful, particularly when by word, deed, or example he "spreads division and confusion among the Faithful", it is necessary for the Church to clarify the situation by means of a formal announcement, which informs the laity that this is not a person to follow, and notifies the clergy that this person, by his own willful acts, has separated himself from the Church and is no longer to receive the sacraments, with the exception of Reconciliation. The decree may also indicate the mode of Reconciliation required for re-entry into the Church, specifying whether the local bishop may administer the process or it is reserved to the Pope. Excommunication is never a merely "vindictive penalty" (designed solely to punish), but is always used as a "medicinal penalty" intended to pressure the person into changing their behaviour or statements, repent and return to full communion.

Dennis Couch December 10, 2008 11:02 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. King, You have answered your own question, congrats! Williamson is not a Catholic Bishop, but an Episcopalian! I believe they are different, no? You have to admit it would have gotten a few chuckles if you had captioned your video Rabbi Williamson! Yes, the sexual exploitation of our youth by Catholic Priests is stomach turning! This is one of the reasons we feel that there is an urgent need for more American priests. A little research should allow you to find the published document showing the 250+ priests accused of molesting our children and their countries of origin. Silly me, you may have already have this document on your desktop!

Tim King:  Sorry Dennis.  According to the records he is Roman Catholic, I have seen no reference to his being Episcopalian.   I do understand that he is excommunicated, but check the last post to see what that really means. 

He is still a Bishop and he is still Roman Catholic, even if he failed to stay in the good graces of this dogmatic organization.

Finally, the world would be a much better place if there were only 250 priests guilty of sex abuse.  Was that on just Rome perhaps?  It is not uncommon for pedophile priests to simply be relocated.  The history of sex abuse in the Catholic Church is appalling.  Having said that, I could never count the number of great Catholic people I know; clergy and otherwise.  I respect most the ones like Bishop Williamson who place the truth in front of convienance. 

Dennis Couch December 10, 2008 10:46 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark, In order to help your search, begin your investigation at Here you will find the printed formalities you demand. What will prove most interesting is whether or not afterwords you feel that Mr. King should "extend an apology for error..."

Tim King: Henry, we could direct this to our religious writer Ken Ramey in California, I think he would have an interesting time going over it.  Dennis, I just published Wikipedia's version of his excommunication, but if  I'm not mistaken, he is still a Catholic Bishop.  I interviewed a married priest over the horrible record of sexual abuse cases that were covered up by the Portland Archdiocese and learned that any Catholic Priest is always a priest, even if he is excommunicated.  Is this different?  It doesn't matter anyway, and I won't be issuing any apologies, because it was a simple report about what this man is doing.  His life has been spent in dedication to the church and I assume he ran awry of their politics; I suspect little else is involved.  If I were you Dennis, and you are a dedicated Catholic, then I would direct my attention to trying to bring justice to all of those Catholic sex abuse victims.  Look up the group SNAP, the The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.  I think that would be a more worthy use of time.  

Dennis Couch December 10, 2008 10:24 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark, with all due respect, it is not I that bears the responsibility to the public for researching the validity of your newsprint, is it? I would check with the lad that penned in the caption over the video, and inquire when he came up with his info. I hardly consider myself worthy of being on your payroll, but that does not alleviate you and yours from publishing the truth of this matter.

Tim King: This is from Wikipedia: "Richard Nelson Williamson, SSPX (born 8 March 1940) is a bishop of the Society of St. Pius X. He was declared excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church because of his unauthorized consecration by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, deemed by the Holy See to be "unlawful" and "a schismatic act"

I think it is amazing that a person could rise to Bishop if he was the recipient of an  unauthorized consecration, but I don't claim to be any expert in Catholic matters.  Most of my work on this subject revolves around the rampant sexual abuse acts of priests.  In fact, I work closely with SNAP from time to time and last year I did an hour-long interview with a priest and a sexual abuse survivor.  They are easy to find but I can post a link if anyone is interested.  The fact that this Bishop has the courage to talk about such an unpoular matter is significant.  

Henry Ruark December 10, 2008 7:41 pm (Pacific time)

D.C.: You forgot to mention any proof or documentation re excommunication, too. SO where's your "see with own eyes"link if you choose to be critical and seek to state more facts ? IF you have it, show it. If not, you owe Tim an apology for error and implication plain here and in previous.

Paul December 10, 2008 11:43 am (Pacific time)

anybody who is speaking up on this issue deserves a credit.

Robert Andersen December 10, 2008 10:33 am (Pacific time)

There are still people out there who still believe Oswald killed JFK regardless of all the proof it was a conspiracy.

STEVE December 10, 2008 7:42 am (Pacific time)

Bishop Fruitloop.

Dennis Couch December 9, 2008 10:59 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. King, I forgot to mention that it is only fair that you should point out that Williamson is not a Catholic Priest and was excommunicated from the church.

Tim King: Dennis, I did not find any reference to his being excommunicated.  

Robert December 9, 2008 9:36 pm (Pacific time)

You guys are fools to think it didn't happen the way it was reported.

Dennis Couch December 9, 2008 9:32 pm (Pacific time)

My King, I am assuming that you are not a Catholic. Williamson has enjoyed one of the shortest reigns as a Catholic Bishop on record, no? I would guess that he does not believe in our Govm'ts official version of what occurred on 911 because he is on record as a non Holocaust believer as well. Headlines are everything tho in this business, I mean, who would question headlines! Don't feel pressed to publish this, it isn't necessary. Those who learned to always question already know the truth of this article, and those who believe in its value won't be swayed regardless. Keep writing.

Tim King: Dennis, you have to admit that I tried to be fair on this and including the links to people who completely disagree with the POV of the story are one example of that.  I looked around and saw that this man who goes against the grain of this conservative religious organization is criticized, but only from the right side of the aisle.  I absolutely did not see anything about him being a 'Holocaust denier" and I am getting really tired of that line.  Ignorant people say that about the President of Iran as his government produces a 22-part series on the Holocaust.  I think many are using this line because it sounds so bad and I believe that anyone who abuses the term "Holocaust denier" is part of the problem, not the solution.  WWII is recent history.  We have a doctor on our staff who fought in Patton's Army.  Anyone who actually tries to deny recent history is only a joke; I don't believe that describes the Bishop at all.  No, I am not Catholic.  

Vic December 9, 2008 5:21 pm (Pacific time)

Right on, Tim ! God Bless YOU for having the courage to even bring this up! Truth has a way of getting out....

adam syed December 9, 2008 2:19 pm (Pacific time)

God bless Bishop Williamson for having the courage to speak the truth.

[Return to Top]
©2022 All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

Articles for December 8, 2008 | Articles for December 9, 2008 | Articles for December 10, 2008

Use PayPal to

Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.