Wednesday November 25, 2015
Dec-09-2008 13:39TweetFollow @OregonNews
Catholic Bishop Publicly Criticizes Official Story of 9/11 (VIDEO)Tim King Salem-News.com
Bishop Richard Williamson speaks out against the official theory of the events of 9/11.
(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.
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 Salem-News.com 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 Salem-News.com. 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 Salem-News.com)
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.
Here are the words of the Catholic Bishop:
Special thanks to YouTube user akhenaton2012
For the other side of this argument, check:
Articles for December 8, 2008 | Articles for December 9, 2008 | Articles for December 10, 2008