Hear, O my people, and I will testify to thee: O Israel, if thou wilt hearken to me, there shall be no new god in thee: neither shalt thou adore a strange god.
For I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
But my people heard not my voice: and Israel hearkened not to me.
So I let them go according to the desires of their heart: they shall walk in their own inventions.
If my people had heard me: if Israel had walked in my ways:
I should soon have humbled their enemies, and laid my hand on them that troubled them.—Psalm 80
Some claim that IXXI was an “inside-job,” a “false-flag” operation in which the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by high-tech explosives, not by planes, and orchestrated by governing elites, not Muslims. Is such a claim debatable? Should one even consider it a possibility?
There are certain convictions that a Christian should never question or doubt. God is love and evil never triumphs, for example. No matter how much hatred and evil we encounter and experience in the world, we are never justified in seriously doubting this truth. By divine Faith, we are obliged to believe that every act of hatred and evil will somehow result, by God’s miraculous grace, in more love and good in the world than if these acts had never occurred. God is love, and all that happens, all that happens, are only the various expressions of His love for us. Of course, God does not will our hateful sins, but He transforms them and their effects into good. We might have a thousand difficulties reconciling our subjective experience with this rather incredible truth, but these can never justify one single doubt.
The set of unquestionable truths includes not only supernatural ones but also self-evident and natural truths, as well as those truths directly derived from them, the truths of the natural law, and the truths of man’s universal and particular experience of the world and himself. That things are, and I can know them; that truth exists, and I can discover it; that I have an immortal soul, and that it will be judged; that one must do good and avoid evil; that something cannot be and not be at the same time in the same respect; that nothing in this created world can satisfy me; that the United States of America was founded in 1787; that the earth is round.
Then there are those truths that are intrinsically debatable. Convictions about these matters should be held rather loosely, even when we are convinced of their truth, and they should be perpetually questioned, not because these are necessarily bad or false convictions, but because these are, unlike the self-evident or common sense truths and facts of nature, or the revealed supernatural truths of supernature, inherently debatable. We could be wrong about them. These are the convictions we have regarding matters of human history, personal actions, and interpretation of particular experiences, such as the precise causes of historical events, the details of scientific theory, judgments of character, and deliberations of prudence. We may indeed have the right opinion on one or more of this sort of issue, but it must be seen as just that—an opinion, however well grounded. There are simply no non-debatable, unassailable reasons to hold mere opinions to be non-negotiable and indisputably true, unless of course, they are transformed from opinions into knowledge (for the best analysis ever written on how this may occur, read Plato’s Republic). But some opinions can not be so transformed. But until then, there is no unimpeachable authority, including the authority of the opinions themselves, that obliges us to hold any of these opinion-level convictions without some level of epistemological doubt. On the contrary, it would be an act of disobedience and impiety to truth not to place these kinds of convictions under critical scrutiny and subjective doubt.
Unfortunately, it is just these types of convictions about which absolute certainty cannot be possessed, or at least with much more difficulty than one presumes, that are often held with the most intransigence and naïve fidelity by many Americans. So, is the mainstream media and government narrative about IXXI one of these opinions, or is it a non-debatable fact?
How do you react to the idea that IXXI may not be what you think it is, that it might indeed be an “inside job?” Is it with immediate disdain and disbelief at the mere possibility of a government cover up of this matter? If so, why? Think about your reaction. Is it logical? Is it coherent with your other beliefs? Is a government that protects and even endorses (some elements of it do) the murder of unborn babies and covers it up with propaganda capable of lying about 3000 murders? Is it absolutely unthinkable that powerful elements in our government would kill their own people if it meant securing and preserving their power?
What is the best explanation for all three (yes three, not two) towers collapsing into their footprints at what looks like virtually freefall speeds? Isn’t a controlled demolition a plausible explanation? It would have taken weeks or even months to plan, but is that outside the realm of possibility? If you watch the videos with an open mind, the buildings appear to turn to dust in mid air, and there are other anomalies that the official narrative does not and cannot explain. See this:
And this:
Moreover, a number of the hijackers, it seems from credible reports, were shown to be alive, as they made their aliveness public. World Trade Building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it appears to have collapsed at free-fall speed into its own footprint shortly after Larry Silverstein, its owner, who received billions of dollars in insurance money because of its collapse, gave the order to “pull-it,” clearly meaning demolition (here you can hear him say it clearly):
Is there no historical evidence that the U.S. government (or at least, criminal elements of it) is capable of massive lying, treachery, and murder? There is a declassified document available online called “Operation Northwoods” in which the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlined a plan in the 1960s to murder Americans and blame it on an enemy, Cuba, in order to provoke the public’s enthusiasm for war. President Kennedy, in virtue of his Catholic conscience, however ill-formed it might have been, rightfully rejected this plan. See http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1.
Is it within the realm of rational possibility that IXXI was a “false-flag terrorism” event? If not, then how did this peer reviewed academic article ever get published?
Hughes:
Despite the gigantic volume of academic literature on 9/11, “almost all such studies assume the correctness of the core US claim of self-defence and then proceed to nibble on issues lying around its perimeter” (Benjamin, 2017, pp. 374–375). Thus, debates revolve around the appropriate relationship between civil liberties and security, whether or not to treat 9/11 as an act of war or a crime, the ethics of torture and drone warfare (implicitly assuming the War on Terror itself to be just), and so on. Particularly in the International Relations (IR) literature, including the security studies and terrorism literature, there is little to no suggestion that 9/11 may have been a false flag operation2 used to provide the pretext for illegal wars of aggression and domestic repression.
Prima facie, this seems odd given the long and well-documented history of false flag terrorism. In 1931, for example, Japan sabotaged a railway line that it operated in the Chinese province of Manchuria, blamed the incident on Chinese nationalists, and launched a full-scale invasion, occupy- ing Manchuria and installing a puppet regime there (Felton, 2009, pp. 22–23). In 1933, the Reichstag fire, caused by the Nazis, was blamed on communists and used as the pretext for a witch hunt of political opponents (Hett, 2014). Operation Himmler in 1939 involved a series of false flag events, the most famous being the Gleiwitz incident, the day after which Germany invaded Poland (Mad- dox, 2015, pp. 86–87). In 1967, Israel bombed and strafed the United States ship (USS) Liberty and sought to blame the incident on Egypt in order to bring the United States into the Six-Day War (Mellen, 2018). The Apartheid regime in South Africa carried out stealth attacks against government officials and installations and blamed them on the African National Congress in an attempt to discredit the anti-Apartheid movement (Benjamin, 2017, p. 377). The Algerian government is thought to have covertly murdered civilians and blamed the murders on Islamic parties during the civil war of the 1990s (Benjamin, 2017, p. 378).
Is the United States above such behavior? Hardly. The sinking of the USS Maine, widely suspected of being a false flag, provided the pretext for the Spanish–American War of 1898 and the conquest of various Pacific islands (Anderson, 2016, pp. v–vi). Operation Northwoods, approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, contained proposals for all manner of false flag attacks to be blamed on Fidel Castro and used as the pretext for invading Cuba (Scott, 2015, pp. 94, 98). These included sinking a U.S. Navy ship in Guanta ́namo Bay, sinking boats carrying Cuban refugees, staging terrorist attacks in Miami and Washington, DC, and making it appear as though Cuba had blown up a U.S. passenger plane by replacing the plane with a drone in mid-flight and secretly disembarking the passengers.3 The Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 was cynically invoked by President Johnson as the reason to launch air strikes and escalate the war against North Vietnam: it is known never to have occurred (Moise, 1996). In 1967, when Israel tried to sink the USS Liberty, President Johnson called back rescue ships and planes, indicating complicity in the attack (Mellen, 2018). Operation Gladio, orchestrated by the U.S. government via NATO, involved using far right and neo-Nazi groups to stage political assassinations and terrorist attacks against civilians in West- ern Europe and blame them on left-wing organizations (Ganser, 2005).
“Putting all these pieces together,” Benjamin (2017, p. 385) notes, “what emerges is a disquieting mosaic showing the very real possibility of a mass-casualty false-flag attack being executed to justify international war.” Prima facie, it is not inconceivable that certain elements of the U.S. government, possibly with links to other transnational actors, could have staged 9/11 in order to provide the pretext for the War on Terror. At the very least, this possibility should not be dismissed out of hand.
If it could be shown that 9/11 was a false flag, the implications would be of revolutionary significance. It would mean that the U.S. government, or at least a criminal cabal within it, know- ingly committed mass murder against its own population and lied to the world about it in order to launch imperialist wars and crack down on domestic dissent. The U.S. government would then appear as a tyranny, and according to the Declaration of Independence, the American people would have the right to overthrow it.
Consider again the fact that a government that allows and even funds the mass murder of its most innocent and helpless victims, unborn babies, for the sake of ideological consistency, mammon, and comfort, is possibly capable of planning and executing the murder of a few thousand of its citizens for similar, self-serving motives. Granted, the idea that our own government might have either murdered its own citizens or deliberately permitted them to be murdered by others and covered it up so effectively is tremendously difficult to fathom—but is it not possible? Is there any indisputable reason to consider our government, or at least a criminal cabal inside of it, incapable of deliberately permitting or committing a great act of evil? After the 2020 plandemic, how can one think there is?
The attack that occurred on September 11, 2001 was an act of enormous evil. Therefore, if the government of the American regime, or at least, criminal, traitorous elements embedded in the U.S. government, are capable of enormous evil, then they may have deliberately permitted or committed the IXXI attacks. Is this a true statement? One cannot deny the conclusion of this syllogism without denying either the major or the minor premise. The minor premise seems undeniable, so that leaves only a denial of the major premise as the reason for not accepting the conclusion. For those who can’t or won’t recognize that the American regime may not be what its popular spokesmen claim it to be, it is impossible to recognize that IXXI may not be what its popular spokesmen have claimed it to be, namely, an attack on America by Islamic terrorists who hate us because of our goodness and freedom. However, for those who can recognize the intrinsic debatableness of the major premise, it is impossible not to admit the intrinsic debatableness of the conviction that IXXI may have been an “inside job” or a “false-flag operation.” In other words, it makes no rational sense to deny this possibility a priori, and no amount of propaganda and political and cultural pressure can change this fact. My main point is that there is no a priori rational reason for Christians to refuse to consider the possibility that IXXI was orchestrated and executed by criminal elements embedded in the United States government and intelligence network, and possibly other government and intelligence networks that stood to gain from the attacks.
Apart from the fact that if IXXI were indeed an inside job, it would change drastically how one perceives the present political and cultural landscape—it would explain, for one, how and why we were lied to in the Scamdemic and the Ukrainsane—I think that if Christians cannot even accept just the possibility that IXXI was either a self-inflicted wound or at least one not caused by a group of terrorist Muslims but another group of highly powerful and hidden terrorists, they are at risk of losing their Faith. As I have shown, the only reason one would not consider it a possibility that IXXI was an inside job is because one does not believe elements working within the American government capable of that kind of grave, deliberate evil. And the only reason not to consider it possible that the American government could deliberately permit or commit grave evil is the belief that the American regime is an institution intrinsically, essentially, infallibly, and constitutively good—it may make mistakes sometimes, but it could never do such absolute evil. It could never become that corrupt.
But only the Catholic Church deserves these attributes. Therefore, if one refuses to consider it even a possibility that IXXI was an inside job, he, at least implicitly, denies the identity of the Roman Catholic Church as the only infallible and indefectible force for good in the world. The Roman Catholic Church—in its divine nature, of course, and not in and by its eminently peccable human members—is the only institution incapable of doing any evil, let alone grave evil. However good its principles and Founding Fathers, America can not claim such a divine nature. Not to consider it possible that one’s government could do the unspeakable and murder its own citizens is implicitly to divinize one’s country, and insofar as one identifies himself with his country, it is to divinize oneself. “I preach Christ crucified,” St. Paul said. And he meant Christ crucified with no possible competitor. Catholics must be integrally Pauline in this respect.
This issue relates most importantly to the historical and spiritual status of the crucifixion of the God-man. The crucifixion is the center of historical and spiritual gravity, and it alone must be recognized as the greatest act of evil ever committed by men, as well as the only and definitive revelation of divine victimhood. Either we recognize that Jesus is the historical and eternal victim of unrighteous violence, the greatest victim there ever was and can be, or some other person or group is bound to take His place in the collective mind. Regardless of our sympathy with the historical and present-day suffering of peoples, we must be absolutely opposed to the idolatry of nationalist divinization and the cult of scapegoating victimhood. This is the real danger of refusing to question what is eminently questionable, especially when it involves the belief in narratives that compete with the Gospel by serving as counterfeit faiths.
My opinion is--and it is merely my opinion: Our whole government is based on human sacrifice achieved via a commitment to waging endless foreign wars for profit and, on the domestic front, the industrialized murder of its unborn at a rate of about 3,000 dispatched a day. Our government is committed to carrying out these atrocities because they are massively remunerative and because they provide them with a temporary demonic protection from divine justice.
So, I take it as quite plausible that this same government carried out--and continues to promote the 9/11 psy-op. By psy-op I don't mean to suggest that it never happened or to in any way minimize the horror of it--just that our government still projects their complicity for it onto Moslem terrorists. 9/11 was our government doing the American version of Nazi Germany's Reichstag fire.
Like the magic bullet, 9/11 is 100% bullshit.