Pelagianism in 9/11
A stream of celebrities have for some time now been questioning the official story of 9/11. The repeated mantra of "truth" activists is "9/11 was inside job!" By this they mean an element within the U.S. government was either responsible for the entire event or at least stood down to allow it to take place. More moderate opinions simply say that the entire truth was never told, and the Bush administration has obstructed the investigation while exploiting the tragedy for the interests of defense manufacturers and oil companies.
To most Americans, the suggestion that the U.S. government willingly murdered the lives of 3,000 innocent citizens is beyond the pale. The very suggestion is unthinkable even by some of the present administration's harshest critics. In other words, Bush and Cheney are evil in their servitude of corporate interests, but they're not that evil!
Yet, nearly a third of the U.S. population now questions the official story. The numbers of skeptics worldwide is incalculable, and the growing support for a 9/11 truth movement seems unabated and likely to increase.
The lesbian Rosie O'Donnell lost her job as host of ABC's "The View" because she repeatedly argued that the 9/11 Commission's findings were full of holes. Charlie Sheen, an outspoken critic of the official story, is supposed to narrate an upcoming re-release of the 9/11 documentary that's been viewed online by well over ten million people: "Loose Change: The Final Cut." This film, financed by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has already seen two versions, and this last one is set to be released this month.
The 9/11 truth seekers also represent a fair amount of the Ron Paul supporters. Congressman Paul has been featured numerous times on the Alex Jones radio program in Austin, Texas. Jones opposed the official story the day it happened, and claims to have predicted a 9/11 type of event in July of 2001. This he allegedly did on one of his weekly cable broadcasts in Austin. It would seem that his claim would be relatively easy to dismiss, since the video clip featured on the previous link shows a cheap video set up for his local broadcast. However, nobody has come forward from the local cable network to deny Jones' claims.
He's not the only one to make such a prediction. In January of 2001, the Democrat political philosopher, Lyndon LaRouche, wrote that the U.S. government would stage acts of terror in order to "shock the nation into submission." He writes:
However, speculations about involvement is putting the cart before the horse. For this reason, more cool-headed theorists insist upon dealing only with the facts surrounding the events of that infamous day rather than rushing into judgment. Even some of the CIA's most notable agents are questioning the official story. The latest is Robert Baer, one of the most featured ex-agents on television today. His character is the creative basis behind the film "Syriana" starring George Clooney, Matt Damon, and William Hurt. Baer claims that the evidence points to U.S. complicity in 9/11, and he asks why there were no political repercussions after the failure of the government to stop the attacks.
This morning, I was prompted by a published interview with former Pro Bowl center and ex-Dallas Cowboy, Mark Stepnoski. Mark was the center for Troy Aikman during the reigning years of the Cowboys in the early 90s, and is one of the best athletes ever to play the position. During my years of growing up in Dallas, Texas I served Mark Stepnoski many times as a waiter in a local Italian restaurant frequented by numerous players. I've also waited on Troy Aikman, Russell Maryland, Hershel Walker, Ed "Too Tall" Jones, and many others. Stepnoski was a serious sort and loved our crab claws.
What does this have to do with 9/11? In the last question of a lengthy interview with the Erie Times, Stepnoski can't help but discuss his personal skepticism surrounding the official story of 9/11. The question asked was simply, "Anything else you want people to know?" Stepnoski responds by saying:
If millions of Americans believe that elements within the U.S. government were directly responsible for the events of 9/11, it's difficult to predict the outcome of social unrest--especially if even more draconian security measures are enforced on the U.S. population. For this reason, it seems wise that the Bush administration would allow a new and independent investigation into 9/11. Without one, there is no conceivable way--outside of brute force--to subside the growing skepticism of U.S. citizens to the official story. Without a new investigation, Bush may be forced to implement similar emergency policies as that initiated by Musharraf in Pakistan this weekend. How else can you quell the obvious outrage of a mass of the U.S. population that believes its government is guilty of murder and fraud?
This unrest is a ticking time-bomb, and dismissing these millions as "whackos" and "nutjobs" is hardly a remedy. Too many sober minds are now questioning the 9/11 Commission, and there is likely many more that will surface as they feel more emboldened to do so. It doesn't take a prophet to see where this is headed. With more war on the horizon, and frustration setting in from rising gas prices, increasing surveillance, illegal immigration, the collapsing housing market, and the devaluation of the dollar, we're looking at all the elements for the "Perfect Storm."
For the Christian, conspiracies are a part of humanism (Ps. 2) and its resistance to the rule of Christ. Should then the American Christian simply react in revolt at the suggestion that U.S. elements are capable of such atrocities? After all, we have no problem believing any other country would commit such criminalities. For me, I'm not surprised. I begin with the doctrine of total depravity, and it's my assumption that total depravity actually means total depravity! I'm not merely a Calvinist when it comes to the sin of humanity, but then Pelagian when it comes to assessing the actions of U.S. officials. Sinners sin. It's unbiblical to say otherwise.
Pelagianism in political judgment blinds us to constructing the truth regarding persons or events. You simply cannot begin an investigation with the presupposition that certain individuals are incapable of criminality. In fact, in most homicides involving a spouse, the usual suspects are the other spouse, since they often have the most to gain. And therein lies the real question: "Who benefits?" Have defense manufacturers suffered as a result of 9/11, or have they reaped record profits? Have oil companies suffered as a result of 9/11, or have they reaped untold billions? Has America's imperial reach expanded or retracted? Are we now in a better position to dominate the Middle East? Why else would we be building the largest embassy in history in Iraq?
These are serious questions that must be answered, and blindness due to a Pelagian view of Americanism is what may be protecting a criminal enterprise. For this reason, we need the full truth surrounding the single event which everyone claims has "changed the world forever." Public animosity will boil as the stonewalling and ridicule continues. A simple investigation would go a long way to easing the tempers.
To most Americans, the suggestion that the U.S. government willingly murdered the lives of 3,000 innocent citizens is beyond the pale. The very suggestion is unthinkable even by some of the present administration's harshest critics. In other words, Bush and Cheney are evil in their servitude of corporate interests, but they're not that evil!
Yet, nearly a third of the U.S. population now questions the official story. The numbers of skeptics worldwide is incalculable, and the growing support for a 9/11 truth movement seems unabated and likely to increase.
The lesbian Rosie O'Donnell lost her job as host of ABC's "The View" because she repeatedly argued that the 9/11 Commission's findings were full of holes. Charlie Sheen, an outspoken critic of the official story, is supposed to narrate an upcoming re-release of the 9/11 documentary that's been viewed online by well over ten million people: "Loose Change: The Final Cut." This film, financed by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has already seen two versions, and this last one is set to be released this month.
The 9/11 truth seekers also represent a fair amount of the Ron Paul supporters. Congressman Paul has been featured numerous times on the Alex Jones radio program in Austin, Texas. Jones opposed the official story the day it happened, and claims to have predicted a 9/11 type of event in July of 2001. This he allegedly did on one of his weekly cable broadcasts in Austin. It would seem that his claim would be relatively easy to dismiss, since the video clip featured on the previous link shows a cheap video set up for his local broadcast. However, nobody has come forward from the local cable network to deny Jones' claims.
He's not the only one to make such a prediction. In January of 2001, the Democrat political philosopher, Lyndon LaRouche, wrote that the U.S. government would stage acts of terror in order to "shock the nation into submission." He writes:
In the Summer of that year, 2001, the recession was fully on. The collapse was on; the political systems were shaken by the collapse. And then, on the famous Sept. 11, someone, with cooperation from inside the highest levels of power in the United States, unleashed an incident which is called the 9/11 incident. That job was done with the complicity of the British Empire. It was done with complicity of elements in Saudi Arabia, as all the evidence would plainly tell you. That was a terrorist act, against the United States, done with complicity of people at a very high level inside the United States, with a coverup organized by people inside, a high level inside the United States.For most within the mainstream, a cover up of this magnitude is near impossible. How could they possibly keep the hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved, sworn to silence? Truth activists argue that most intelligence operations are "compartmentalized" on a "need to know" basis. Some claim that even Bush himself was unaware of the events coming, but is now guilty by acquiescing to the hidden cabal of power.
However, speculations about involvement is putting the cart before the horse. For this reason, more cool-headed theorists insist upon dealing only with the facts surrounding the events of that infamous day rather than rushing into judgment. Even some of the CIA's most notable agents are questioning the official story. The latest is Robert Baer, one of the most featured ex-agents on television today. His character is the creative basis behind the film "Syriana" starring George Clooney, Matt Damon, and William Hurt. Baer claims that the evidence points to U.S. complicity in 9/11, and he asks why there were no political repercussions after the failure of the government to stop the attacks.
This morning, I was prompted by a published interview with former Pro Bowl center and ex-Dallas Cowboy, Mark Stepnoski. Mark was the center for Troy Aikman during the reigning years of the Cowboys in the early 90s, and is one of the best athletes ever to play the position. During my years of growing up in Dallas, Texas I served Mark Stepnoski many times as a waiter in a local Italian restaurant frequented by numerous players. I've also waited on Troy Aikman, Russell Maryland, Hershel Walker, Ed "Too Tall" Jones, and many others. Stepnoski was a serious sort and loved our crab claws.
What does this have to do with 9/11? In the last question of a lengthy interview with the Erie Times, Stepnoski can't help but discuss his personal skepticism surrounding the official story of 9/11. The question asked was simply, "Anything else you want people to know?" Stepnoski responds by saying:
A. Well, you asked. I've got a lot of things I like to do, I read a lot and travel and all that. I don't even know if you want to get into this, since it's a little bit political in tone. But I'm really interested now in the things the 9/11 truth movement is doing. I guess I could spend a lot time talking about that and cover all kinds of policies and statistics, but I don't know how much people want to know.Stepnoski highlights some of the basic anomalies of 9/11, and these questions continue to provide fuel to the already raging inferno of conspiracy theorists. This story is not going away any time soon, and the likelihood of a massive resistance movement growing within the U.S. has never been stronger. This is nothing like the opposition to Vietnam, since Vietnam fit the mold of a standard war, and was not precipitated as quickly based upon an event like 9/11. There was the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but this was nothing in comparison to Pearl Harbor. 9/11 is Pearl Harbor, and then some!
It interests me because I don't think we're being told truth about what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. I'm highly skeptical of government accounts of what really happened. It's one of those things that really won't go away. I've been reading about that event and studying about it a great deal. I've read several books and a lot online pretty much since it happened, just because I'm curious about it and just because of other events in our historical past, like the Kennedy assassination for example.
Before anyone wants to try and pigeonhole me as conspiracy theorist, it's like a lot of things. If you're just willing to scratch beneath the surface and do a little research maybe you can find out some things, maybe more people would be more skeptical about our government's involvement with 9/11.
I used to read a lot of things on one Web site called "From the Wilderness." The site no longer exists. It was run by a guy named Mike Ruppert, who wrote one of the best books on the subject called "Crossing the Rubicon." It came out right after the 9/11 Commission report a few years ago, and I read it right after it came out.
We're being lied to. That's what bothers me the most. There's a lot of evidence in almost any area of the entire event, and you can bring up a lot of inconsistencies and unanswered questions just about the event itself. Two of the three steel-frame buildings that day collapsed due to fire, and that's never happened before, never in history. But that day it happened three times, including one building that didn't get hit by a plane. Building Number 7 didn't get hit by a plane and it went straight down in six and a half seconds. In the vast majority of U.S. cities that would have been the tallest building in the city. It had nothing but a couple of small fires on a couple of floors, but it fell down at free-fall speed in six and a half seconds. There are several engineers and architects who have made the argument that it was a controlled demolition because, again, there's never been a steel building collapse due to fire. So how can it happen three times in one day?
There are many, many other things I could talk about, several inconsistencies we could talk about for a long time. If you read some of the authors like Mike Ruppert and Barrie Zwicker, and look at some Web sites, you can get a fuller account. A whole lot of insider trading occurred beforehand, and that's a huge red flag that there was foreknowledge of the event. There were large financial transactions made ahead of time, a lot of trades made to buy stock in United and American airlines beforehand with the expectation that those stocks were going to go down drastically. A lot of the hijackers from the list released by FBI -- a lot of those guys are alive. Many, many guys on the list are the wrong identity. One guy was a pilot for Saudi Airlines, another guy is living in Lebanon and is suing the U.S. government to clear his name.
I'm compelled because as time goes on there is a greater and greater growing voice among people in areas involved with different aspect of that day. You have pilots speaking about what would be involved with trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon that day in the way that it was portrayed. You have architects and engineers speaking out over the actual explanation that jet fuel could melt steel and cause buildings to collapse. You have former people who worked in the Bush administration or the military who have come forward to express doubt about the official story.
Consider the fact that the Bush administration really fought the formation of the 9/11 Commission the whole way. It fought over who was going to head it and who was going to be on it. Initially Henry Kissinger was supposed to be the chairman, but he stepped aside because of conflict of interest issues. The commission didn't come together until a year and a half after the event. ... And you think about how the government spent $15 million on the commission to investigate 9/11, which sounds like a lot. But then you make the comparison that the government spent $40 million to investigate the Monica Lewinsky affair. I certainly share a lot of those views.
If millions of Americans believe that elements within the U.S. government were directly responsible for the events of 9/11, it's difficult to predict the outcome of social unrest--especially if even more draconian security measures are enforced on the U.S. population. For this reason, it seems wise that the Bush administration would allow a new and independent investigation into 9/11. Without one, there is no conceivable way--outside of brute force--to subside the growing skepticism of U.S. citizens to the official story. Without a new investigation, Bush may be forced to implement similar emergency policies as that initiated by Musharraf in Pakistan this weekend. How else can you quell the obvious outrage of a mass of the U.S. population that believes its government is guilty of murder and fraud?
This unrest is a ticking time-bomb, and dismissing these millions as "whackos" and "nutjobs" is hardly a remedy. Too many sober minds are now questioning the 9/11 Commission, and there is likely many more that will surface as they feel more emboldened to do so. It doesn't take a prophet to see where this is headed. With more war on the horizon, and frustration setting in from rising gas prices, increasing surveillance, illegal immigration, the collapsing housing market, and the devaluation of the dollar, we're looking at all the elements for the "Perfect Storm."
For the Christian, conspiracies are a part of humanism (Ps. 2) and its resistance to the rule of Christ. Should then the American Christian simply react in revolt at the suggestion that U.S. elements are capable of such atrocities? After all, we have no problem believing any other country would commit such criminalities. For me, I'm not surprised. I begin with the doctrine of total depravity, and it's my assumption that total depravity actually means total depravity! I'm not merely a Calvinist when it comes to the sin of humanity, but then Pelagian when it comes to assessing the actions of U.S. officials. Sinners sin. It's unbiblical to say otherwise.
Pelagianism in political judgment blinds us to constructing the truth regarding persons or events. You simply cannot begin an investigation with the presupposition that certain individuals are incapable of criminality. In fact, in most homicides involving a spouse, the usual suspects are the other spouse, since they often have the most to gain. And therein lies the real question: "Who benefits?" Have defense manufacturers suffered as a result of 9/11, or have they reaped record profits? Have oil companies suffered as a result of 9/11, or have they reaped untold billions? Has America's imperial reach expanded or retracted? Are we now in a better position to dominate the Middle East? Why else would we be building the largest embassy in history in Iraq?
These are serious questions that must be answered, and blindness due to a Pelagian view of Americanism is what may be protecting a criminal enterprise. For this reason, we need the full truth surrounding the single event which everyone claims has "changed the world forever." Public animosity will boil as the stonewalling and ridicule continues. A simple investigation would go a long way to easing the tempers.
