By Thaddeus Kozinski
Scamdemic Resistance
September 18, 2024
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. The Awe of God Best Price: $11.01 (as of 08:32 UTC - Details)
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.