A Voice in the

site navigation

free newsletter

" VW: 9/11, Conspiracies & Politics "

This file is included for reference and informational purposes only, as companion to any places where reference to "9/11" or "conspiracies" might be made in passing, in connection with other contexts; a place where a link can bring the reader to understand VW's position; so that this author will not be viewed as "another one of those crackpots" or "conservative whackos"...out-of-context. And so that space does not need to be taken up each time to re-explain the details.

There are many conspiracy theories on virtually every topic that is up for debate. This ministry tries to stay away politics. God's burden is to proclaim: "Thus says the Lord Jehovah" (Ezk2:4)

However, since we do live in a political world, we cannot hide our heads in the sand like ostriches, pretending that certain events are not happening, when in fact, they are. Prophetically, global events lead eventually to Armageddon, and ultimately to the rule of Jesus Christ in peace and justice. When Jesus said, "when you see these things happening" (Mk13:29), many of "these things" are -political- in nature. Thus, they also are mentioned around here from time to time.

One notable event in the United States was the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001, and the death of the thousands associated with that. There are many theories circulating on "what REALLY happened" that day. From time to time we make observations of what seem, to this author by now, to be "obvious" truths. But not everybody has the same understanding. And so, rather than explain and describe the specifics each time for the sake of newer readers; that's what this little commentary is for. This is adapted from a July,2007 Q/A mailing to the subscribers on the subject.

In your recent e-mailing you eluded [sic] to a view of 9/11 to help drive home your point about Rome's ploy(s).

    "It's just like 9/11. The media showed the replays of airplanes flying into some buildings, over and over and over, that it mesmerized people into believing that the buildings came down -because- some airplanes flew into them...even though the evidence points to much more seriously sinister plots, at the highest levels, for which the full truth has not yet been revealed or unraveled. Will it ever?

    [vw: As illustration for the topic of that moment (the 'other context'), of Rome's subterfuge regarding -unity- in 1995 with "Ut Unum Sint"; but recently re-stating their true dogma (which was also in "Ut Unum Sint") that Rome is the 'core', and all other religions are "deficient", the corollary was made: :]

    "While Rome was flying the planes of "unity" into the buildings, they also laid the explosive charges of "UNITY IS ACHIEVED when all religions have come to Rome" to "mother church"

When I read this, my immediate thought was, "Oh boy, another crackpot buying into the conspiracy theory". The few folks that I bump across that adhere to this have a smugness about them as though they have unique insight into 9/11. Yet when I ask them for facts and a list of authoritative people that will convince the jury, they come up short.

Stuff about 9/11 has been said in the past, before you were a subscriber....and in things like weekly Q/As I make a certain assumption that 'most' of the people are keeping track of things, so they don't need to be continuously repeated. People who have been subscribers for any amount of time 'know' where I stand on a lot of things, so it is not necessary to -beat- those "dead horses".

Anybody with reason and open eyes and common sense -knows- that the WTC did not collapse from airplanes. There is nothing "conspiratorial" about that. The conspiracy is in trying to figure out "who done it"; and what -their- "conspiracy" was in the doing of it.


  • The 2 towers were hit from different angles, and at different heights...and yet they -both- came down (neatly) in a small "footprint" in professionally executed "demolition" style.

  • At the time, I was watching NBC, and somebody let slip that there were witnesses of "explosions". But then (obvious to anybody watching) the anchor was given a message, as they were 'leaning' off-camera, and the word "explosions" suddenly got dropped from their rhetoric, with no explanation. If a person didn't happen to be watching at that precise moment, one would not have been any the wiser, because they never replayed that "off-camera-lean".

  • Testimony of professionals (firefighters, police, etc) after the event, who had -heard- the explosions, and recognized the sound as being the same kind associated with 'demolition' of buildings.

  • Those with scientific understanding have explained how a 'red' fire burning with lots of "black" smoke is a 'cool' fire, because it is not burning efficiently...a lot of the fuel's BTU energy content is being wasted as not enough oxygen gets to it (even though all the black smoke -looks- impressive! which was the whole point...the visual effect 'diversion' from the reality...hiding in plain sight due to the diversion)...not something that will melt support structure. And jet fuel, being of a higher octane, also burns cooler. I'm guessing most backyard BBQs burn hotter?...and they never collapse. When metal shops wish to bend or cut metal, they crank up the oxygen to their torches to where the flame is blue or white, and there is no smoke. The readily available treatises (at the time) were complete with actual temperatures produced by various kinds of fire from various fuel/oxygen combinations, compared to the temperatures required to soften the metal. And what burned at the WTC was nothing anywhere -near- hot enough to collapse the structures. (Enough time has elapsed, I no longer have those files I read back then. I'm not an attorney with an axe to grind, to have kept all that stuff. I read enough to convince me, and then discarded it. So, this is not something I'm making up. If a person goes to NewsWithViews and look up the writings of Devvy Kidd, she has studied 9/11 at great length, and has documentation that she links to)

  • Testimony of those who escaped during the time between the airplane hits, and the collapses, reported seeing fires burning inside....but the fact that the heat did not prevent them from continuing their escape indicates that the fires were not hot enough to melt support structures

  • Testimony of those inside, who escaped....reported the buildings swaying when the planes hit, but then coming to rest, and remaining at rest.....as the buildings were designed to do.

  • The architect who designed the buildings testified that they were designed to withstand such a crash

  • Documentary video, I don't now remember its name or author, showing how the debris at the Pentagon was more consistent with a military, unmanned, remote-controlled aircraft....not commercial jet. There was no "luggage" strewn about, like would be the case if there had been passengers, etc.etc.

  • And it goes on and on. There was another (3rd) building in the vicinity that was brought down the same way the WTC towers were, even though it was not hit by the airplanes. etc.etc. All these things are documented and scientifically known facts. And some rumors that reported missile-like projectiles coming from the two planes, heading into the towers just ahead of the planes in 'bunker-buster' fashion. This latter item I don't know its veracity, but if true, would certainly 'fit' the similar Pentagon scenario of 'military' involvement.
However, the "reader" was not satisfied with this -brief- laundry list. But like I stated to him; juries have have sentenced people to prison on far less evidence than there is for 9/11. My primary purpose is to preach Christ... not litigate the 9/11 case.

The only question is.... Who? Who commanded it? Who orchestrated it? Why was NORAD "down" (another documented fact) during those critical moments?

And it is all this that makes "Iraq" so frustrating and squirrelly. I support our troops 100%, and think it is shameful how many of the wounded are not being cared for adequately when they end up with permanent disabilities. In a country like the US, with the resources we have, there is no excuse for such shameful treatment of our people who put their lives on the line. And some are being required to -pay- for some of their own care??? DISGRACEFUL!!! While I agree that, at this point, to cut-n-run would spell defeat and an increase in Islamic attacks, and Iraq would be in way worse shape than it was under Saddam... what was the -true- premise that took us into Iraq in the first place? When they -agree- with the media that there were "no WMD", I don't understand that... because there is also ample evidence that there was...and that Saddam busily shuffled it all to Syria.

You see....there's a LOT MORE GOING ON that we do not have the inside information to. We can smell the rotten eggs, but it's tough to know who's -really- throwing them.

Bush is not the real ruler of the US....he is merely the puppet. And even though you hear Hillary condemning Bush for his Iraq policies...the Bushes and Clintons are the best of friends. (Anybody with a scant bit of memory recalls how many military excursions Clinton ordered during his tenure, and nobody was condemning him. You know...Bosnia, etc.etc.) There is an awful lot of play-acting going on....the puppets before those in the background who -really- run things. And that's what Scripture speaks to....and where antichrist will emerge.

But all these things have been reviewed to the subscriber base in the past....but in VW's purpose of "preaching Christ"... not Caesar....I don't spend time on these details and resulting speculations everytime the topic is brushed.

But the fact that airplanes did not bring down the WTC is not 'mystery' or 'conspiracy'. Anybody who knows the least little bit about gravity and the way things behave when forces are placed against them....if they 'think' just a miniscule bit...can figure this one out. It's not "conspiracy" or "politics"; it's COMMON SENSE. And that was the bit I used in the recent Q/A. But did not go into all the politics of everything else.

VW is not about politics. But we sometimes use -obvious- things from life around us to illustrate spiritual matters....just as Jesus or Paul did. If I use an example from 9/11 like I did, I cannot help it that most people are still believing the media hyped lies.

Just like... if I mention the "pre-trib rapture" in passing, within some other context; I don't necessarily spend time re-defining pre-trib. A lot of people still believe the various lies: post-trib, no-rapture, pan-trib (everything will "pan" out in the end). I cannot help that they still believe their various lies. I go ahead and speak of the Scriptural pre-trib Rapture, as Truth....and continue on. I don't worry that I'm going to "turn off" the post-tribbers, so they won't hear what else there is to say. If they are turned off, they are "off". That is not my responsibility. -THEY- answer to God for their own blindness. I continue on with, "Thus says the Lord"

Another example: When it is discovered that the name "James" does not exist in the Scriptures, but that the true name is "Jacob", why would I speak sideways out the side of my mouth and use "James"? If it's "Jacob", let's -say- "Jacob". I really don't understand these people... I've mentioned Chuck Missler in the past... a meeting of his I attended some years ago... he asked the congregation to "turn to James". As we are all doing so, he goes into this brief pontification that "it is not really 'James', but in the Greek it is 'Yakobos'...'Jacob'" ...and then continues on referring to "James" Why???? If he -KNOWS- the truth, why does he continue spouting error? Like that item in last week's Q/A about that pastor and the KJV use of the word "the", where "the" doesn't exist in the texts...only in the KJV.

If I mistakenly thought of someone's name as being "Mike", but was then corrected and told that his name was actually "Joe"...-WHY- would I continue referring to "Mike"? (Oh...but...my Bible says... No! You are reading a 'translation'. And in that spot the translation is in error.)

Earlier writings at the website you will find "James". But since learning that it is "Jacob", I have never since uttered (written) "James". (as though it were a -real- Biblical name)

And by the same token...since I have come to understand that 'airplanes' did not collapse the WTC...when referring to "9/11", why should I continue to perpetuate the lie? If I did, I would be like all the other ostriches with their heads in the sand.

But... NO... you've never heard me promulgate, as fact, the conspiracy theories of 'who' orchestrated it, nor the precise 'locations' and 'types' of explosive devices. Nor have you heard me pontificate exactly "why" it was done. Some do this. Even some ministries. Do we even know that it was "Al Qaeda"? How sure are we that Osama bin Laden was the -real- person behind it? (His was the first name we heard right after it happened. A point of Logic: If they were allegedly 'surprised' by the airplanes, how did they come up with the name "Bin Laden" so quickly? Almost -immediately-?) How sure are we that the US has any intention of even trying to capture him? Is he part of the ruse? If we keep in mind that Bush is not America's real leader, nor was Tony Blair Britain's real leader for the years he was in office... that there are those behind closed doors who are actually orchestrating things, and that they, in turn, are under the leadership of satan....this world is like one big chess board, and the 'pieces' are being moved here and there according to the strategy. And who, of us, knows those details?

And just to be clear: You have never heard me say that "Bush -did- it". There are conspiracy nuts out there who realize the truth that airplanes did not topple the WTC, and they also blame Bush. Bush 'wanted' to go to war with Iraq even before taking office, and so 9/11 was his path to it. Quite frankly, I doubt that he is smart enough to pull off such a thing; nor is he a good enough actor to -play- the "shocked and enraged" leader when it did happen. What did he know, and when did he know it? I don't know; have never speculated and won't publicly.

And all those things are "politics". VW is not about politics, but about proclaiming God's Word. And yet, if a person reads Daniel...what is the latter half of Daniel, if not some indication of those "chess" pieces moving around? Ditto with Revelation. When Jesus Christ comes to bind satan and throw him into the pit, Jesus will be ruling the earth. Is that not "political"?

And yet...while we can see the chess pieces moving around, we do not concern ourselves with it. The disciples asked Jesus if He was "at that time" going to restore the kingdom to Israel (Ac1:6) and He told them, essentially, it is not your business right now to worry about that. Go to Jerusalem, wait for the Holy Spirit, and preach the gospel. (vs4,7-8)

But do we put blinders on and pretend that politics is not progressing? If we do not acknowledge "reality", we are devoid of truth. Jesus said to the disciples (and to those of us, here, who truly know Him) that just as watching a fig tree grow tells the seasons, so too, the prophesied political events would let us know when He was close by, "at the doors" (Mt24:33)

9/11 is but -one- "piece" of the global chess game. If we cannot differentiate a rook from a knight from a pawn, how can we know anything else?

A couple of 7/26/07 headlines from NewsWithViews to illustrate this:

  • Using Terrorists to Establish World Government
  • U.S. Troops now fighting for UN in Iraq?
And -what- got the US into Iraq? 9/11 (speaking of "rotten eggs"!) But this is "politics" for which VW is not called to 'take sides' speculatively. That's "Caesar".
    Jesus said: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesarís, and to God the things that are Godís." (Mk12:17)
This ministry is about God and His Word.

Return to: Commentaries