Remember, Remember, the 11th of September!

On my way to church but I’ve decided to break a rule and blog something.

As you know, today is the fifteenth anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers in New York City. Now in my fifties, I was old enough to remember exactly where I was and what I was doing. I’d dropped off the kids to school and came back to whip up a quick breakfast for myself before I went to work.

Bored, I turned on the TV, it was ABC and Peter Jennings who had told us that a plane had crashed into one of the two towers. It looked like an accident. And then five minutes into my turning on the TV, I saw another plane hit the second tower.

It was surreal.

Let us pray for the souls of our countrymen who died that day. And let us be a terror to those who perpetrated this atrocity as well as those who continue to enable it.

Comments

  1. What should amaze us all is how much ground Islam has gained since 2001. Discounting for a moment that Syria appears to be remaining in Shiite hands and Iraq has transferred to Shiite hands (Shiites are a special case, people with whom we [the Orthodox] can do business), Islam is still strong – stronger arguably – in its homelands and continues to gain demographic ground in Europe through migration and the fertility of migrants.

    When/if the history is written of this period, the stark elephant in the room will be that Western European man (the “post-Christian” whites of Western Europe and North America) could be so suicidal and blind as to allow what is happening to transpire. It’s not a particularly racist observation if you consider the big picture. I’m not lamenting equality of opportunity for African Americans, Latin immigrants (whatever the means of migration, legal or illegal), or Muslim migrants in Western Europe. And I realize the two situations are very different in a way. Reverse colonization by people who openly embrace a religious ideology that detests Western “civilization” is a bit different from Latin Americans trying to find a better life or African Americans who are the descendants of slaves and have been fed a steady diet of (sometimes violent) dissatisfaction.

    But in both instances, post-Christian white Western Europeans are literally giving over the demographic keys to their civilization to those of another tribe who did not build it or, to the extent that they did, did so mostly as low level laborers. One need not be a racist to observe that this is strangely unnatural – more likely the product of a pathological political ideology than any virtue one can identify.

    Americans (of European descent) and Western Europeans should really soberly contemplate the fate of Afrikaaners in South Africa and Christians in the Middle East. Are you sure that the people who seem to have been liberated through your value system share those values to the extent necessary to ensure your own security?

    They seem to be going out of their way to tell you in every way they can that they reject your values.

    When people openly say they are coming for you, you’d better believe them.

    You see, I know that European and American elites are relatively racist in a way. And, honestly, I’m not.

    But I can read a map.

    People tend to group based on factors like race, ethnicity, religion and language. And people are happier when they feel secure in their “own habitat”. It’s sort of the Russian idea of a montage rather than a melting pot. These people live here, these others here, and so on. They intermingle and what not but they each have their homelands.

    Best we can do in a fallen world.

    So, having several ethnic strains in my dna, I choose to identify with the most sober one given the situation – the Rus’.

    I don’t want any part of the coming conflagration. Western elites, race hustlers and Sunni Muslim leaders have brought it on themselves. Nor do I wish the Rus’ or the rest of the Orthodox to become entangled in it – at least not until it is unavoidable.

    Just to put a fine point to it: “The West” on the one hand, and the Latin, African and African-American and Sunni worlds on the other, have a tension that they seem to be sorting out. Looks like it will get ugly. So be it.

    Russia and China, Eurasia (so to speak), have no real dog in the fight other than the fact that we all currently operate through the dollar, but change is afoot on that front too.

    The West may want to pick a fight with Russia and/or China in order to extend and secure its empire. But the West is foolish. That would not be in its best interest or the best interests of Russia or China.

    Now, the West, of course, can use all the help it can get against the Ummah/Borg. But it’s burning the candle at both ends.

    Someone needs to wake up.

    • Mark E. Fisus says

      keys to their civilization to those of another tribe

      That’s just another way of saying you don’t like another race. Maybe in the case of Europe it really does just come down to tribal warfare.

      However, Americans are held to a higher standard. First country founded not on a tribe, but on a value system which elevates the individual above the collective. It can be done to excess but we cannot deny that the world is mostly better off due to the example, though imperfect, set by America of moving away from the fallen instinct of tribal strife.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Not exactly fair Mark.

        One thing about nationalists is that we don’t hate other nations (or tribes or races). That’s why I told my son Denny that there was no way in hell we were going to eat at Burger King, McDonald’s or KFC when we were in Russia. I for one, truly believe in diversity (i.e. ethnic, tribal and racial differences.) And I treasure them. Fr Moses Berry said it best: “we are all flowers in God’s garden.” Nothing would be more boring if all gardens were full of nothing but roses.

        We of the nationalist bent recognize that there are differences. (As do Darwinists by the way.) And that these differences cause different outcomes. Of course geography and climatology play a part in these different outcomes but having said that –and taking it into account–what is valid for an ethnicity/society that arose in the desert and continues to be guided by the sensibility of the desert doesn’t mean that it can be replicated with success (and no violence) in another topography.

        • Mark E. Fisus says

          The United States comprises a wide range of topographies and climates, but no one considers inhabitants of these different places to be of different tribes. It would also be contradictory within your worldview to lump together California surfer dudes and Japanese coastal fisherman at the same latitude as part of the same tribe. If you want to defend nationalism, you’re gonna have to do better than that.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Go back and re-read the personal letters of some of the Founding Fathers. Including Justice John Marshall. None of these men viewed America as anything but a continent reserved for Englishmen (or Britons). I’ve already noted what Franklin thought about the Germans.

      • “However, Americans are held to a higher standard. First country founded not on a tribe, but on a value system which elevates the individual above the collective.”

        Ah, American exceptionalism. The United States was not founded on a value system that elevates the individual above the collective. It was founded by wealthy landed gentry who did not want to pay taxes to the crown when their interests were not represented in parliament. Let’s try to be honest for a moment.

        It was engineered to be governed by this same wealthy landed gentry without the input of the unpropertied, females and non-whites. It was never dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal”. Not for a second. That, is a lie. One of our early ones.

        It is a bit more accurate to state that it was founded with an idealism about all white men being equal under the law. That simply means that the rich and the poor alike both have the perfect freedom to sleep under bridges and beg for food. Let’s be really honest, shall we?

        America, basically, was founded on the governing principle, after it is all said and done, that the collective voice of a selected class of voters is the voice of God. In mundane matters, this was to hold true across the board. In important matters, it was to hold true if a “constitutional majority” could be mustered. I.e., the propositions that Madison grudgingly included in his proposed Bill of Rights, as well as the rest of the Constitution, could only be overriden by constitutional amendment or convention, each of which require certain types of supermajorities (2/3 of states and/or houses of Congress).

        It was basically a very conservative republic with most business besides warfare and interstate commerce being left to the sovereign states. No direct taxation and not much of an established federal bureaucracy.

        That republic died at Appomattox Court House.

        I could go on with the sordid and yet still glorious history of America, but the point is that it was flawed from the beginning in its proposition “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”. Eventually it was hijacked by the seemingly least powerful branch which holds neither purse nor sword, the judiciary. This was when the elites themselves shed the fiction that the voice of the people was the voice of God.

        So we are ruled by a plutocracy/aristocracy. It shapes public opinion through the media, which, by and large, it controls. We are fed a spectrum of acceptable beliefs from which to freely choose. And we are ostracized if we veer too far off the established path. And its all enforced by the police, the military and the IRS at the point of a gun. That, in and of itself is not great crime. The people were never competent to govern in the first place. The Founding Fathers knew that. They only thought that it might be possible for a “moral people”; i.e., a moral subset of enfranchised aristocrats, to hold the thing together for some period of time. And in that, they were correct.

        Yet we’re way past all of that now.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Excellent analysis! Minor quibble though: the 13 original colonies were made up of people who considered themselves to be British subject, enjoying the same rights that inured to all Britons because of Anglo-Saxon Common Law. They in no way believed that these principles –which were peculiar to their tribe–could or should be applied to the great mass of mankind. Benjamin Franklin himself was particularly vexed at the prospect of massive German immigration to his beloved Pennyslvania.

          The Constitution was a governing document of Northern Europeans (at most) for Northern Europeans. That’s what the word “posterity” in its Preamble means.

          Let us not forget, that in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson called the Indian “merciless savages” and accused King George III of “inciting rebellion” among the African slaves against the white overclass. You can’t get much more exclusivist than that.

          • Thanks George. Agreed on the “transplanting the republic” thing as well. And I get goose bumps still when I hear “Fanfare for the Common Man”. Yet reality is what it is. Fallen world and all that.

            I’m satisfied you know what the stakes are, George. I’ve read your posts. There are those, as you point out, on whom all of this is lost though. I don’t really mean to sound condescending to others hear, at least not to the ones who don’t deserve it. But going over an old thread from 2011, I could almost taste the naivete of some still here.

            Until you consciously reject the “overwhelming context” (or mindset) of Western Civilization, something inside of you rebels and says it just can’t be that far gone.

            But it is.

          • Mark E. Fisus says

            Yet Clarence Thomas, a descendant of those African slaves, now occupies a position once effectively reserved to the “white overclass.” Had his race been kept under foot in order to “respect differences,” we would not have the benefit of his service on the high court.

            • George Michalopulos says

              So you implicitly accede the point that blacks (and Indians) weren’t included in the original understanding of “all men are created equal”? Because I guarantee you, that as much as I admire Justice Thomas, there is no way he would have been elected Justice of the Peace back in the original thirteen States.

              • Mark E. Fisus says

                Because I guarantee you, that as much as I admire Justice Thomas, there is no way he would have been elected Justice of the Peace back in the original thirteen States.

                And someone like him will never have become justice had the country continued to live a contradiction between its founding principles and its actual practice.

                So you implicitly accede the point that blacks (and Indians) weren’t included in the original understanding of “all men are created equal”?

                Not even originalists will say that the phrase is intended to exclude black men. At best you could say that the country was living in hypocrisy between its words and actions.

                In 1780, after Massachusetts included the same language in its state constitution, a black female slave sued under the new constitution and won her freedom. That was how slavery was abolished in Massachusetts in 1780.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Freeman#Biography_and_trial

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Excellent point, Mr Fisus. However I dare say that Justice Thomas rose to the apogee of his magistracy due to his religious upbringing and his own talents.

                  Having said that, Misha’s (and mine) original point stands: our Founding Fathers could never envision a time in which non-British descended Americans would ever enjoy the same status as the founding British stock. Exceptions to be sure but not the rule. Interestingly enough, in the South –where most of the Jews lived–there was no discrimination against them. The majority of their young men –some three thousand–fought proudly for the South.

                  They were prisoners of their time and circumstances. No less so than we are.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          All nations are ruled by “plutarchy/aristocracy”; in short, oligarchy.

          “In all ages, whatever the form and name of government, be it monarchy, republic, or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the façade” Ronald Syme, “The Roman Revolution”.

        • Reality Checker says

          Ah, American exceptionalism. The United States was not founded on a value system that elevates the individual above the collective. It was founded by wealthy landed gentry who did not want to pay taxes to the crown when their interests were not represented in parliament. Let’s try to be honest for a moment.

          That’s cynical and falsely reductive. It was founded partly because of reasons you state, but constitutional law integrated the republican principle of accommodating the interests of the one (in our case, the President), the few (the Senate) and the many (the House), and that principle of representation was built into the DNA of our government. (Cf. Locke, “Two Treatises of Government,” and the Federalist Papers.)

          America, basically, was founded on the governing principle, after it is all said and done, that the collective voice of a selected class of voters is the voice of God. In mundane matters, this was to hold true across the board.

          Nonsense. “basically” “after all is said and done” — rhetorical weasel words. Show me some support in the documents or solid scholarship for your claim that such a consensus about the divine will’s manifestation in the electorate existed among the founders. Their motives were more pragmatic, secular and unpretentious.

          This conflation self-refutes: “plutocracy/aristocracy.” You reify a contradiction in terms.

        • Michael Bauman says

          You nailed it Misha. Our Revolution was a subset of the English revolt against the monarchy begun with Magna Carta. It was not dissimilar to the barons vs King John.

          It was not democracy in any way shape or form. Without slavery it would have gone on quite a bit longer I suspect.

        • Mark E. Fisus says

          It was never dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal”. Not for a second. That, is a lie. One of our early ones.

          The Founding Fathers are not liars.

          It was founded by wealthy landed gentry

          The landed gentry were concentrated primarily in the South. The North was settled by those seeking religious freedom, and it is their ideals which historically were the source of America’s moral legitimacy – religious tolerance, freedom of conscience. Economic interests were only one component of a broader coalition which instigated and fought the American Revolution.

          Let us not forget, that in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson called the Indian “merciless savages” and accused King George III of “inciting rebellion” among the African slaves against the white overclass.

          If you read the whole sentence, Jefferson was excoriating more the Indians’ method of warfare than who they are. In addition, objecting to the arming of slaves doesn’t mean support for slavery, just against domestic violence. Given that people who opposed slavery signed the Declaration, that’s a more realistic reading of the meaning of that phrase.

          • George Michalopulos says

            You’re correct, the landed gentry were primarily concentrated in the South. However many of the Northerners (esp John Hancock) were far wealthier in terms of liquid assets than even the richest men (i.e. George Washington) in the South. The rest –the Adamses, Franklin–were very well-to-do. Otherwise, they couldn’t have taken the months off to travel to Philadelphia and craft the Constitution.

            All these men –North and South–were products of the Scottish Enlightenment which itself was influenced by Calvinism. The American Revolution was a bourgeous, technocratic one based on merit and the rule of law. Which is one of the main reasons that Edmund Burke supported it (and not the horrific French Revolution).

          • The country was founded only at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Land was it:

            http://www.newhistory.org/CH03.htm

            The Founding Fathers weren’t exactly liars, I suppose. Consciously, they probably only considered human beings similarly situated to themselves to be “men” in the full sense of the word. I don’t fault them for that. They were a product of their time.

            Mark, you have a very, very naive view of what America was founded upon. The states had state religions and there was inter-Protestant persecution in such civilized places as Virginia (Anglicans). Your idealism is commendable, but not entirely accurate.

            https://www.facinghistory.org/nobigotry/religion-colonial-america-trends-regulations-and-beliefs

    • George Michalopulos says

      Misha, we know what the stakes are and what the lay of the lay of the land is. A sane man can see an order of battle which would be conducive to Western Civilization if not our mere survival.

      Unfortunately, for the Neocon/Neolibs who have a stranglehold on our foreign policy, there is only one Enemy: and that is Christendom. Hence American blood and treasure will be spent in order to to prop up the false god of nihilism.

      Freedom and Democracy are merely convenient allies in this words of ideas. To be discarded at the right moment. (Pretty much we’re there already. Ask the hundreds of people who have been targeted by the IRS or that poor Egyptian schmuck who made a video nobody saw and spent a year in the pokey.)

  2. Regarding that “change afoot”:

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/china-setting-menu-global-financial-order/ri16376

    Perhaps I need to take another look at Mandarin.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Misha, from what I understand, the RF, Brazil and India are also going to be part of this new financial scheme. Maybe that’s why Mark Zuckerberg married a Chinese woman?

  3. Peter Millman says

    Greetings George,
    You write a good post, and then you blow it in the very last sentence. In other words, am I correct in assuming that you support “the war on terror?” Hasn’t this so called war on terror cost us more than enough in blood and treasury? How many people did we kill in Iraq because of our war on terror? I hate to have to say this, my friend, but you do sound like a neoconservative. You assign no blame to the completely innocent United States of America. The most warmongering country in the history of the world- and- you say, ” And let us be a terror to those who perpetrated this atrocity as well as those who continue to enable it.” With all due respect, to me, that objectionable comment is almost as bad as Gary Johnson not knowing anything about Aleppo.
    No, my friend,” let us beat our swords into ploughshares and our spears into pruning hooks” instead.
    Sorry, George: I expect better than that kind of muddled thinking from you.

    • Mark E. Fisus says

      let us beat our swords into ploughshares and our spears into pruning hooks

      Hooks from which the Islamists would like to hang us.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Agreed. I’m not a pacifist but a heavily armed dove. More Andy Jackson than Teddy Roosevelt.

      • Peter Millman says

        Hi Mark, ” Hooks from which the Islamists would like to hang us.” Cheap, trite slogans and soundbites are no substitute for rigorous, critical thinking about life and death issues. With all due respect, your statement is superfluous, silly and stupid. Although I disagree with your extremely simplistic, convoluted thinking, I wish you all the best, my friend.

        • Mark E. Fisus says

          “You assign no blame to the completely innocent United States of America. The most warmongering country in the history of the world” Neither is hyperbole a substitute for rigorous critical thinking. I can think of any number of candidates more warmongering than the US, like the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan.

          Airplanes flown into the Twin Towers is in fact like fashioning the hooks for our own executioners. The anti-reason, anti-science culture resulting from Islamic faith could never have fostered a society capable of inventing an airplane.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Here’s one of the most ignorant statements ever made on Monomakhos: “The anti-reason, anti-science culture resulting from Islamic faith could never have fostered a society capable of inventing an airplane.” The writer never heard of Averroes, Avicenna? Doesn’t know that the Iranian poet Omar Khayyam was also a great mathematician who gave us the quadratic equation? Doesn’t know the enormous DEBT owed to Islamic civilisation by our SCIENTISTS?

    • George Michalopulos says

      Peter, not at all! The last sentence is only tangentially related to the so-called war on terror. I never bought into that in the first place. I rather doubt that any American of Eastern and Levantine Christian background (such as myself) ever did. I always that that it was a war against Islam and that G W Bush was needlessly diluting the message.

      Let me state for now that the aggressive nature of Islam in the West is a direct result of the vacuum in morality that the Elites have allowed to ensconce itself in the West over the past several decades. Islam, and its more violent practitioners as such have little moral agency and are reacting to our many weaknesses.

      When I say we should “be a terror” to those who perpetrated this atrocity, I mean much more than the actual actors. Indeed, the fact that President Bush allowed certain Saudi nationals to surreptitiously leave the US that very day when all air travel was grounded leads me to think that there is much more going on here than meets the eye.

      • Peter Millman says

        Hi George,
        In my extremely humble opinion, you iterated some good ideas that need further development or explanation. Islam does not like Western values; can we really blame them? They consider our values to be corrupt and corrosive to their culture. In other words, in their eyes, we’re a bad influence. In a nutshell, George, I believe that the US is neither great nor good. John Winthrop’s hopes aside, we have never been a ” shining city upon a hill.” As Mario Cuomo so eloquently stated at the 1984 Democratic convention in one of the greatest orations ever given, ” we are more like a tale of two cities.” All the best to you and yours, my friend.

      • Most of those “certain Saudi nationals” were members of bin Laden’s bloated, extended family. More info on the private/chartered planes for this evacuation of the bin Laden relatives is at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/ and http://www.wanttoknow.info/010930nytimes .
        The NY Times article states, “Mr. bin Laden is one of 52 children of a Yemeni-born migrant who made a vast fortune building roads and palaces in Saudi Arabia….Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship in 1994.”
        More details about the bin Laden evacuation are available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/bin-laden-family-members-evacuated-from-us-in-wake-of-the-9-11-attacks/15186
        People concerned about news from the Mideast and Egypt regarding the destruction of ancient Christian communities by Muslims can find almost too much of this news at http://www.jihadwatch.org, run by a Melkite (Melchite?) Catholic who lives in the U.S.

  4. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    Let us pray that this madness never happens again. Lord grant forgiveness and rest to all those innocent victims who died on 9/11, and who are in your eternal care. May you O Lord have mercy on all their souls

    Peter

  5. Michael Kinsey says

    It is inhuman madness to murder 1.2 billion innocent unborn children by abortion. We have no choice in wither or not we reap what all these murders sowed. The earth full of innocent blood. It is intolerable, and the wrath of God will prove it to us. We have no free choice concerning wither or not we reap what we sowed. The Gracious Lord Jesus Christ spoke this to fully warn us. Those who champion this infanticide have a little concern for 911 victims, also innocent. It is unreasonable to expect pro
    choicers to be overly concerned over the brutal deaths of those who died on 911. It is not politically correct to accuse the US Government. They are given a pass, even though modern science has proven absolutely, that the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. I face this ugly reality, akin to the Soviet madness, only even worse. We have surpassed the Gulag deaths with our own children, while th Soviet did not even count their number of unborn murdered. The madness is here, Fascist style. The prophet Daniel wrote wars are determined until the end. I think we are doing the determining, not Our Holy Father, who gave us free will to sow, and will not take it away.

  6. Thomas Barker says

    Is there a more powerful way of saying “I am fit to be the leader of the free world” than to visit the very site of the 9/11 massacre, wobble for the cameras, collapse incoherent into the arms of the Secret Service and be stuffed like a lumpy roll of carpet into a rescue van?

    • George Michalopulos says

      It’s starting to look like Weekend at Bernies. Did you see the way they flung her into the sedan? If there was any doubt that she’s merely a puppet of the Globalists, that scene alone should lay it to rest.

  7. M. Stankovich says

    I sat in traffic, in the dark, finally pulling up to the guard booth at 5:45 am on what was the only the start of my second week at the Naval Medical Center San Diego. A sign board had been set up and was flashing, “The Defcon level is FIVE.” The serviceman standing outside the booth asked to be handed my ID, while two other servicemen with long poles with mirrors attached, searched under my car. Behind the gate in front me were a group of servicemen in full battle gear and carrying weapons. No one offered and I did not ask. The walk from staff parking to my facility was considerable, and at one point, because there was no traffic (and because I was a New Yorker), I casually began to cross an intersection. Halfway across, a very young man, in a very sharp tone addressed me, “Sir, in the interest of your own safety, next time you will not cross the intersection until you have been properly instructed to do so. Do you understand that, sir?” Holy Cow! I do now.

    When I entered my unit, which by now was ordinarily staffed and preparing for a very active clinic day, there was, literally, no one. I was sitting in my office typing case notes when a colleague stepped in the door and said, “You obviously don’t know what is happening. Follow me.” I followed him down the hall to our large conference room, where everyone was gathered in front of a large video monitor watching CNN. A corpsman looked up and said, “You’re from NY. Come and take my seat,” pulling me to the front. It took me more than a few minutes to catch on to what I was seeing. There was absolute silence from the staff watching. At one point, the Chief Psychiatrist/Captain and director of the unit – from Westchester County, NY – entered, and was taken to the front and seated next to me, followed by the assistant director, a Lt. Commander and psychiatrist – also from Westchester County – who sat down with us. I knew a friend had to be in Lower Manhattan for a meeting, and a friend who traveled through the World Trade subway station to work; I asked the Captain if I could step out to make two phone calls; the Lt. Commander actually had family east of the towers and we left together.

    Later, someone came into the room and announced that the Navy was seeking corpsman volunteers (as they, as a group were EMT’s & nurses) to travel to NYC. A number of people immediately left the room. When the towers fell, the Captain decided we needed to begin our day, and we conferenced as to what to tell families and children, and how we could rotate to gather information to share between ourselves as the day progressed. While the level of emotion was palpable and at times seemingly breathtaking, the Captain and the Lt. Commander reiterated the “mission,” calmly, and repeatedly, that we were there to assist our patients.

    It was my day to sit in with the Captain doing medication checks – every 15-20 minutes a child was seen to evaluate the effectiveness of their medication & therapy (e.g. individual, group, family, etc.) and make adjustments as necessary. That day, however, was the added fear of a parent deployed, at sea: are they safe, are we going to war, does this mean they’re not coming home on schedule (“I haven’t seen my daddy in six/eight months”). I was in awe of how the Captain became a man of calm, peace, and reassurance when he really had nothing official at that point. “Your daddy is safe. He’s with the United States Navy. The best in the world.”

    At the end of the day, when everything was done, and we met again to process the day, their was grief, disbelief, some tears, and plenty of exhaustion. Previous, I had absolutely no experience with the US military, none. And in the midst of this epic American tragedy, I was given a lesson in integrity, ingenuity, faithfulness, mission, patriotism, and dedication in caring for your own that lasted an entire, wonderful, and fulfilling year for me. I will never forget that day as one of great tragedy, but also as one of a great life lesson and inspiration.

  8. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    FIVE POSTS IN ONE DAY [today] ON ONE TOPIC? BY ONE PERSON? Who knew an enemy’s illness could energize a man like that?

  9. I have “cursory” perused internet on topic of “Controlled Demolition.” No two are the same.
    Lots of things have to be evaluated when you do CD. The “collapse in on itself” is the art of
    CD. Like WTC 7 text book example. So was this anti-christ’s trick .. mayybbee ..