September 11: Why Did God Allow It?

Ellen White's prediction elaborated on some of the problems behind skyscrapers such as those in New York City, problems that she was shown would eventually bring about their destruction. We'll quote her prediction at length, up to the point just prior to where she heard the alarm of fire, and saw fireproof buildings burning like pitch.

It should be pointed out that the Bible also condemns the amassing of wealth by a few through fraud and extortion and oppression of the poor. Thus, even if Ellen White were a false prophet, if these problems really did exist in New York City, then that might explain why God did not work a miracle to prevent the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11.

Even before this vision or dream of late 1901, Ellen White was already sounding the above warning. Apparently she had a number of visions or dreams about expensive buildings burning and falling. The following (which was later adapted for one of the quotes we presented in our main article on 9/11) comes from a letter written on January 28, 1901:

—wAyno

1. Who built and owned the World Trade Center?
2. What motivated the construction of such huge buildings?
3. Were the materials used "the most costly"?
4. Where did the owners get the money to build the project?
5. Were the hungry, naked, homeless, widows, and orphans being neglected?

Of course, the above questions are not quite fair, for the building of the World Trade Center doesn't have to match every last specified detail. What Ellen White described was a trend involving many buildings, and the specific buildings destroyed in the vision or dream, while representative of that trend, do not necessarily have to incorporate every last feature of it.

1. Who built and owned the World Trade Center?

The easy answer is that it was owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a quasi-government agency operated by unelected officials who answer only to the governors of New York and New Jersey. And it was built by various architects, engineers, contractors, and Port Authority officials and employees. But that's the easy, over-simplified answer. Here's the more complex one.

David Rockefeller had recently built his Chase Manhattan Bank tower in lower Manhattan. He wanted to raise the value of property in the area, which would both protect his bank's investment in his new building, and help his family's real estate ventures, and that's why he pushed to have a World Trade Center built. Because of his role and the role of his brother Nelson, the governor of New York at the time, the twin towers were nicknamed "David" and "Nelson."

There were a number of obstacles that had to be surmounted. For one thing, what about all the mom-and-pop businesses thriving on the future site of the World Trade Center? Using a quasi-government agency to build their towers, the Rockefellers avoided having to negotiate with the owners of the 164 buildings that stood in the way. If the owners and tenants didn't want to sell and move, they could be forced to do so anyway because of "eminent domain."

There were other advantages to working through a quasi-government agency, but we'll wait on that until question four.

2. What motivated the construction of such huge buildings?

In the courtroom, the Port Authority had all those "small-fry" moms and pops beat, but what about on the public relations front? The strategy may sound peculiar, but in order to outgun the protesters, the Port Authority changed their plans. They increased the projected new square footage of office space from the five million David Rockefeller had originally proposed to ten million. Why did they do that?

But such a monstrous undertaking angered someone who wasn't a small fry. Lawrence Wein, an owner of the Empire State Building, joined the fray. His principal concern was that the sudden availability of ten million more square feet of office space that wasn't really needed would depreciate real estate values all over the area, and he was right. When the towers opened up, there were so few businesses waiting in line to rent space that much of the rental space ended up being taken up by government agencies. Real estate values did decline, and the whole thing was a financial fiasco. Not until years later did the World Trade Center turn a profit.

Greed, pride, love of power, the desire to leave a legacy. Can you think of any worthier motives that might have been behind constructing the tallest buildings in the world, buildings that weren't even needed, trampling over everyone in the way?

There are those who feel that something akin to greed and pride made the whole catastrophe worse. The goal of the design was to 1) maximize profits and the amount of rentable floor space, and 2) end up with the tallest buildings in the world, which required as light a structure as possible. To that end:

• The exterior steel tubes, while four inches thick at the bottom of the building, were but a quarter inch thick at the top.
• The office space lacked support columns, which would have reduced rentable floor space. Instead, all interior support columns, elevators, and stairwells were concentrated in the core of the building.
• Support columns and stairwells were not encased in masonry so that the structure could be lighter and taller.
• They were fireproofed with sheetrock and a foam instead of masonry.
• Floors were supported by light trusses, not heavy beams, also fireproofed with foam.

Because of all this:

• The planes sliced through the thin steel tubes and swept across the spacious floors with little resistance, knocking off the foam fireproofing in the process.
• The planes knocked out every stairwell in one blow, except one in the south tower, preventing escape from the floors above the impact.
• The sheetrock of the lone surviving stairwell was damaged so badly that only 18 people out of about 300 could find the stairwell and escape.
• The lack of masonry around the steel supports left those components vulnerable to an intense fire.
• The lighter steel trusses couldn't hold up as well as heavier steel beams in the intense heat, and they were the first thing to give way during the collapse.

3. Were the materials used "the most costly"?

The original budget was $280 million dollars, but by the time the project was completed, the total cost for the twin towers was more than a billion. That comes to more than $100 per square foot, which isn't cheap by 1960s and 1970s standards.

When the towers first opened, there were complaints from some sectors about extravagance:

But the World Trade Center was just a huge example of a long-standing trend:

Building materials weren't the only thing that cost a lot at the World Trade Center. When the towers collapsed, an estimated $100 million dollars of artwork was lost ("The Art of War," Philadelphia Weekly, Jan. 2, 2002).

4. Where did the owners get the money to build the project?

Another advantage in using a quasi-government agency to build the World Trade Center involved the financing of the project. No bank would loan to private parties for such an enormous venture, but the Port Authority could issue bonds on their own to cover the cost.

But there's more to it than just that. If the state of New York or New York City had issued the bonds, then they would have had to get the approval of the voters, but a public authority like the Port Authority doesn't have to worry about such things. Thus, in the case of a default, the tax payers of New York would have had a moral obligation to pay the bondholders for bonds they never had voted for.

Moreover, the bondholders end up with an investment that leaves them with little risk. If they built and owned the building themselves and the venture went sour, then they would lose a lot of money. But if a government agency builds the building and they buy the bonds issued by that agency, then they make a profit without taking on the risk of the project.

Ellen White spoke of skyscrapers being built with money that had been amassed through fraudulent means and through oppression of the poor. But how to trace who the bondholders were and where they got their wealth becomes a difficult task, of course.

NYC's worst slum c. 1897—Jacob A. Riis Collection, www.mcny.org.

The fortunes of the robber barons didn't all vanish from New York when they passed from the scene. It is not hard to imagine, therefore, that some of their wealth, or the wealth of others like them, ended up financing the building of the World Trade Center.

5. Were the hungry, naked, homeless, widows, and orphans neglected?

Many of the robber barons of yesteryear became philanthropists, giving much of their wealth away to universities, libraries, and various projects that sometimes ended up bearing their names. But even with all the philanthropy, a few questions remain when one considers certain biblical teachings, questions the rich of today should likewise consider.

If the principal motive for giving to various projects is the desire to leave behind a legacy or an institution bearing one's name, that is not so good.

It's not the amount that counts, but the sacrifice that the amount represents that God looks at. Little sacrifice, little reward.

We would not advocate the forced redistribution of wealth by government, but rather the voluntary aid of the worthy poor by the wealthy and the preaching of convicting sermons by their preachers about their God-given responsibility to render such aid. Thus, in light of Isaiah 58 we ask, How many of the honest poor that were cast out because they could not pay the mortgage or rent did New York City bankers bring to their homes? How many of the hungry did they feed? At least one?

We wish not to judge anyone, but there are questions that, in the light of September 11, must be asked.

• Why are 20% of New York City residents and 31% of New York City families at or below the poverty level? ("Poverty in New York, 2002," Community Service Society; "New York City Facts Sheet")
• Why have poverty rates for New York City been 70% higher than the rest of the nation for decades? ("Poverty in New York, 2002")
• Why do 7% of New York City families report experiencing hunger? ("New York City Facts Sheet")
• Why did the poverty and near poverty rate for those 65+ years old in Manhattan climb from 26% in 1989 to 34% in 1999? (Old and Poor in New York City, p. 3)
• Why did the same rate for those in the less-affluent part of Manhattan jump from 41% to 51% in the same time period? (Ibid.)
• Why does the New York City Department of Homelessness report that there are over 9,000 homeless families, nearly 9,000 single adults, and over 38,500 homeless individuals within her borders as of January 2004?

It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Finance capital of the world! Center of wealth and power! Home of Wall Street! What must Heaven think?

'Tis true, 'tis true, as long as that money wasn't accumulated through bribery, extortion, oppression of the poor, and other practices God condemns.

Again, 'tis true. The wealthy who live unto themselves, who hoard God's bounties, who do not aid those that are in genuine need: well would it be if they pondered the parable of Jesus found in Luke 12:16-21.

Did Ellen White pinpoint possible reasons behind God's removal of protection from the World Trade Center on September 11? If she did, then before we rebuild the World Trade Center bigger and better than it was before, we really need to ensure that 1) our motives for doing so are not based upon a desire for self-glorification, 2) the needy at our very doors are not being neglected, and 3) the money to be invested was not obtained through bribery, extortion, or oppression. Otherwise, . . .

Site published by
AdventWeb

AdventWeb