Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition

[Viva_La_Revolution]

I just stumbled across this site... no idea if it is trustworthy..
no additional links yet.

http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1350

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
Posted on Sunday, June 12 @ 12:18:45 EDT by drew


Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.

June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

more at link above


on edit-------> link to paper by Morgan Reynolds. properties say just created today, June 12
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.

The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns.

more at link

[hack89]

1. What unique insight does he provide?

Hard to imagine the Labor dept as part of the 9/11 plot - it would certainly go against the idea of a small group of plotters.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. That's this Morgan Reynolds, right?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

That's the same site publishing Gary North articles.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north-arch.html

Gary North's the guy that is mad at Bush because Bush hasn't turned American into a theocracy yet.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/chrisre1.html

Why is it whenever you start scratching down below all of these 9/11 conspiracy theories, you find right-wing reactionaries? It seems to be a general rule, hardly ever violated by exceptions...

[RedSock]

3. Interesting.

Original article link:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htm

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. Thanks for the PublicEye link...

lots of info - they've been at it since 1981!

About PRA
Who We Are:
Political Research Associates works to facilitate public understanding of the threat posed to human rights by oppressive and authoritarian right-wing movements in the United States. Founded in 1981, we are the premier national organization studying the full spectrum of the US Political Right - from ultraconservatives in the electoral arena to paramilitary organizations to supremacist groups. Through our research and publications, and as a national resource and support center for activists, journalists and others, PRA helps to build the movement for progressive social change and promotes democratic values and principles.
http://www.publiceye.org/about.html

[demodewd]

7. left wing activism on KPFA

Why is it whenever you start scratching down below all of these 9/11 conspiracy theories, you find right-wing reactionaries? It seems to be a general rule, hardly ever violated by exceptions...

If you want the left wing-socialist slant on 911 conspiracy just listen to KPFA,specificaly Guns and Butter,http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N
They've interviewed Griffin,Singh,Tarpley,Hoffmann,Dietrick,Schoenman to name a few.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Not saying it isn't out there

In fact, it cuts both ways. I found an article the other day from the New American, a rag from the John Birchers, which vociferously blasted 9/11 conspiracy theories - mainly because they were discrediting their own Waco conspiracy theories.

And yeah, I overstated for effect, but it just amazes me every time I track an author back and find ties to the whackjobs on the extreme Christian right.

[graphixtech]

12. mixed bag

It is my understanding that The New American has had the best coverage about the OKC bombing. There are certainly differences in major areas, but 'whackjobs' they are not.

[Frederik]

10. That's a fairly weak connection

A website that featured his article also publishes Gary North articles. Not much of a link between North and Reynolds, is it?

But Lew Rockwell is a right wing site, sure enough.

[graphixtech]

4. fwiw

Greg Szymanski is a regular contributor to AFP.

As far as I am aware of, Szymanski's writings have never been published
at the more mainstream 911 Truth sites.



http://www.911truth.org/index.php

[Ezlivin]

5. Here it is in Morgan's own words

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[Rob Conn]

8. Disinfo

There is a certain kind of disinformation that uses facts, and appears to be on the unofficial side of a debate, but is merely trying to distract you from what is important. In this case, the professor wants us to focus our energy on physical evidence that has been destroyed. The collapse of the towers is not an important part of uncovering the conspiracy. In fact the case can be effectively argued using no consideration of the physical evidence whatsoever. Mike Ruppert dismissed the physical evidence early in "Crossing The Rubicon" as irrelevant, and I have found that many who would like to distract us from what is important have chosen to get obsessed with suppositions that can not be proven. Lets stay focused on the documentary record. For instance, take a look at Paul Thompsons latest post in this forum. - R.C.

[Frederik]

11. I agree

Coming from a Bush administration insider, and focusing on physical evidence exclusively, makes it both suspicious and not very interesting.

[philb]

13. I disagree on this. A quick review of the article finds interesting point

points and a well researched and organized article. I haven't had time to go into details or check the links, but it has some promise.


Though I agree that one doesn't need physical evidence details to make the case for obvious complicity by at least some officials, and that people should not get distracted from this important point by quibbling over physical evidence; its also useful to further refine the information regarding what evidence is real and useful and what needs to be done to resolve important issues.

[Al-CIAda]

Frmr. Bush chief economist -"controlled demolition destroyed WTC & #7

Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.

June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

Con't-
http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1350

[OrlandoGator]

14. Never understood why WTC7 collapsed hours later.

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Dupe thread. n/t

[Al-CIAda]

16. Apologies for the dupe. First I've heard of this person. n/t