WOW - Former Bush Offical "doubts collapse of WTC"

[Kevin Spidel]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

"A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11"

UPI/Washington Times Reports on 9/11
by John Daly, UPI International Correspondent Washington Times Monday, Jun 13, 2005

By John Daly UPI International Correspondent

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "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." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to

exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. 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."

*********************

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27928.htm_
(http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27928.htm)

Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story; Claims Neo Con Agenda Is As 'Insane As Hitler And Nazi Party When They Invaded Russia In Dead Of Winter'

A former high-ranking Republican official, also a well-respected author, tells the American people to stop listening to Bush administration lies about Iraqi war and claims the mainstream media will not publish anything he writes against Bush or his policies.

June 22, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped

back into the political spotlight this week, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and claiming "if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now."
Paul Craig Roberts, listed by Who's Who in America as one of the 1,000 most

[Lord_StarFyre]

1. Watch

Mr Reynolds will probably be the victim of a mysterious suicide...

Or better phrased "Texas-cide"

[realFedUp]

2. right there on film for everyone to see.

"Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

[kliljedahl]

3. First of all it's the Moonie Times

& just what would a "Former chief economist for the Department of Labor " know about the demolition of buildings?

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:







Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Endangered Specie]

6. Indeed, break out the tin foil!

[Lerkfish]

8. number 7 was a controlled demoltion...absolutely.

looking at the video, and having worked closely with a demolition team (being inside the building with them as they prepared to lay charges, and diagramming how the charges work, I can say without any fear of being wrong that WTC was a controlled implosion.

I'm less certain about 1 and 2, but I'm absolutely certain about 7.

[kliljedahl]

12. So how was this accomplished without anyone seeing?

& buildings are gutted before implosion, skeleton only. I don't buy it.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Lerkfish]

29. Buildings are gutted beforehand in cases of demoltion

of building intended to be demolished. By that I mean, if a sears wants to rebuild on the same lot, they will gut the building first in order to :
1. gain as much salvage as they can from still usable materials inside the building
2. achieve the greatest amount of safety for workers and surrounding buildings.

IF it was MIHOP, neither of those considerations would apply.
Charges can be placed in a non-gutted building. All that is required is for them to be placed strategically.

My assertion that it was a controlled demolition is base both on the way it came down, and that it was far enough away from 1 and 2 that the debris alone could not have collapsed it straight down...if anything, it was dealt side blows by debris and would have collapsed nonsymettrically.

[kliljedahl]

39. But you didn't answer my original question

"So how was this accomplished without anyone seeing?"


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

41. Yeah and I suppose you think "pull it"

Means demolish it? Like thats a new tidbit of info...not.

Ever think "Pull it" might refer to a fire chief's terminology for pulling the firefighting effort out of a building that is in danger of collapse? Because that is what it means. (Steming from "pulling" on the hoses to signal the firemen to get out.)

[Obviousman]

4. Listen

Making claims like these are even more repulsive than what karl rove said. That's all I'm gonna say.

[Kevin Spidel]

7. hence the WOW... i guess i should hae explained myself more....

this astonishes me that this stuff is still getting play!

this appeared if 5 outlets this morning.

this is a heads up. not a looksee.

[DistressedAmerican]

25. OK, Thanks For Explaining. I Was Wondering!

[Rex]

13. Why do you think the claims are more repulsive than what rove said?

Just out of curiosity.

[karlrschneider]

19. You are absolutely right.

:grr:

[corky44]

32. almost as repulsive as

The Project For A New American Century (PNAC)
stating in private meetings they needed another Pearl Harbor to accomplish
their goals-
prior to 9/11

I'm just say'in...

[China_cat]

5. When I watched the towers

collapse, telescoping into themselves, I couldn't help but think of a documentary I had seen not long before that about building demolition and one of the experts' words about how tricky it is to bring a building like that straight down. But that it was necessary to do it in close quarters.

I know it sounds like tin-foil hat time and I'm not fond of conspiracy theories. It still does not compute for me how the towers can be hit at the top and come down the way they did.

[Kraklen]

9. That's odd.

Too me it didn't look like a controlled demolition at all.

I mean, they both fall down... it's not like one is going to fall down and the other is going to fall up. But that's pretty much the only similarity between 9-11 and a controlled demolition.

[Karenina]

15. Obviously, you've never see one

or two, or three...

[Kraklen]

16. I've seen hundreds of controlled demolitions.

They show them on the news and the Discovery channel all the time.

Of course, I only saw the two WTC towers fall. But I did see it dozens of times over.

[NorCalDem]

22. You need to rewatch the collapse footage

When you watch the collapse footage, it is really easy to see small charge explosions working their way downwards through both Towers 1 & 2 before they collapse, exactly like you see in a professional demolition. Also, no building that large could ever fall exactly on it's footprint like that without help, it's just nearly physically impossible.

Also, there are eyewitness accounts of detonating charges from the top floors to the basement going off (actually injuring people, there was another post about this today) but the government has denied this story is true.

I am 90% convinced they were professionally demolished after watching all the footage a second time. Now the question is who set the charges? Terrorists, or someone else. I tend to think someone else based on Osama's claim afterwards that he did not expect them to collapse, and that was a very pleasant surprise.

To me that sounds as if someone knew that a plane was going to crash into each tower, and set the charges specifically to demolish the buildings after the crashes. I know, I know, it sounds ridiculous, but rewatch the footage, and you might agree.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. I Have Seen That Footage Hundreds Of Times. Never Saw THAT.

"it is really easy to see small charge explosions working their way downwards through both Towers 1 & 2 before they collapse"

Do you have links to a specifc clip that shows this? I'd really like to see that. The eyes of the entire world were watching that morning. If there was ANY truth to that claim millions would have seen it "really easily".

I suspect you want to see them so bad that you do.

[cynatnite]

33. Nope, never saw that.

When I watched them, and rewatched them, and watched other MIHOP documentaries, it looked like to me that the floors above that were collasping were causing the blowouts through the windows and openings beneath as they fell.

It never appeared to be anything more than that to me.

[Kraklen]

30. You need to rewatch demolition footage.

Because demolition explosions are quite obvious and nothing of the sort appeared on 9-11.

[NorCalDem]

38. I saw a movie online a about a week ago

it was here actually. I'll see if I can dig up a clip.

[Endangered Specie]

14. Think of it this way...

when a building's structural system at a point fails, either as a result of controlled demolition (bomb) or somewhat controlled demolition (airplane), the results are GOING to look very similiar as gravity doesnt care either way. Buildings fall downward when they fail due to bad design, terrorists, or demolition crews.

Also, the buildings were hit about 2/3rds up, which meant the weakest point (that eventually failed) contained 20-35 floors of weight above it, when the floor(s) that were weakened the most collapsed, a tremendous amount of potential energy gets involved in bringing down those top floors unto the bottom ones. Its like holding a 40lb dumbell with one hand versus catching one that has fallen a foot or so; theres quite a difference (dont try at home)


and finally, in that same documentary they no doubt talk about how LONG and how HARD it is to blow up buildings in a crontrolled demolition, the weeks of planning, the amounts and placements of explosives, the miles of wire, the manpower, and the actual phsyical destruction required to even get to the structural members to place the explosives... Does it seem logical that all this could go on in a building occupied by 50,000+ without anyone getting curious?

[China_cat]

17. Does it seem logical that all this could go on in a building occupied by 5

Actually, yes it does. Buildings that big have got people constantly working on wiring, plumbing, security systems, etc and nobody pays any attention to them. If you work in a large building, do you pay attention to the maintenance people?

Like I said, I really don't like conspiracy theories...only that the trade centers coming down like they did not long after seeing that documentary set up questions. If it did for me, then how many other people saw the same show and just didn't connect what they were thinking to it?

[lumpy]

21. You are not alone in questioning

the collapse of the towers. The very fact that three towers telescoped in the same manner gives reason to think it was no coincidence. Fire alone couldn't have caused that to happen. When pictures of the initial assault and the aftermath of the damage done are examined gives one reason to doubt that an aircraft could do that kind of damage. Haste was made to get rid of the material evidence; steel shipped out of the country; skepticism of engineers has been squelched; inadequate official investigation. The only detailed outline I have seen of possible reasons for the collapse was on public access TV; showing the skeletal makeup of the towers; the affect of fire, the fact the fire was pretty well self contained and the intense degree of heat that would cause steel to melt or weaken on such a structure, etc. Yes, makes one wonder.

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. I love statements like this:

"Fire alone couldn't have caused that to happen" Lets hear your proffessional analysis.

[Gloria]

10. He was on Coast to Coast about a week ago,,,,and then

there was also a Roundtable inc. David Ray Griffin on 911....
Wild.

[genius]

11. Careful Kevin

Every time I post on this subject in this forum, it gets moved into oblivion. It would be interesting if it takes a former Bush official to convince certain people that it is an imporant topic for discussion.

[cynatnite]

18. New WTC report on the how's and why's of collapse

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm

It's newly released after a three year study. Very thorough and informative.

[graphixtech]

36. NEW Rebuttal to NIST handout -

Available for download:

http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/downloads.htm

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. I love the last bit...

"You don't need an MIT degree to know some things don't add up!"

Apparently... :eyes:

[iconoclastic cat]

23. Holy. F-ing. Sh-t.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. "Former Bush Official"? Means Nothing.

He was "Former chief economist for the Department of Labor". The headline is deceptive. It implies some sort of credibility just because he was a "former Bush Official"

His opinion means absolutely nothing more than yours or mine. Pure opinion and conjecture.

Get Tennent or Richard Clark or someone with actual info to talk and I'll be impressed...

[Independent_Liberal]

26. Hmmmm.....

Very interesting.

[Independent_Liberal]

28. Actually, now that I think about it...

I think I might have read this already.

[FtWayneBlue]

31. PNAC needed their Pearl Harbor, and they got it.

There is an accusation that bomb sniffing dogs were ejected from the building prior to its being hit, and that some people were warned to stay away and not fly that day. Also, accusations that Cheney ordered terrorist hijacking drills that day. Also, the rules about shooting down hijacked planes had been recently changed. Coincidence?

Not bloody likely!

[DistressedAmerican]

35. Links? Links? Links? For All Of These Assertions?

Hell, a lot of folks in the Mideast believe just as strongly that Isreal was behind it and claim that jews were told to stay away from the towers too. Their claims are not backed up with ANY evidence.

Until I see some credible sources for these claims I have to believe that you have none either.

[cynatnite]

34. Plane that hit the pentagon

Ask about that and then watch the conspiracy theories really fly.

[Dancing_Dave]

37. WOW indeed.

2005 may have a SUMMER OF TRUTH after all! Lots of important new info is leaking out! THINK-it ain't illegal yet! :yourock: