Morgan Reynolds Q & A

[reprehensor]

Morgan Reynolds Q & A

Morgan Reynolds has become a household name to people who cast a critical eye on the events of 9/11. Here in a short Q & A he gives some opinions on the 9/11 Commission, motives of alternative perpetrators, and why bite-sized chunks of 9/11 Truth are a bit easier to digest…

What is your opinion of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report?

It was a cover up, a whitewash, an absurdity. David Ray Griffin’s book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, nicely disposes of it. The Final Report was so bad that it made the Warren Commission look honest. At least the witnesses who testified before WC were sworn in and subject to perjury prosecution. As a prosecutor might put it about the 9/11 Commissioners and Staff Director Zelikow, “They were all mobbed up.” (See my article Bedtime Stories From Your 9/11 Commission for more.)

Is there any value in publicly decrying the Commission as a ‘Whitewash?’

Yes, major lies should be exposed. The 9/11 Commissioners and staff are accessories after the fact in the greatest crime of the century and therefore should be prosecuted as criminals. Aiding a cover up to mass murder is a felony, guys. I wrote the article cited above, so if someone asks about the Commission, I point out the why and wherefores about this group of insiders, advocates of an impossible conspiracy theory. On the other hand, I do not focus on this part the greater plot. It’s a sideshow. That’s why it’s deceived Congress into bureaucratic reform of the intel biz and all that nonsense.

snip

What 9/11 anamoly drew you into skepticism of the official narrative?

I was in Washington, DC, at the Labor Department, the first week on the job and I saw a tower ablaze on TV in a colleague’s office and blurted out, “That tower will not fall.” Hours later, after I had scrambled home to my apartment in Virginia, I was stunned to learn that both towers fell. For 16 months I put it aside and never suspected the administration. When I left government, I had time to look at it. Two events were important: I knew the Iraq invasion was based on big lies. I asked myself, “If they would lie about this, what else would they lie about?” Next, David Ray Griffin’s book, The New Pearl Harbor clinched it for me. Here was a man with scholarly credentials and an eminently reasoned approach proving the government was lying through and through about 9/11. During 2003 and 2004 I wrote a dozen essays criticizing the Bush administration for a series of egregious errors, which culminated in my June 9, 2005, piece on the fall of the WTC skyscrapers. (See Why Did the Towers Collapse? )

German ex-politician Andreas Von Beulow has speculated that 9/11 may have been an example of psychological warfare, enacted to facilitate a broader geopolitical agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East. He points to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard” and the Project for a New American Century’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” as prime source material for people who would have such an agenda. Would you consider these studies fairly damning, or would the inspiration necessarily be drawn from a much broader swath of material?

Those are the two key documents about motivation. Cheney’s energy task force proceedings would give us much more if we ever gain access. If I can paraphrse Ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, 9/11 is about O-I-L: Oil, Israel, and Logistics (for the world domination project). None of this is a big secret. US troops in Iraq say it’s about oil and control of the middle east. Motivations are complex though. A lot of it is about good old-fashioned greed, up close and personal. Larry Silverstein gets away with billions of dollars 6-7 weeks after becoming the WTC leaseholder, Halliburton gets billions in government contracts, and so on. Pure plunder. Then our top-down money and banking system lines the pockets of the “bigs.” War is the biggest government program of all and all those checks go to important backers.

continued at link...