Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Questions Twin Towers Collapse

[pola]

Former Reagan Treasury Secretary
Questions Twin Towers Collapse

A former Wall Street Journal editor and a man credited with the success of 'Reaganomics' has finally broken ranks and brought into question the unexplained collapse of the twin towers and WTC building.
Former Assistant of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts questions why it is largely accepted that the Bush administration lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and yet many still believe they told the truth about 9/11.

Paul Joseph Watson / February 8 2006
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/080206towerscollapse.htm

:kick: :patriot:

[Tiggeroshii]

1. my goodness

Sometimes I question the credibility of prison planet. Is there anywhere ewlse I can find the same quotes by that same person?

[hiley]

3. I don't get it,

if you are willing to listen to Paul then why does it matter that is at
Prison Planet. I mean since he is saying it, so what of where.. It would still say the same thing no matter which site printed on.


http://www.physics911.net/resources.htm

[satya]

10. Another source for Roberts' views on this topic:

Many patriotic readers have written to me expressing their frustration that fact and common sense cannot gain a toehold in a debate guided by hysteria and disinformation. Other readers write that 9/11 shields Bush from accountability, They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition. They insist that there is no stopping war and a police state as long as the government's story on 9/11 remains unchallenged.

They could be right. There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government p

link:My Epiphany

[Kansas Wyatt]

2. Why does it seem like a decision has been made by 'The Powers That Be'

To put it's foot down and make things right, by throwing BushCo under the bus?

[Marleyb]

4. They are lying about everything!

[Jara sang]

7. Don't forget Larry Silverstein's decision to "pull" the WTC-7.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Always believed that explosives had been planted in the towers

with triggering by the collisions.

With all of the LANs and phone lines etc - just put on green coveralls -- and go into accessible utility cabinets - and storage rooms of merchants in the below ground malls, etc.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Nutmegger]

8. Thanks for this post

and Welcome to DU!!!

[Strelnikov_]

9. MP3 Interview w/ Paul Craig Roberts

1-1/2 hr. long.

On right side of page.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/index.html

[hiley]

13. that is a great link there

thank you.

However, I am surprised prison planet link survived, thought it was forebode.

[lady lib]

11. Prison Planet huh...

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
Poof!

:nuke:

(Same goes for Rense around here. And don't send me nasty responses. I don't do the poofing. :))

[Zen Democrat]

15. Yeah, but this story isn't exclusive to Prison Planet. It's out there.

Paul Craig Roberts is very much a reputable source. He was an official in the Reagan administration and wrote a nationally syndicated political column during the 90's that was very mainstream conservative.

Because some dubious website put his columns up doesn't diminish his reputation -- it can be found all over the internet.

[helderheid]

12. wondered how long it would take before this was moved.

:eyes:

[HardWorkingDem]

14. Read American Ground By William Langewiesche....

Originally this was a very large three piece series in the Atlantic magazine. He did an excellent job and debunks many of the rumors and myths about the downing of the WTC towers.

I trust his writing and research much more than that of a former Reagan Treasury Secretary.

[EVDebs]

16. My favorite part of Robert's "My Epiphany"

""When I saw that the neoconservative response to 9/11 was to turn a war against stateless terrorism into military attacks on Muslim states, I realized that the Bush administration was committing a strategic blunder with open-ended disastrous consequences for the US that, in the end, would destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.""

Who Will Save America?
My Epiphany
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html

So goes the 'strategery' of the R's. More good stuff below:

""...The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself. The "liberal press" has been co-opted. As everyone must know by now, the New York Times has totally failed its First Amendment obligations, allowing Judith Miller to make war propaganda for the Bush administration, suppressing for an entire year the news that the Bush administration was illegally spying on American citizens, and denying coverage to Al Gore's speech that challenged the criminal deeds of the Bush administration.""

[jasmeel]

17. THis would be a great bumper sticker and a way to get the word

out!

"The Bush administration lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and yet many still believe they told the truth about 9/11."
-Paul Craig, Reagan Administration

[hadrons]

18. Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Questions Twin Towers Collapse

someone tried to post this earlier, but placed it in breaking and it was pulled, but I liked the subject. I downloaded the interview a few dats ago (here at http://www.electricpolitics.com/ ... its long, over an hour ... about 58MB) and I enjoyed it (Paul Craig Roberts still defends Reagan's economic policies, but don't let that turn you off) ... from the article:


"They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition. They insist that there is no stopping war and a police state as long as the government's story on 9/11 remains unchallenged." (Paul Craig Roberts)

.....

In November, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones challenged the assumption that the twin towers and Building 7 collapsed from fire damage alone, stating "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic."

"Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," said Jones.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/080206towerscollapse.htm

I got the feeling from listening to Roberts is that he believed that the building was set to undergo a controlled demolition in the case of an attack or a plane flying into it, basically that the hijacking and the planes ramming the towers wasn't planned, but the bring down of the towers was

[medeak]

19. sigh

husband is mechanical engineer and contractor building high rises for 30 years. After the first plane went in... he said "those poor people...it's coming down...why don't they get them the hell out"

Jet fuel raised the temperature so high that metal melted...he walked out the door in disgust before knowing of the second plane.

[Roland99]

20. The official explanation isn't that the metal melted...

it was that the metal weakened from the temperatures.

Even then, why didn't just a few floors collapse? Why didn't the tops of the towers sheer off and fall off to the side?


Watch Loose Change. I know some of it leads the viewer to thinking of desired results but the portions about the security drills prior to 9/11 certainly raise some questions.

[HardWorkingDem]

40. Pancake effect...

the floors collapsed on each other and the lowest could not support the weight...

[RC]

21. Hog wallow.

The plane that hit the second tower had most of it's fuel load burn OUTSIDE the building. This is the building that fell first. Now why was that?

[BOHICA06]

23. It was hit lower, thus greater mass above ....

exerting force pushing it more quickly to failure; and you didn't need a whole load of fuel, you need sufficient to get everything else burning, carpet, paper, desks, chairs, tables, paint, wallboard, paneling, plastics, and people.

:tinfoilhat:

[0007]

22. Many professional Engineers and Scientists would disagree with

your husband regardless of his credentials.

[AZCat]

24. Really?

None of my acquaintance. Perhaps we travel in different circles?

[0007]

28. Indeed! And many University of Arizona engineers would also!

[AZCat]

29. Maybe you know more UofA P.E.s than I do...

That would be weird.

[Kevin Fenton]

30. Could I just ask

You seem to favour the explanation that the impacts and fires destroyed the towers, without being 100% sure of this. Doesn't it bother you that the towers didn't actually collapse in NIST's base case?

[AZCat]

33. Not really.

Perhaps it is a question of expectations: I don't expect anyone (NIST or alternative theory proponents) to be able to make too many definitive statements regarding the collapse of the WTC towers because the collapses IMO are too complex to adequately model. I don't have a lot of confidence in the NIST model - not because I think they are attempting to "cheat" in any way but because the techniques for such simulations just aren't there - so any results (base case or not) don't really mean much to me.

Perhaps this is a defeatist attitude, but I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

[Kevin Fenton]

35. Simulation techniques

My understanding is that simulation techniques are not available to model the actual collapse, i.e. the way a building falls after it reaches the point of collapse initiation (which NIST did not model), but that they are available (albeit not perfectly) for the impacts and fires leading up to the point of collapse initiation - in the base case (and the less severe case) the towers did not even reach that point.

At what point is the "cheating" line crossed? For example, if NIST had just tweaked a couple of parameters by a couple of percent then I would have said OK, but adding over 200 tons of combustibles to the fire floors? And what about increasing the failure strain for American 11 by 25% and decreasing it for WTC 1 by 20%?

Could I ask, if you're not convinced by the scientific arguments about the collapse of the towers, then why do you think they fell due to the impact damage and fires?

[AZCat]

36. They might be available...

but I don't find them reliable.

I am probably more forgiving of any "tweaking" done by the NIST team because I have been in the same position. Not too long ago I did an energy simulation of a group of buildings and after comparing my results to what I should have seen I had to do a lot of "modifying" to my original model. Where was the error - had I failed to set up the model correctly (had I omitted anything) or was the basic method at fault? Did my "fudging" merely paper over a problem and were the predictions of the model still unreliable even though the benchmark was duplicated? I don't have the answers, and when these questions are applied to the work of the NIST I don't have those answers either.

No-one has yet to produce anything that would convince me that the towers were brought down by any method other than the process generally outlined in the so-called "official story". Does this mean I am biased? Probably - but I still try to grant all arguments a fair reading (though there are probably people who think I fail to do so).

[rman]

47. That must be why NIST spend millions simulating something that

didn't require any explanation: the planes crashing into the buildings. This in fact takes up 99% of the NIST report.

[hadrons]

25. the questions are from the WAY the towers fell, not that they fell ....

[Zen Democrat]

31. My understanding is that the melting point of the metal was way beyond

the heat of jet fuel. I've heard several experts discuss that jet fuel could not have melted or bent the steel in WTC.

For people that say "just more conspiracies" ... I say, well what the hell do you think has been going on for centuries! Caesar's murder was a conspiracy, for crying out loud. Bush and the NSA wiretapping and eavesdropping on our phone conversations and email is a conspiracy. The invasion of Iraq was part of a conspiracy to fix intelligence and get rid of anyone who wasn't on board with the war.

At what point can we stop pooh-poohing conspiracies as if they are the stuff of imagination. At some point you have to realize that while not everything is based on conspiracy, a whole hell of a lot of our REAL history has been based on two or more working in secret to plot and plan events that are against the law.

Shit, Karl Rove does that every day. We're in the land of waking nightmares now -- not imagination.

[petgoat]

34. metal melted.

NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating enough to weaken it, let alone melt it.
None of their samples shows heating above 250 degrees C.

Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers came down.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

Brian Clarke walked down from the South Tower's 84th floor and saw no raging inferno. He stopped at
31 to make phone calls!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

The firemen on 78 reported no large fires. They said they had a couple of isolated fires and they set out to knock them down.

The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes--and most of it burned off in the fireball outside the
building.

[Gelliebeans]

42. I am new to

reading up on the theories that have been presented but I wanted to ask a question regarding the color of the metal determining heat.

I've seen a picture or two of the metal that was found in basement of the WTC and it was being lifted by some heavy equiptment, it was the color of salmon indicating that the metal was around 1400-1600 degrees I believe.
Is that an indicator as to whether jet fuel played a part in the ignition of the fire.

Sorry I can't find the picture of to post it.

I also heard that the jet fuel burned off in 10 minutes.

[rman]

43. 1400(c?) vs 250c - indication that jet fuel was not the cause

Since fuel doesn't burn that hot, nor do office contents.
Even the official story does not claim that the steel melted due to the fires, it claims that the steel was weakened - even though some of their own data shows that is implausible.
Imo the most plausible explanation is that thermite was used to cut the steel core columns. Thermite burns at 2500c.

[Gelliebeans]

45. that was it

Thermite.... told ya I am new to all this. ;) thanks for the reply :hi:

[petgoat]

48. You can see discussion of the molten steel in Dr. Jones's paper

here:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html




I regarded this as an urban legend until Jones started championing it.

[HamdenRice]

46. medeak -- can your husband explain WTC 7? No planes, small fires ...

and it collapsed directly into its footprint around 5:30 pm. It just happened to house the NY offices of the CIA, Secret Service, IRS and the SEC office with much of the Enron investigation's paper files.

I agree that the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 could have been caused by the planes and fires, but in the context of the collapse of 7, I find that unlikely. It is the collapse of 7 that makes me think it was MIHOP and demolition.

[lyonn]

26. Towers fell straight down, that was shocking

I watched them fall and panicked as I assumed they would fall to one side or the other, not straight down. That was a blessing. As time went by and without any tin foil, it still amazed me that both fell straight down. There are programs explaining how scientific it is to demolish a large building where it will collapse on itself. It would be nice if someone could explain that. The heat could not have been evenly distributed to evenly drop them, one side should have weakened sooner from the heat.

[hadrons]

27. "That was a blessing"

maybe rather than hoping for the towers to fall straight down, someone agreed that they should in the worst-case scenario ... of course, no-one would want this public ... say, I remember that Rudy G. spent millions relocating some high-wired police command center in/near the towers just a few years before 9/11 ... interesting

say, anyone hear of any scenarios of what could have happened if the towers fall to the side?

[zanne]

32. Wow--I guess this is a touchy subject, huh?

Can a person have the opinion that it looked fishy, or will I be tombstoned?

[hadrons]

37. self-delete

self-delete

[HardWorkingDem]

39. Again, read....American Ground By William Langewiesche

But in a nut shell, the experts he talked to surmised that the striking of the planes and explosions knocked off the fire retardant material on the metal girders of the buildings. Then, the jet fuel ignited items in the buildings, especially paper, which allowed the temperature to rise enough to buckle the unprotected steel. The steel then weakened, bent and collapsed inward causing a pancake effect allowing the collapsing of other floors - each floor that fell onto the other could not support the added weight. I also believe also that the author spoke to people that said modern skyscrapers are built to collapse inward (if some disaster happens) to minimize other danger caused by a building toppling over.

[rman]

44. paper doesn't make for a particularly hot fire

even official reports (NIST, FEMA) have trouble showing the fires got hot enough to weaken the steel enough to cause collapse.

[HardWorkingDem]

49. it's not the heat, but prolonged fuel...

all of that is gone into in his articles and books.....it doesn't have anything to do with sudden and intense heat, but a prolonged fuel source to heat and weaken the steel....

[rman]

50. It's temperature that matters,

Which is pretty much equivalent to "heat".

A steel structure can be exposed to like 300c for ever without significant loss of strength.

Nothing gets hotter then the temperature of the fire it is exposed to.

[tinrobot]

38. A Treasury Secretary?

Does he have a degree in structural engineering as well?

Thought not...

[corbett]

41. He Must've Watched This DVD!

https://secure.reopen911.org/freedvd.php