Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Former Bush Admin Economist Says Official Story of WTC Collapse 'Bogus'

Update: Response To Admin Economist - Official Story of WTC Collapse 'Bogus'

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."

Prisonplanet Archive: Bombs in the Buildings

Prisonplanet Archive: WTC 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and Others

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
Morgan Reynolds

"It didnÂ’t seem realÂ… There are thousands of these steel beams that just fell like pickup sticks."

~ John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer

Full 911 comprehensive archive @


History has shown that the people who hold power create the disasters intentionally, only to step in at the last minute and save the day. The sheeple population will beg the governments to keep them safe from these disasters and willingly give up their civil liberties.

A totalitarian regime or a brave new world is in the pipeline, if you stand back and look, the foundations are being laid now. Is this what you want?


Anonymous jri said...

This just goes to show the level of insanity of the people the Bush administration glom on to. It is unfathomable how the collapse of any of these buildings were due to an "inside job". Giving this guy a platform will only help you renemies destroy your credibility. Let it go.

2:00 pm  
Blogger JasonF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:38 pm  
Anonymous Dave Bell said...

Well, it's true enough that if the standard story is false there's likely something very nasty lurking.

But the guy is an economist. Why should anyone expect him to know what he's talking about? At least, on the topic of collapsing buildings.

It just isn't a credible story, in so many ways. If the airliners didn't do it, how could the work needed be kept a secret? This isn't a few people; this needs a lot of people doing some pretty specific work.

11:00 am  
Blogger JasonF said... he not credible enough to have an opinon other than official hole riddled version?

The airliners didn't do it...alone.

2:50 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's insane. We saw the buildings burn. Some of us saw the airplanes hit. There has never been any evidence of a demolition setup in those buildings. The demolition was done by the two airplane hits. There was a comprehensive review of the building collapse done afterward. The explanations they came up with were entirely credible.

None of the expressions I can think of to convey my opinion of this man are polite enough for me to post.

making light

5:35 am  
Blogger JasonF said...

Reynolds is saying he doesn't believe the official line, neither do I.

Nobody is doubting what you saw! the facts are the WTC was probably the strongest building built, DESIGNED to withstand 3 strikes per building.

The planes did not bring down the building and neither did the fire, fire has never brought down a concrete tower in HISTORY, and the fire was small.

Explain how the building dropped in 10 seconds straight down and no toppling?

Explain how the concrete was pulverised? only explosives can do this....but wait the clean up was done and sent to China before any investigation, there was a big uproar about this.

Explain how the firefighters heard the floor 'popping' as if there was explosions inside, there is only one independent interview about, explain how the firefighters have national security restriction gag orders placed on them?

Explain how building 7 felled by a controlled demolition, Silverstein the owner of the buildings said so on tv!

More to the point the explaination for the collapse of the buildings has changed several times.....did you not know this? why?

Where the blueprints?.....national security...why?

Explain how a average small aircraft pilot can 'thread the needle' an airliner.....airline pilots fly by wire! they don't fly manually!

I'll tell you what you saw a planes hit a building then you witnessed a controlled demolition.

Why would you be upset, because people sees things different?

Qui bono? who benefits? not the Arabs.

12:03 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All your questions about how the building could collapse have been answered, repeatedly and publicly. There've been major magazine articles on the subject. There's been at least one well-regarded and widely reviewed book about it, and the book's still in print. There've been multiply-rerun prime-time TV documentaries devoted to *exactly* those questions.

These multiple sources don't contradict each other, except insofar as bits of explanation have kept coming in. Those aren't conflicting explanations. That's a developing explanation. Big difference.

If you have not familiarized yourself with this hard-to-dodge body of information, what the hell right do you have pretending that the questions you ask are still in play?

That is *not* an intellectually respectable position.

You want to know how the towers came down? Here's the short version. They used an interesting construction method that left the interior spaces on each floor unblocked by pillars and supports. The towers had a central core structure, where the elevators and other infrastructure ran. Each floor was attached to that core, and to the supportive outer skin of the building.

The buildings were rated to withstand the impact of smaller jets than the ones that hit them, and nobody calculated in the effect of having huge amounts of unspent jet fuel turn into a liquid-to-vapor explosive fireball inside the building.

That, by the way, was the reason the hijackers grabbed planes that were scheduled to fly across the country: they'd be full of jet fuel when they hit.

The shock of the impact (which knocked essential insulation off support structures) and the fireball (which damaged the now-uninsulated support structures) did sufficient damage to cause one or more floors of the WTC to break loose from the core and the outer skin. They fell, slamming down into the floors underneath them. Those floors were never designed to support that much weight. They broke loose from their support structures in turn.

At that point, nothing in the world could have saved the building. The accumulating stack of collapsed and falling floors was moving down through the supportive outer tube construction like a projectile fired down the barrel of a gun. Eventually, all the floors became part of that plunging mass. That's why the buildings went down so tidily, like someone doing a waterfall with a deck of cards.

The buildings collapsed with unimaginable force, literally pulverizing everything inside. Sure, concrete turned to powder. So did everything else. The sheer kinetic energy of that fall was the reason the collapsed mass of material had so much heat trapped in it for such a long time afterward.

Have you ever seen the aftermath of a conventional building demolition? There's lots of chunks'n'rubble left. You don't get anything like that terrifying pulverisation effect produced by the piledriver collapse of the floors of the World Trade Center.

That's how it happened.

As for 7 World Trade Center: yeah, it collapsed. No surprise there, considering what had just happened right next to it. We were worried about more buildings in the vicinity of the WTC going down, but thank God the rest of them held.

Here's why your "demolition charges" scenario didn't happen:

The WTC had been attacked only a few years earlier, and its tenants were more security-conscious than most. Rigging a building for demolition is a nontrivial and disruptive task, and for a building that size would have required large amounts of explosives. There's absolutely no way that could have been done on the sly.

Buildings slated for demolition are usually empty. In the WTC, they'd have to have been going into working offices to drill through walls, and bash through covering construction, in order to rig explosives at crucial points.

People would have noticed, to put it mildly. They would also have noticed that it was happening all over the towers. Nobody's ever reported anything like that going on in the days leading up to the attack.

I'm certain that the building's administrative and maintenance organization had regular procedures for doing work on the building when the work area had tenants in it. That's normal for large buildings like that.

All it would have taken to wreck the demolition plan would have been one phone call from one tenant to the building's administrators, asking what the hell was going on with these building repairs, how long was the work going to take, and why the hell hadn't they followed standard procedures.

Thus, you could not have rigged the buildings for demolition unless you had the cooperation of the WTC's administrative and maintenance staff, and we know darned well they weren't in on the plot. They loved their building. Some of them went down with it.

Here's another reason that's a dumb scenario. You've supposedly got two buildings wired for demolition, right? That's a finicky setup. You don't rig all those precisely calculated explosive charges AND THEN RAM A PLANE INTO THE BUILDING. You'd mess up the whole thing.

But do your imagined plotters set off the demolition charges once the planes have hit? They do not. They sit around sucking their thumbs long enough for thousands of people to safely evacuate the buildings. Then they set off explosive charges unrelated to the airplane impacts and jet fuel fireballs -- like that would have gone unnoticed.

You do know that if conventional explosives had been used on the towers, they'd have left chemical traces all over everything? There'd have been no way to cover that up, because the insurance investigators would have spotted it.

Then your demolitionists would have sat and sucked their thumbs some more before setting off the charges in 7 World Trade Center. This scenario further assumes that our Fire Chief, who was inside the building at the time, inspecting the damage, somehow failed to notice that the whole thing was rigged for demolition.

I'm sorry, I can't go on. There's too much stupidity here, and it's giving me a case of stupid poisoning.

Give this up. Bad things happened on that day, but pre-rigged explosive demolition was not one of them.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

1:17 pm  
Blogger JasonF said...

Let it go...give this up, simply amazing.

Stupidity? what is more stupid, to know something is wrong and say something or to live in lala land and believe the nonsense a small cabal inside government tells you?

If someone disagrees with you by all means debate....but keep our insults to yourself.

Back on topic, I fail to see how people get upset when somebody says they think the official line is 'bogus'

WTC 7 was 'pulled' the owner said so on tv, it was not the closest building to 1&2, How did they manage to wire WTC 7 for demolition so quick? All 3 buildings were owned by Silverstein.

Is it registering yet?

This is the REAL WORLD WAKE UP!!! you didnt see this in the news...why not?

Shareholder Proposal: Insurer to Investigate 9/11 WTC7

Please watch 911 comission report then watch this:

Prof.David Ray Griffin: THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: omissions and distortions.

Truth you will not watch it.

Zogby poll.
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

I am not alone and 66% is NOT stupid.

1:38 am  
Blogger Greg said...

http://2rcs.commodular construction and modular construction Ideas for Home Construction projects. If you own a home and need to work on modular construction then al I want to say is Yea.... I wood love to let you in on a secret about home repairs... People ask me all the time about modular construction and they want to know simple ways to solve ther problems ...well I have the answers and If you go to modular construction and go through the site you will find what you are looking for... what can I say butt get going ...

5:22 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello !.
You may , probably very interested to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
The firm represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with offices around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your chance That`s what you wish in the long run!

I feel good, I started to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a proper partner utilizes your funds in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I make 2G daily, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to get rid of nastiness of the life

10:49 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello !.
might , perhaps very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
The firm represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with offices everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!

I feel good, I started to take up income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct companion who uses your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to get rid of nastiness of the life

7:11 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have been times of hardship when I didn't know about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright stupid person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in large starting capital.
Now, I feel good, I started take up real money.
It gets down to choose a proper partner who uses your money in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, parts and divides the income with me.

You may get interested, if there are such firms? I have to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please be informed of one of them: [url=]Online Investment Blog[/url]

4:05 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home