Bush Team Member: WTC Collapse Likely Controlled Demolition

[ranxer]

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition

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.

[Emu]

Okay, what kind of "suspicious facts" is he talking about? I'm pretty sure the entire country saw two planes crash into the WTC, and it seems to me that it takes less logical leaps of faith to believe that that was enough to bring down the towers as opposed to a giant government conspriacy coverup to accomplish...what? What would this accomplish? What's the motive?

[ItalianStereotype]

RED PILL RED PILL MATRIX MATRIX MATRIX

[kellychaos]

Set to explode the same time as the infamous rocket impact at the Pentagon. Foul fiends, indeed!

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Emu

as opposed to a giant government conspriacy coverup to accomplish...what? What would this accomplish? What's the motive?

The motive is to generate public outrage sufficient to justify the neoconservative movement's long-standing plan of Middle East conquest. Note: "neo-conservative moment" is not the same thing as "the government" though they overlap a great deal right now.

I don't know about this whole demolition aspect of the conspiracy. I'd be more accepting of conspiracy theories that allude to events not being stopped because they didn't realize just how severe the damage would be. But the idea that the tragedy was allowed to happen, just like the Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen, so that a hawk in Washington could move forward on war plans is not so ludicrous.

[Preechr]

I don't know... It's pretty hard to dispute the opinions of a chief economist from the Labor Dept. Those guys have been heavily involved in the 9/11 investigations since the attacks occurred, haven't they?

Personally, I feel the idea of explosives pre-existing within the WTC helping with the demolition is pretty much inside the realm of that which is obvious at this point. That's not to say anyone other than terrorists are to blame. "Controlled Demolition?" That's funny.

[Yggdrasill]

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.

What is this refering to? The terrorists were only against airport security weren't they? And weren't they are all seen on security tapes from the airports later? Was there evidence found to point to a controlled explosion? It's really hard to imagine what this guy is saying, is it something like?:

'people knew about 9/11 before and wanted to make sure it went through in case the whole plane crash thing didn't work and according to my calculations *pulls out calculator* its scientifically hard to outwit the U.S. and requires a succesful die roll of 100 therefore i have cornfused Animal Cracker this is just scientific debate but the government is for sure wrong'

Seriously I don't get this guy, and that jet fuel collapse thing seems more likely and I question why he just "now" believes it was a controlled demolition

[ziggytrix]

We had several opportunities beyond airport security to stop these guys from doing the damage they did. It could have been somebody "asleep at their post" in every instance, or it could have been sabotage.

Four planes at once with no transponder info on the FAA screens and Air Force screens. All of them just showing up as blips on radar. One plane is in a "NO FLY ZONE";.. within constantly monitored, restricted airspace. A pilot has already remarked that when a plane deviates just a little, that the FAA oversight will call and/or allow for course corrections. But, we are talking about planes that were miles off course. In these instances, the FAA reports it to the Air Force. But also, in these instances, the Air Force has already locked onto these planes, because they monitor the commercial system as well as their own. That's 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day of the year. They have to, so that we don't have military and commercial aircraft flying into one another, constantly. In a circumstance like Flight 11, this plane is so far of course it is ridiculous and they are not responding normally to communications. They did a hard bank (90 degrees to the south) somewhere north of Albany, NY. The Air Force is to scramble at least a recon aircraft to monitor. Why no recon, on any of the first three flights?

http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/91...ng/capable.htm

Anyone know enough about USAF policy to debunk this? It's well within the realm of possiblity that this guy is talking out his ass, but this isn't the first time I've heard of pilots saying they don't understand how this happened under US airspace regulations.

[GAsux]

First, I think its critically important to consider the professional scientific opinion of a former cheif economist. Having taken an economics class or two myself, I recall that admist all the Smith, Keynes, etc, we often discussed structural design as it relates to explosives.

Second, no idea who the guy is, but just curious why he is a "former" member. Not saying it's proof to discredit the guys opinion, which by the way that's all it is, an economists opinion, but is it possible that he'd have a personal reason to make such a statement?

Finally, I think the thing that makes the scenario of incompetence and missed opportunities seem plausible to me is that I've been employed by a federal agency for 9 years now. If you haven't had the opportunity to work in or around a federal agency, particularly at the national level, I don't think you fully realize the beauracracy and inefficiency that can take place. Without that understanding, it's very easy to convert incompetence into conspiracy in your mind.

As for AF policy, I'm certain that military ATC's view the same radar info that civilian ATCs see. THATs the reason you don't have military and commercial planes flying into each other "constantly". The AF doesn't have separate scopes for different types of aircraft.

[ranxer]

crap! i forgot a link to the whole article..
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles...8131/27302.htm

quote]Quote:
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.

What is this refering to? The terrorists were only against airport security weren't they? And weren't they are all seen on security tapes from the airports later? Was there evidence found to point to a controlled explosion?[/quote]

there's lots of scientific evidence that it was a demolition.
1) the buildings came down at freefall speed..(10 seconds) this would require that nothing was below the floors that supposedly buckled
2) the buildings came down despite the fact that the fires were going out. (dark black smoke indicates a smothered or dieing fire)
2a) people were standing in the wholes the planes made, showing that there was no raging fire.
3) fires have never brought down steel structured buildings
the wtc buildings were designed to withstand large commercial jet lliner impacts.
4) the buildings came straight down! i could understand maybe one but three buildings diving straight down into thier footprints? no way.. especially when none of the planes hit dead center.
5) fires in the rubble lasting weeks and burning much higher than jet fuel or regular refuse fires.
6) PULVERIZED concrete ejected from many floors would not have been there if the buildings simply collapsed..
7) (not so scientific)reports of repeating explosions by firefighters and people on the scene.

um, that's just a quick list.. i'm sure there's more evidence.. ask a demolition expert about some of these.. or a structural engineer that hasn't taken the blue pill all the way.

oh and the comments about an economist knowing what happened on 9/11 are silly.. I saw it right away and i didn't even graduate with my engineering degree.. as a matter of fact.. high school science is all you need to debunk the bush admins conspiracy theory.

[/quote]

[ziggytrix]

So this is the second 9/11 conspiracy thread to pop up in a month. Is it just the Downing Street Memos making people distrustful or what?

Or are most people blasé about those too?

Personally, I'm convinced that if there were any conspiracy, the very connotations of the word conspiracy would cause half the country to respond with "oh those whacko conspiracy theorists!" if REAL evidence was uncovered. People aren't even willing to entertain the idea that our government could be corruptable. That's just unpatriotic, isn't it!

[Emu]

Where do you get the "dark black smoke indicates that the fire is going out?" I don't recall seeing many fires sputter like that. Usually dark black smoke indicates something is burning, probably things like computer hardware and the varnish typically found on desks and other wooden furniature common to a large building like the WTC. I don't know that much about it, but that stood out as odd "evidence." Besides, even if the fires WERE going out, they still did their damage. The heat doesn't just go away when the fire's gone.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ranxer

there's lots of scientific evidence that it was a demolition.
1) the buildings came down at freefall speed..(10 seconds) this would require that nothing was below the floors that supposedly buckled

Or that the building was built in sections. Its more efficiient way of building and also aids in case they ever had to take down the Towers


And welcome back, looney tune. Finally gone off the deep end have you?

2) the buildings came down despite the fact that the fires were going out. (dark black smoke indicates a smothered or dieing fire)

Did you fail science as a kid? The smoke is a clear indicator of fire. Some sort of on going chemical reaction was creating the by-product we know as smoke.

2a) people were standing in the wholes the planes made, showing that there was no raging fire.

I didn't see any of that, but I'll play along.

You know what? No I won't. Show me that one. The impact of the planes destroyed the floors they hit. There is no way anyone was peering out those holes.

3) fires have never brought down steel structured buildings

Because no skyscraper had ever taken jumbo jets full of gas slamming into them and full throttle. Its rerally hard to try and site precedence in this case.

the wtc buildings were designed to withstand large commercial jet lliner impacts.

1) He may have been bragging

2) He said of that era. The 700 series had just started to hit the market and wasn't even close to the most widely used airliner

3) There is a huge difference between how something is designed and how it is built. My dad helped build them and said they didn't reinforce the skeleton like they were supposed to.

) the buildings came straight down! i could understand maybe one but three buildings diving straight down into thier footprints? no way.. especially when none of the planes hit dead center.

Neither plane hit dead center. Besides, the towers were built to collpase in case of catastrophe.

5) fires in the rubble lasting weeks and burning much higher than jet fuel or regular refuse fires.

Says you. What was lighting those fires if not jet fuel? Demoliton explosives go bang and thats it. There isn't supposed to be lingering fires.

6) PULVERIZED concrete ejected from many floors would not have been there if the buildings simply collapsed..

Sure it would. To illustrate how:

There was this old game called Aggrivation.....I think. Wooden pegs all stuffed togetherand held tightly together by a piece of wood pushed by a spring. Aggrivate the set up and the spring snapped, pushing the wood, ejecting the pegs in all directions.

Same concept.

7) (not so scientific)reports of repeating explosions by firefighters and people on the scene.

And? There were resteraunts in there with gas stoves and tons of other ways compustabiles could have been set off.

ask a demolition expert about some of these.. or a structural engineer that hasn't taken the blue pill all the way.

What blue pill? I've spoken to fire fighters, construction workers, physiscists. Read Scientific American, Popular Mechanics etc etc.

These are people who actually know science.

oh and the comments about an economist knowing what happened on 9/11 are silly..

No, ignoring physics experts in favor of a economist is silly.

I saw it right away and i didn't even graduate with my engineering degree..

With your complete failure to grasp simple scientific concepts, I'd be shocked if you passed the thrid grade.

as a matter of fact.. high school science is all you need to debunk the bush admins conspiracy theory.

You learned that fire doesn't produce smoke in high school?

Funny, I learned how tell what is burning (ie exposed to fire) by the color of the smoke.

Please direct me to the science book where you learned all your ideas. You may have a pretty good law suite in the making.


I made a habbit of ignoring you and a few others because of just how pointless arguing with an extremist is, but this one just begged for a response.

The worst part is you have a kid. You are responsible for shaping another human being. This kid is going to grow up in a worlkd that just doesn't exist. He will be taught to ignore everything in front of him and forsake all logic in order to make an excuse why someone who he doesn't like is evil.

How anyone that doesn't agree with him is on the "blue pill" or brainwashed.

That is, if this is what you are like in the real world. Unless this is just and act to raise some fun on message boards, you are condemning your child to a life of solitude and ridicule.

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

So this is the second 9/11 conspiracy thread to pop up in a month. Is it just the Downing Street Memos making people distrustful or what?

Or are most people blasé about those too?

Personally, I'm convinced that if there were any conspiracy, the very connotations of the word conspiracy would cause half the country to respond with "oh those whacko conspiracy theorists!" if REAL evidence was uncovered. People aren't even willing to entertain the idea that our government could be corruptable. That's just unpatriotic, isn't it!

Our government is corruptable. Our government is fucking huge. Obviously the official story leaves out a ton of details but I doubt it was 'our government' behind it all. I'm sure we had some people who were suppose to be defending us, working with the 9/11 terrorists but they are probaly still undercover. I mean do you need to look at the way the buildings fell for your conspiracy theories? Two of the 9/11 hijackers were living openly in california. The Phoneix flying school reported one of the hijackers requesting suspicous flight training like a year and a half before 9/11 and they did nothing. But ranxxer even thinks that it wasn't jihadists invovled which I just find hard to believe. I mean the history of Bin laden and his movements and activities in the 90s is known. Bill Clinton will know for 8 years didn't pursue al quada like he should have. I think there was two or three confirmed chances we could of killed Bin laden but the order wasn't given or was reversed mid mission.

But why don't any conspiracy theories invovlve Skulls and Bones? Clinton and Bush jr. are members and so was John Kerry. I mean Clinton was in office for 8 years while all the 9/11 prepartions were taking place, than Bush is in office during the attack and you had Kerry running just in case Bush lost. And Bush sr was probaly a skull and bones member too.

Go big if you are going to do conspiracy theories.

Ziggy and I bet the fact that Bush was in office during 9/11 and the entire world and half the country hate him that even if REAL evidence was uncovered to show that it was just islamic fundalmentalists and maybe a few traiters on our side in mid level ranks that pulled off 9/11, people would still believe it was Bush's evil administration and cheny and his oil business friends who did it for their evil and poorly executed plan for world domination.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

I mean do you need to look at the way the buildings fell for your conspiracy theories? Two of the 9/11 hijackers were living openly in california. The Phoneix flying school reported one of the hijackers requesting suspicous flight training like a year and a half before 9/11 and they did nothing. But ranxxer even thinks that it wasn't jihadists invovled which I just find hard to believe.

I agree completely. My point is that these ludicrous theories undermine any legitimate doubts about the official version of the events.

But why don't any conspiracy theories invovlve Skulls and Bones? Clinton and Bush jr. are members and so was John Kerry.

It's established that Kerry and Bush, Jr. were S&B, and Clinton did go to Yale Law, but this is the first I've ever heard he was a member of that society.

Go big if you are going to do conspiracy theories.

What, shoot for the moon, and hope for the sky? I'd prefer to take a good, serious look at the ground under my feet first, then we can talk about the moon...

I bet the fact that Bush was in office during 9/11 and the entire world and half the country hate him that even if REAL evidence was uncovered to show that it was just islamic fundalmentalists and maybe a few traiters on our side in mid level ranks that pulled off 9/11, people would still believe it was Bush's evil administration and cheny and his oil business friends who did it for their evil and poorly executed plan for world domination.

Poorly executed? I'd say if there were any cohesive strategy, it was pretty fuckin well-executed for there to be no real evidence of anything other than incompetence at this point.

But I don't really think Bush, Jr. is involved in any conspiracy. If there is one, he isn't a part of it. He may be more of a "what can my country do for me" sort of person, but I don't think our President is any more "evil" than any other spoiled rich boy. I doubt there is any real conspiracy, as such, but I cannot dismiss the fact that the tragedy of 9/11 was used as justification for our current wars in the Middle East. Therefore, I must consider the remote possiblity that it was designed for that end, by those whose interests these wars would serve.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"the wtc buildings were designed to withstand large commercial jet lliner impacts."

To my recollection, this is true, but only partially. The towers took the planes, as in they didn't just fall over. But I believe what really did them in were the subsequent infernos and melting that occurred due to all of the fuel. I dunno.

Either way, this is sort of a silly discussion.

[Abcdxxxx]

Acountants love conspiracy theories.

[GAsux]

Just on a whim Ranxer, do you suppose if I had posted a link stating that a former government official in say the labor department of Health and Human Services was 100% certain that there was no conspiracy would you respond by saying that's a valid point, or would you dismiss it out of hand as someone who clearly has no worthwhile credibility to add to the debate?

I'm convinced at this point that much like Bush on Iraq, you've made up your mind that there was a conspiracy and will do everything you can to find evidence to support while simultaneously attacking the credibility of anything that casts doubt on your preconceived notions of conspiracy.

The reason everyone argues and dismisses your POV is becuase you've not demonstrated even the slightest ability to be remotely objective.

[Ant10708]

Ziggy: I meant the plan for world domination is being poorly executed since we got so bogged down on the second country.

And I could be wrong about Clinton being S and B but I thought he was. Anyways I was just throwing out just another possible conspiracy theory

[ranxer]

point one.
the buildings(both towers!) fell at nearly free fall speed.
I think there would have been some resistance. concrete by itself would have slowed the fall down a few seconds but there was absolutely massive core collumns in there that would have slowed the fall down alot more than that. I have not seen a plausible argument to explain the speed that the buildings came down. again i could understand maybe one building oddly coming down that fast or coming straight down into its footprint but two, no, three buildings? no way, i really can't see how, unless they were controlled demolitions. this fits so neatly into the fact that FEMA swept up the evidence and got rid of it under massive security while keeping other investigators out and the bush admin denied access to investigation.

2) black smoke, very few flames...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...wtc1hole1.html

photos indicate that the fires were smoldering or going out, not showing a raging inferno. in order for the buildings to come straight down we would have to get the steel structure to melt uniformly across a complete cross section. there is absolutely no way that one section melting or weakening could get the buildings to plunge straight down! i just don't see how this could happen.. besides the fact that the fires didn't seem to be hot enough to melt or weaken the steel enough for a collapse of even one column.

wish i could hang out here and talk more about the info i've been reading but i don't have time.

bottom line for me is that if the buildings came down like the bush admins conspiracy theory describes, a) there would have been much more open investigation. b) those who didn't do thier job protecting the country would have been reprimanded. instead they got promoted.. how does that make sense?

[ziggytrix]

BTW black smoke just indicates a wasteful (oxygen poor) combustion. It doesn't mean that the fire is out, or even that it is cooling off. The fact that people were leaping out of those windows indicates that the interior seemed less surviable than a fall from that height!!

[Ant10708]

The third building fell down like 6 hours later and they know exactly why. No one attended to the fires raging in that building because of the two main towers being hit by planes and all, so fires raging for 6 hours eventually took out that buildings fire proofing on the beams. The third building was also built above a subway station which made it cave in the weird way it did.

What would be the point of doing a controlled demolition of the third building with no one inside.

Several people can be seen? I see one. And how is that proof it was a controlled demolition? If the picture of the person standing in the hole is proof of a controlled demolition than what do we call live video feed of a airliner crashing into the tower? I know you aren't saying a plane didn't make the hole but I mean live video feed of a plane hitting a tower that fell is better proof than a still image of a person standing in a hole where the plane hit(or exited).

Also who got promoted because of 9/11?

[Emu]

Originally Posted by ranxer

2) black smoke, very few flames...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...wtc1hole1.html

Those pictures are a bit dubious. That thing they boxed in, what could that be? It looks sorta like a person leaning casually against the probably superheated rubble enjoying a brisk late summer breeze. In fact, it kinda looks like a wrestler with a black mask and no shirt.

But, oh, wait, it doesn't. Nobody stands with their legs at that angle when they're leaning against something (or even when they're standing, as a matter of fact), and that "person" doesn't seem to have much of a head.

Also, is this the only photo you're basing this "evidence" off of? And what the hell do they mean 'several' people? I see one 'person.'

[Ant10708]

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...dentities.html

This hurts the conspiracy theory more than helps it. I mean if the FBI and 'our government' were able to pull off 9/11 why the fuck would they claim it was people still alive? The great American empire wasn't able to track them down and have them detained in secret and then killed before 9/11?

The site claims that the way the towers fell, 'demoliton style' caused bodies to turn to dust which would be used to prevent finding out who was actually flying the planes and who was on them. So we went to all that trouble and then blame it on 6 Arabs who are still alive?

[ziggytrix]

All that proves is that they weren't using their own names. I know I wouldn't put my own name on a fake passport if I wanted to sneak into Iran or wherever with the intent of blowing shit up. Not to mention that some of those names are probably like Joe Smith is over here. People like to use common names when they name their kids, so they aren't unique identifiers, if those were even the hijacker's real names.