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.Before you go wondering just what this economist knows about building demolition, consider that while he is no expert, he's not exactly an idiot, either. According to UPI's John Daly, Reynolds served as the 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, so he's not a moron.
Why is this so important?
Well, for someone who was inside the Bush 43 Admin to admit that there just might be something fishy about the official story of how the WTC came down is like one of Hitler's guys saying he thinks Hitler might have lit a fire the night the Reichstag burned down.
If you have a closed mind, you probably haven't seen any of the 911 "conspiracy" documentaries that are so abundant on the 'net. If you have a closed mind, you may have watched them only to have written them off as conspiracy crap.
If you have an open mind hopefully you have looked at those docus and found that a few of them actually bring up some interesting points about 911, including a few things regarding the official story of how and why the WTC buildings fell on 9/11/01. Sure, even the docu that is being called the best at listing the things that don't make sense about 911 does stretch the imagination in a few places. But Loose Change also points out what many other documentarians, level-headed, open-minded type people like myself and this Reynolds guy have already noticed:
The Twin Towers and building 7 sure looked to have been brought down buy something other than flaming jet fuel.
Some say it was controlled demolition. Others say it was missiles. Some say both.
Who's right?
Who knows?
One thing that I know for sure, however, is that for jet fuel to have brought down the Towers we'd have to live in an alternate reality because there just wasn't enough jet fuel left after the initial fireballs to melt enough steel to bring those buildings down. Then look at building 7--the official story is that it was brought down by fire, too.
Was building 7 made of extremely dry balsa wood?
Fires aren't known for bringing down buildings--even ones not made of steel, glass and concrete. You can't use the jet fuel excuse on building 7 because it wasn't hit with a plane.
See that? Shit just don't add up.
I may not be a genius, but I am a college graduate. I've been around and I've read a lot. You'd have to be overflowing with blind faith in the US Government to not look at these facts and want to see a proper investigation done.
Of course, that's impossible since the debris from the collapse of the three buildings was never investigated--it was cleared out and shipped to a junkyard where it was then sold for scrap.
Kind of difficult to do an investigation when the evidence has been sold off.
I'm not saying 911 was an inside job--I'm just saying I agree with that Reynolds guy--there's some serious fishiness going on with the official stories of 911 and it doesn't take paranoia to make you paranoid when you look at the facts.
From a blurb from www.UPI.com posted on June 13, 2005 at WashingtonTimes.com:
UPI Hears...
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."
What can I say...I'm addicted to your ridiculos blog. Whenever I want a dose of obsurity I know exactly where to go. No long rant this time, just one question. If the fire wasn't large (i.e. hot) to melt steel (melting point starts @ about 2500F...which ain't that hot for a fire especially one started with hundreds of gallons of jet fuel...which doesn't combust like gasoline but burns more so like kerosene ). Where was all the dang smoke, not to mention the flames shooting out broken windows, coming from? Maybe it was Elvis...or perhaps Tupac...
ReplyDeleteWhat a hellova question, eh?
Jonah
"hundreds of gallons of jet fuel"
ReplyDeleteThat all exploded in that fireball. Jet fuel burns like, uh, jet fuel. Hot and fast. The smoke was from, oh, I don't know--things burning? You ever see that much smoke pour from the back of an aircraft? No. 2500 degrees is apparently very hot. I've read that steel doesn't melt until something like 1800 C and jet fuel only gets up to like 1000 C.
Sure, there was fire and smoke, but that shouldn't bring down a building made of steel.
Oh and could you relax on the insults, please? Comment, disagree, fine, but don't be a dick about it. Calling my blog ridiculous and absurd makes me wonder why I put up with you.
I can ban you with almost as much ease as I allow you to post here, so you might want to try to be a bit more productive with your posts. Again, you can disagree with me all you like. But the personal insults are getting a little old.
Beyond all of the above--don't you think there should have been a comprehensive investigation of 911? Back with the first WTC attack there was a full criminal investigation, a trial and even a conviction. What do we have here? No investigation of the crime scene and no conviction of Osama bin Laden.
He's your guy, you explain the behavior!
I'll ease up on the insults. You can block my IP or even this entire block of ip addies. One proxy server and I'm back posting. The internet is vast and wide. We both know thatif someone with IT smarts wanted to post on your site everyday, theres not much you can do to stop them. Other than pre-approve posts before publishing them. But I'm not into pissing contests; you pay the domain registration fees and I respect that. So, here's an olive branch of peace and my promise to drop the insults.
ReplyDeleteTo the 9/11 investigation question I would say the following. 9/11 is/was no more a criminal act than Pearl Harbor. They where both acts of war. Granted, the cowardly act of Japan was orchestrated by a souverign nation and 9/11 was the results of a very, very large group of cowards who in a sense are governed by their own warped ideology. But both where strategic military attacks. One designed to crush the effectiveness of a naval fleet; the other designed to crush our economic power, sending the country into caos.
To that you would say what about the '93? WTC attack. To that I would apply the same knowledge. Their intent was to cripple our economy. But again these cowards where no countries uniform.
Yes Sir, these are different times Pete. A time which I hope my children will only read about and never experience. A time when thier country is slowly being destroyed by it's own citizens who believe that we should appease those that want nothing less than our total destruction. A time when the most tolerant, most charitable nation ever to exist is veiwed as evil by some of it's own citizens. Citizens like you, Pete, who will only highlite the bad and never the good that this nation does everyday in the world. To me that is an insult.
Peace out friend,
Jonah
I have to agree with jonah on this one pete. My Hermano served in the navy, on an aircraft carrier. Jet fuel is a form of diesel also known as a buffer and is very oily. It burns very slow just like Kerosene and extremely hot. thus getting hot enough to reach the temp to melt steel, also take into consideration that a jet slammin into the building would cause structural damage thus weakening the steel. for example, if you light off a firework next too your hand its not gonna do as much damage as it would if you had it completly enclosed in your hand. so when the jets hit, some of those steel beams were severed and consider the weight of the amount of building obove the impact and the area were the impacts were. It would cause a building to collapse.
ReplyDelete"hot enough to reach the temp to melt steel,"
ReplyDeleteWell, if you can get an independent confirmation on this--great. But from what I've read/heard jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. I think I mentioned above that I understand that fuel only reaches 1000 C while steel melts at 1800 C. At least, that's what I've heard/read--I'm no expert in this stuff.
"also take into consideration that a jet slammin into the building would cause structural damage thus weakening the steel."
Well, every documentary (including the non-conspiratorial ones) point out that the Towers will built to withstand a direct impact of a 747. So, I'm guessing that structural integrity would not be an issue. They took the buildings weight and all that into consideration.
Besides that, you and everyone else once again dodged the real issue here:
Why no investigation?
Why avoid looking into what really happened?
In the biggest damn tragedy the US has faced in the last 50 years, you'd think we could get a decent investigation, don't you?
"While this may not be the literal definition of war, generally it’s understood that wars are held between countries–not between a country and a group of people"
ReplyDeletePerphaps you've heeard the word jihad kicked around in the last 30 years? You're no idiot, so I'm sure you know that it means "holy war".... But perhaps we could change the modern day meaning to "Let's kill Americans because we're oppressed by our own leaders, forced to live in poverty while they, our leaders, live in million dollar palaces (Saudi Arabi...i forget how many of the hijackers came from here). And my favorite...let's kill American's because some iman told us too."
These are not desperate ppl, Pete. They are cowardous murders. They, like those on death row here in the US and those who have been given the big nap like Tim McVeigh, are simply murders. If your logic was to hold true, we could say that the lychings of blacks in the mid-20th century was an act of desperation on the part of those who's government wouldn't listen to the fact they didn't want blacks to drink out of the same water fountain as themselves. Again, these are not desperate ppl. Desperate ppl may do some pretty risky things, like those from Hati or maybe Cuba. Crossing the ocean in a 1956 Chevy with 55 gallon drums duct taped to it just for a taste of freedom is an act of desperation. Plotting to use passenger planes as weapons or lynching 3 civil rights workers registering black voters is no act of desperation.
You're right, the Pentagon was a military target. Thanks for strengthing my opinion on "act of war".
It would be great if we could label these ppl....let me clear up what I mean by these ppl... I don't mean Iraqis, Irainians, Africains. I mean the finatics and ppl who make it possible for them to perpertuate there murdeous ideaology. We can not label them as desperate with no other avenue of change but death. It would be great if "Give peace a chance" would work with these folks, but unfortunately it will not. Their hatred is fueled by thousands of years of deeply rooted religion.. not 229 years of America.
Pete, I would like to point out how you would go to such drastic measures to administer your webpage, but think drastic measures to engage a threat that could possible lead to our death is wrong.
RIP to those who died during a desperate act orchestrated by a multi-millionare and executed by the citiznes of an extremely oil rich nation. Your horrible deaths where a wake up call to the world.
RIP to the innocent who die everyday in places like Iraq. Your deaths will never be forgotten by your future countrymen who will live in peace and freedom.
Burn in hell to those who strap bombs to their body and target children on busses in the name of Allah.
Best regards to you and your webpage fans,
Jonah