Former Bush Team Member Suggests 9/11 Planned Demolition, Government Job?

[MSTCrowT]

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."

Source: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

[Kat Kanning]

Here was another article about it:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[Lloyd Danforth]

No one holds the government in higher suspicion, than, I, but, considering the number of people that would have to be involved in this and, how it is practically, impossible to maintain a conspiracy in a world where loyalty barely exists, I doubt the gov't. was involved, beyond, failing to prevent it.
Another consideration, is that two towers  with holes in them, blackened above the holes, seems to me to be a better image to start a war over, than, something, simply, not there anymore.

[Ron Helwig]

Way I see it is that either the conspiracy theory is true, in which case the govt is to blame; or it isn't, in which case govt is to blame (for not allowing the asbestos that at least theoretically would have prevented the collapse, as well as not stopping the terrorists). Of course, if the passengers had been allowed self-defense then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No conspiracy theory needed here. Feds are inherently unable to protect against terrorism.

[MSTCrowT]

I find Mr. Reynolds statements convincing, but I have two questions:

1.  Mr. Reynolds is an economist by trade.  What is the source of his expertise on architecture and demolition?

2.  What were the circumstances under which Mr. Reynolds left during Bush's first term.  Did he jump, or was he pushed?  What are his motives?

[KBCraig]

Reynolds is professor emeritus at Texas A&M. The Aggies, to their credit, are disavowing this nonense.

http://www.tamu.edu/00/start/DrGates-statement.html

The following is a statement from Texas A&M University regarding recent news reports about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds is retired from Texas A&M University, but holds the title of Professor Emeritus-an honorary title bestowed upon select tenured faculty, who have retired with ten or more years of service.  Additionally, contrary to some written reports, while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus.  Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University.  Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University:

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.?

Kevin

[tracysaboe]

Wouldn't suprise me a bit.

Tracy

[MSTCrowT]

From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories:

Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers, has written "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

I haven't verified that a Kevin Ryan of UL actually did say this, mind you.

[KBCraig]

Wouldn't suprise me a bit.

Tracy

Yes, I'm fairly certain that as soon as the planes hit, some MIB grabbed enough C4 to bring down the buildings, and dashed up the towers, through the burning floors, to plant explosives.

I'm sure of it. 

Kevin

[KBCraig]

From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories:

Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers, has written "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

"We"?

And, "of" Underwriters Laboratories? Does that mean he's a metallurgist? A structural engineer? An accountant? A mail room flunky?

This is getting just plain silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

A typical Boeing 767 is 180 feet (55 m) long and has a wingspan of 156 feet (48 m), with a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons (91,000 L) of jet fuel. The planes hit the towers at very high speeds: Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the north tower, Flight 175 hit the south tower at about 590 mph (950 km/h). The resulting explosions ignited thousands of gallons of the jet fuel and immediately spread the fire to several different floors simultaneously in each tower, consuming paper, furniture, carpeting, computers, books, walls and framing, human beings, and other items in all the affected floors. The fires reached sustained intense temperatures rarely observed in building conflagrations, in places exceeding 760 ?C (1400 ?F).

The north tower, 1 WTC, was impacted at 8:46:26 am and collapsed at 10:28:31 am, standing for 102 minutes and 5 seconds. The south tower, 2 WTC, was impacted at 9:02:54 am and collapsed at 9:59:04 am, standing for 56 minutes and 10 seconds. The fact that the north tower stood much longer than the south is attributed mainly to three facts: the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter); the speed of the airplane was lower (so there was less impact damage); the affected floors had had their fire proofing partially upgraded.

I understand the doubts and questions about Oklahoma City. But what kind of a kook could watch exactly what happened at the WTC with his own eyes, and believe government agents planted explosives to bring down the buildings?

Kevin

[MSTCrowT]

I understand the doubts and questions about Oklahoma City. But what kind of a kook could watch exactly what happened at the WTC with his own eyes, and believe government agents planted explosives to bring down the buildings?

I don't believe per se that they did, but they did seem to react a bit strangely to being hit by planes.  And WTC 7 is an open question mark.

[KBCraig]

I understand the doubts and questions about Oklahoma City. But what kind of a kook could watch exactly what happened at the WTC with his own eyes, and believe government agents planted explosives to bring down the buildings?

I don't believe per se that they did, but they did seem to react a bit strangely to being hit by planes.

So how would you expect the buildings to react to being struck by an airliner at high speed, followed by an hour of uncontrolled fire enhanced by 20,000 gallons of jet fuel?

And WTC 7 is an open question mark.

Why?



WTC 7 was well within the debris radius. Being 47 stories, it wasn't built to withstand anything like an airplane strike, but it was still tall enough to suffer pancaking when fire and debris from above weakened it.

None of us here are great lovers nor trusters of government. But what mindset does it take to believe that in the horror of 9/11, someone said, "Wooo-hooo, here's our chance to destroy evidence!"

Kevin

[MSTCrowT]

And WTC 7 is an open question mark.


Why?

"The WTC 7 building was not struck by any airliner nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. The official explanation for the collapse of the twin towers relys primarily on these two details, however, WTC 7 also collapsed straight down and at close to freefall speed."

[MSTCrowT]

Here is a list of 9/11 conspiracy theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

[KBCraig]

And WTC 7 is an open question mark.


Why?

"The WTC 7 building was not struck by any airliner nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. The official explanation for the collapse of the twin towers relys primarily on these two details, however, WTC 7 also collapsed straight down and at close to freefall speed."

"On the morning of September 11, the North Tower of the World Trade Center (1 WTC) across Vessey Street collapsed, showering 7 WTC and neighboring buildings with debris.

"7 World Trade Center collapsed hours later, at 5:20pm. Firefighters had abandoned the building, and let the fires burn. As little could be seen from outside, and no-one was able to observe what happened within the building, the cause of the collapse is disputed. The sprinkler systems may have failed when water pipes were damaged from the 1 WTC debris. A total of 160,000 liters (42,000 gallons) of diesel fuel were stored in five tanks within the building, which some believe could have fueled the fire, causing the steel skeleton to weaken and finally give way, as is reported to have had happened in the twin towers. In addition, the building's unusual architecture may have contributed to its collapse. It was built on top of an existing Con Ed substation, such that the building was cantilevered over the substation at the fifth floor."