Dear friends,
The official
story of the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11 is "bogus," according
to Morgan Reynolds, a top economist from the Bush team during his first administration.
Reynolds is on the record stating, "It is more likely that a controlled
demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7."
This astounding news from UPI (United Press International) was reported by
the Washington Times (link below), the second largest newspaper of
Washington, DC. For reliable, verifiable information supporting this view,
click here,
or here,
or here.
This 9/11
article is particularly interesting in that the Washington Times was
created in 1982 as a conservative alternative to the liberal Washington
Post. Both the Times and UPI are owned
by the Unification Church, pejoratively referred to as the "Moonies."
Though this unusual church is known for it's conservative agenda, the newspaper
and wire service it owns have lately been reporting key cover-ups that have
received little to no coverage by other mainstream media.
Try a
Google search on the name "Morgan Reynolds" and you will find that
besides the Washington Times, only Internet news services are covering
this most important story. To understand why other major media aren't
covering this news, see our two-page media
cover-up summary. Please help to play the role at which our press is so
sadly failing by spreading this news to your friends and colleagues. And for
an abundance of reliable, verifiable information suggesting that the 9/11
official story is far from what really happened, visit our resource-filled
9/11 Information Center.
With best
wishes,
Fred Burks for the WantToKnow.info
Team
P.S. A longer
article on Reynolds' questioning of the 9/11 official story can be found below
the UPI article.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm
UPI
Hears...
By John Daly, UPI International Correspondent
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."
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htm
Former
Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside
Job'
By Greg Szymanski
June 12, 2005
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.
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.
"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would
follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC.
Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere
is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."
However,
Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging
because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated
in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.
From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel
caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators
have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory
since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.
Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence
and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting
the official version of 9/11.
Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where
10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..
--When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already
vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain
and control without a total collapse.
--The fire
did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was
suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have
been easily controlled.
--FDNY
fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss
the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar
9/11 gag order.
--Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of
the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was
possible."
-- Fire had
never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three
buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
-- WTC-7
was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth
floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less
than 10 seconds.
-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner
steel beams.
-- In a
PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department
commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that "may
be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed
by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration
has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts,
speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an
airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened
structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper
floors to pancake onto the floors below.
One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials
engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred
by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity
on the structural frame.
Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated
to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around
1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires
did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.
Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes,
not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics
contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less
the entire structural system.
Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either
theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural
steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires
that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed
or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.
And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally
officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29
to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."
Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel
quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on
GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.
In a detailed
analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds
presents a compelling case.
"First,
no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever
collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city
blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not,"
said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor
fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel
girders, to study what had happened.
"On
fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's
Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girders
sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued
to support their loads without obvious damage.' Such an intense fire with
consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we
observed at the WTC."
After considering
both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the
available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all
four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.
"In
fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of
the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight
93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable
as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said Reynolds. "Photographers
reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National
Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the
alleged airliner crashes."
For more informative
articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com.
Greg Szymanski
