Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Former Bush team member doubts official 9/11 story

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Conspiracy

Author Thread
stallion4





Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 421
Former Bush team member doubts official 9/11 story PostMon Jun 13, 2005 1:01 am  Reply with quote  


quote:
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

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.

"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 firs 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

Source: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htm

_________________
"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows"


Last edited by stallion4 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:40 am; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Send private message
Et in Arcadia ego





Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void
PostMon Jun 13, 2005 1:34 am  Reply with quote  

The link you gave loads an empty page. It would be good to get some sort of verification about this story before I start celebrating..

Confused
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
 View user's profile Send private message
stallion4





Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 421
PostMon Jun 13, 2005 1:40 am  Reply with quote  

Try this one:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htm

I'll also edit this link to the bottom of my original post above for those that would like to copy and paste this article around too.
_________________
"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows"
 View user's profile Send private message
Et in Arcadia ego





Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void
PostMon Jun 13, 2005 2:01 am  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by stallion4
Try this one:

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htm

I'll also edit this link to the bottom of my original post above for those that would like to copy and paste this article around too.


Cheers, that one worked, and no worries, the link's getting forwarded. All these points of contention I was already aware of, but maybe people will resonate to these and similar claims when they see that a former BushCo associate is expressing doubts.
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
 View user's profile Send private message
stallion4





Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 421
PostSun Jun 19, 2005 11:05 am  Reply with quote  

"There's fool's gold because there's real gold."
- 13th-century Persian poet Rumi



I recently listened to a Jack blood interview with Morgan Reynolds and during the interview Jack asked Dr. Reynolds if he believed planes had hit the towers. The only thing Reynolds would say about this was that "the holes in the towers were not big enough to be made by 767s". He did not admit if he believed planes hit the towers or not.

Well I think that most of us here would agree that planes hit those towers. In [url=http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit9/911.wtc.2.hit.southwest.below.2%20(divx%205.1).avi]this video[/url] you can not only see the plane hit, but you can also hear the sound of the plane's engines as the plane approaches the south tower (it is also obvious to me that there is not a pod or anything else attached to the underside of the plane).

Jack then asked him if he was aware of the engine parts that were found near ground zero, but Reynolds seemed to whitewash this question by implying that the engine parts that were found were too insignificant to prove if planes had actually hit the towers.

A few days ago, before the interview, I posted a photo on Jack Blood's message board of an engine that had supposedly come from the plane that hit the south tower (flight 175). Jack mentioned this to him, but Reynolds stated that "the engine parts that were found were no larger than a foot in diameter", which is complete $#@#!.

Here are the photos that were taken of the engine that reportedly landed on Murray Street which was about three blocks away from the World Trade Center complex. The first photo below is the one that I posted on Jack Blood's message board:










Jack didn't follow up and mention that the photo that I posted on his board was obviously much larger than a foot in diameter and the subject of engine parts was soon dropped.

If Morgan Reynolds is not disinfo, how is it possible that he is not aware of these photos? They've been on the internet for a long time now and all that he would have to do is Google '9/11 engine parts' to find them.

It seems to me that Reynolds has been allowed to receive his recent media blitz, probably in an effort to set up another Straw-man.

I personally think that this guy is disinfo and he will most likely be the next target of a Popular Mechanics style attack on the 9/11 truth movement.

For now, I'm staying away from Dr. Reynolds' 9/11 (dis)information and I also urge others to do the same until we can find out more about him.

S4
_________________
"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows"
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

All times are GMT.
The time now is Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:28 pm


  Display posts from previous:      



Conspiracy List | Arcade Webmaster | Escape Games


© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum