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

[Guest guest]

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A

Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

 

Source >

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

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discover

Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!

http://discover./online.html

[Guest guest]

I don't think this is the place for these kinds of posts.Rick Stevens <ecology1st2004 wrote:

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely AControlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'Source >http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htmHighly recognized former chief economist in LaborDepartment now doubts official 9/11 story, claimingsuspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicategovernment foul play and possible criminalimplications.June 12, 2005 By Greg SzymanskiA former chief economist in the Labor Departmentduring President Bush's first term now believes theofficial story about the collapse of the WTC is'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlleddemolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacentBuilding No. 7."If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers atthe World

Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an'inside job' and a government attack on America wouldbe compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a formermember of the Bush team who also served as director ofthe Criminal Justice Center at the National Center forPolicy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A & MUniversity, also believes it's 'next to impossible'that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S.military, adding the scientific conclusions about theWTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysteriousplot behind 9/11."It is hard to exaggerate the importance of ascientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse ofthe twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds thisweek from his offices at Texas A & M. "If the officialwisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is,then policy based on such erroneous engineeringanalysis is not

likely to be correct either. Thegovernment's collapse theory is highly vulnerable onits own terms. Only professional demolition appears toaccount for the full range of facts associated withthe collapse of the three buildings."More importantly, momentous political and socialconsequences would follow if impartial observersconcluded that professionals imploded the WTC.Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers andimpartial researchers everywhere is to get thescientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right." However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today'ssecurity state' remains challenging because he claimsexplosives and structural experts have beenintimidated in their analyses of the collapses of9/11.From the beginning, the Bush administration claimedthat burning jet fuel caused the collapse of thetowers. Although many independent investigators havedisagreed, they have been hard pressed

to disprove thegovernment theory since most of the evidence wasremoved by FEMA prior to independent investigation.Critics claim the Bush administration has tried tocover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commissionhas failed to address the major evidence contradictingthe official version of 9/11. Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the governmentjet fuel theory include:-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole inthe North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuelsupposedly was burning.. --When the South Tower was hit, most of the NorthTower's flames had already vanished, burning for only16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain andcontrol without a total collapse. --The fire did not grow over time, probably because itquickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating,indicating without added explosive devices the firscould have been easily controlled.--FDNY fire

fighters still remain under a tightgovernment gag order to not discuss the explosionsthey heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also undera similar 9/11 gag order. --Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledgesthat "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed thata total collapse of either tower was possible."-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildingsto 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 onlyminor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than10 seconds. -- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did notcollapse despite much thinner steel beams. -- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTCleaseholder, told the fire

department commander on9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing todo is pull it," slang for demolish it. -- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbonfires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raisethe temperature of steel close to melting.Despite the numerous holes in the government story,the Bush administration has brushed aside or basicallyignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts,speaking for the administration, offer a theoryessentially arguing that an airplane impact weakenedeach structure and an intense fire thermally weakenedstructural components, causing buckling failures whileallowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floorsbelow. One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager,professor of materials engineering and engineeringsystems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurredby the extreme heat from the fires, causing the lossof loading-bearing

capacity on the structural frame. Eagar points out the steel in the towers could havecollapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degreesFahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed sincethe fires did not appear to be intense and widespreadenough to reach such high temperatures.Other experts supporting the official story claim theimpact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened theentire structural system of the towers, but criticscontend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appearseverely weakened, much less the entire structuralsystem. Further complicating the matter, hard evidence tofully substantiate either theory since evidence islacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structuralsteel before it could be analyzed. Even though thecriminal code requires that crime scene evidence bekept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed

orshipped overseas before a serious investigation couldtake place. And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted soswiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived theday before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 toconduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II." Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris,authorities considered the steel quite valuable as NewYork City officials had every debris truck tracked onGPS and even fired one truck driver who took anunauthorized lunch break.In a detailed analysis just released supporting thecontrolled demolition theory, Reynolds presents acompelling case. "First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed inflames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before.Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a fewcity blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit byaircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "Theseextraordinary collapses after

short-duration minorfires made it all the more important to preserve theevidence, mostly steel girders, to study what hadhappened. "On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire saidthat the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girderssagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinaryexposure, the columns continued to support their loadswithout obvious damage.' Such an intense fire withconsequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears noresemblance to what we observed at the WTC."After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate andafter thoroughly sifting through all the availablematerial, Reynolds concludes the government storyregarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remainshighly suspect."In fact, the government has failed to producesignificant wreckage from any of the four allegedairliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of

theFlight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows nofuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane,just a smoking hole in the ground," said Reynolds."Photographers reportedly were not allowed near thehole. Neither the FBI nor the National TransportationSafety Board have investigated or produced any reporton the alleged airliner crashes."For more informative articles, go towww.arcticbeacon.com. Discover Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover./online.htmlcontact owner: -owner Mail list: Delivered-mailing list List-Un: - no

flaming arguing or denigration of others allowedcontact owner with complaints regarding posting/list or anything else. Thank you.please share/comment/inform and mostly enjoy this list

Discover Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news more. Check it out!