Re: [quick_vegetarian] Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:22:24 -0700

I don't think this is the place for these kinds of posts.

Rick Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 Yahoo!
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


contact owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

no flaming arguing or denigration of others allowed
contact owner with complaints regarding posting/list
or anything else.  Thank you.
please share/comment/inform and mostly enjoy this list



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

contact owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

no flaming arguing or denigration of others allowed
contact owner with complaints regarding posting/list
or anything else.  Thank you.
please share/comment/inform and mostly enjoy this list


Yahoo! Groups Links

Reply via email to