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

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
There is nothing in the article below that has not been discussed here at ATS, but what is interesting is it comes from another former Government employee, the list is growing.



Highly recognized former chief economist (Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D) 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
www.arcticbeacon.com...

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.


Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?- Reynolds



[edit on 13/6/2005 by Sauron]



dh

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Anyone with a ha'penth of sense will know the story's a fabrication, and it's nice to see a previous insider wake up



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Isn't it possible that the WTC had charges in place to bring it down AFTER ITS USEFUL LIFE WAS OVER and it was time to demolish? Then the planes come along and the flaming jet fuel detonates the charges that were meant for demolishion at a much later date.


dh

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Maybe so - the time to demolish was then and there - no accidental occurrence



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
.

A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent.


This is fact I haven't seen before.
The north tower wingspan, which was incidentally caught on film should show this. If the wings extend past the edges of the building it is a 767, if not the official explanation is bogus.

Gonna go view it now.

Will report back.
.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.

A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent.



Couldn't it be that the tips of the wings weren't strong enough to break through and the wings gave before the building did?



This is fact I haven't seen before.
The north tower wingspan, which was incidentally caught on film should show this. If the wings extend past the edges of the building it is a 767, if not the official explanation is bogus.

Gonna go view it now.

Will report back.
.


Keep in mind though, the camera angle or the angle of the incoming plane may make it seem as though the wings are bigger or smaller than they really are.

EDIT: The main reason I was wanting to reply though...

I understand that a government employee making this statement is somewhat interesting, but an economist? I wouldn't regard that as "expert" opinion regarding whether a building was intentionally demolished or not. No more so than any average joe on the street at least.

[edit on 6/13/2005 by MCory1]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
.
The hole size does not concern me. If the wings sheared off it could be smaller.

But in the approach video it should be clear whether the wingspan exceeds the building width. They will not change their angle or direction significantly until they actually hit the building itself.

The wingspan looks short in my video clip, but it is very low res and blurry. If one could look at the original video or a higher res version of it, the wingspan compared to the building should be very clear to see. If the wingspan does not exceed the building width, seems to me that is a smoking gun shooting the hole in the official story.
.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
So now we're banking on an economist?

Why are we listening to this guy's opinion - please pick one of the following:

1. Because, as we all know, economists are the best in structural physics and impact dynamics.

2. Because he was on the inside (as an economist) he MUST know that his opinion is the word.

3. Because he's saying what you want to hear.

Please pick one of the above.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
.
He points out a fact which should be clear to see in the video of the approach to the north tower.

Why should we listen?

Because the pentagon video doesn't add up.

. . . A clear white object is visible in one frame and gone that next.
like a moving object and not lingering like smoke or steam.

Because the fireball is a semi-sphere at the pentagon and not slewed down the building which should have been the case from the supposed oblique trajectory of the plane.

Because there does appear to be some hanging object on the approach of the second plane to the south WTC tower.

Because of the unexpected collapse of WTC7.

Because of the large purchase of Airline future shorts for millions of dollars that went unclaimed. If they were innocent of foreknowlege no one sane would walk away from millions of dollars.

Feel free, take your pick of reasons to question the official story of 911.

edit:spelling

[edit on 13-6-2005 by slank]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I can't speak for Morgan Reynolds' expertise as an economist, but I can critique his claims on the WTC attacks.

He goes into his position in quite good detail here. Unfortunately for him, his detail in supporting his position is also his undoing, since he uses a number sites loaded with of bad assumptions, poor science, and completely lacking in any engineering credibility to support his case.

For instance he has apparently brought into the whole "there were no trusses, the WTC was built with I beams" nonsense as evidenced by the following:


There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system.


He also seems to be implying in the following passage that no airplanes hit the towers at all!!!


The engineering establishment’s theory has further difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I’d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68–9) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1.


Finally, his claim:

The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag.


Has been directly contradicted by the NIST report, which has clear pictures of the exterior columns bowing inward significantly before the collapses.

Based on what he has written and the sites that he cites in his articles, I would put no faith at all into anything this man claims.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I read somewhere that the CIA was having a drill at 8:30 am on 9/11 of planes being hijakced. The CIA then told Norad to stand down because it was only a drill. This would make a lot of sense because there is no way that Norad would let 4 planes fly around off course for over an hour without radio contact. Has anybody found any hard evidence of this claim?

The towers were absolutely brought down by explosives, on the tapes the firemen said that the fire was almost out. I have done many calculations, engineering student, and i can not find any logic or truth in the governments explanation. The only possible way would be that they were demolished. Some guy even came on tape and said tower 7 was demolished, i saw the video.

For anyone to be convicted there would have to be a huge outcry and we would need the support of people in very high places. The republicans have absolute control over every aspect of our lives, there is no way to stop them without alot of help.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
I read somewhere that the CIA was having a drill at 8:30 am on 9/11 of planes being hijakced. The CIA then told Norad to stand down because it was only a drill. This would make a lot of sense because there is no way that Norad would let 4 planes fly around off course for over an hour without radio contact. Has anybody found any hard evidence of this claim?


If this is true, it would explain why FEMA was there on the night of the tenth of September. It does not explain why the Pentagaon was attacked a full hour after the second tower was hit. They should have gone into full alert status after the hit on the second tower.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
A controlled demolition? Does he expect us to believe that no one on the upper floors minded sharing their offices with explosives that morning. I love it when Hollywood actors become political analysts, and economist become structural engineers. Once we trade jobs like this then anything will make sense.

"Hey Bob! What's that on and around your desk?"

"I think it's TNT but I'm too busy filing this report to deal with it right now."

"Okay, just curious, cause the same stuff is piled up around the copier."

Aside from the stupidity, who ever saw a building destroyed with explosives palaced at only the top end? Don't they ususally take out the foundation of the building?

[edit on 14-6-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
A controlled demolition? Does he expect us to believe that no one on the upper floors minded sharing their offices with explosives that morning. I love it when Hollywood actors become political analysts, and economist become structural engineers. Once we trade jobs like this then anything will make sense.

"Hey Bob! What's that on and around your desk?"

"I think it's TNT but I'm too busy filing this report to deal with it right now."

"Okay, just curious, cause the same stuff is piled up around the copier."

Aside from the stupidity, who ever saw a building destroyed with explosives palaced at only the top end? Don't they ususally take out the foundation of the building?

You're not following wild conspiricies full of hole! You must be a sheeple!.
Everyone knows that only one set of explosives at the tops of the buildings that somehow remained intact as the plane magically found them and crashed into them were enough to bring down the towers. How dare you doubt that!



If this is true, it would explain why FEMA was there on the night of the tenth of September. It does not explain why the Pentagaon was attacked a full hour after the second tower was hit. They should have gone into full alert status after the hit on the second tower.

Everyone was on alert. Unfortunately the pentagon is too big to break down and move out of the way then rebuild again. Plus people around here were more concerned with getting people out of the Capitol and White House (which one would think would be more likely targets)



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Lets not even begin to mention the WTC 7 Building.



"The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

Do you see an "out-of-control" fire engulfing the 47-story WTC 7 like a "giant torch", or just a few floors on fire?



thewebfairy.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
.
As has been noted before,

The North tower impact, without undercarriage pod, has no fireball even as you see debris comming out the far sidewall of the tower.

The South tower impact, with undercarriage pod, has a HUGE HOLLYWOOD fireball on impact. Also if all this fuel exploded outside the building after impact, doesn't that mean that there was much less fuel to burn inside the building?

If both planes were similarly loaded with jet fuel, this is completely inconsistent.

edit spelling

[edit on 14-6-2005 by slank]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Has been directly contradicted by the NIST report, which has clear pictures of the exterior columns bowing inward significantly before the collapses.

Based on what he has written and the sites that he cites in his articles, I would put no faith at all into anything this man claims.



i find the NIST report to be LAME. popular mechanics, .....LAME. scientific american, ......LAME. obfuscators of truth.

like the 'warren commision'. put a hoidy toidy label on something, and the marks'll buy it.

let's see if this economist gets suicidily depressed now, and shoots himself in the back of the head nine times.

i have faith in you to tow the party line all the way to the bottom of the ocean, howard.

bring me back an angler fish. it is the metaphoric animal for all things 911.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron


June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
www.arcticbeacon.com...



anyhow, i liked reading these opinions & hypothesis...

i was just going to mention that the (www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com)
has a fairly good cache of 9-11 theories & plots & conspiracies & pre-knowledge & planted+faked evidence, and such stuff

i counted 31 articles referencing 9-11 anomalies
there are 98 other, different archived articles on this page

a good link imo
//www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/page/page/1518131.htm

[edit on 14-6-2005 by St Udio]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
In response to Slank's posting regarding the explosion discrepencies
Between the North and South tower impacts. The reason has nothing to do with a ficticious 'Pod'...It was the angle and trajectory that caused one of the towers to have a muted explosion...the reason is that the plane flew into the building rather 'head-on'....the reason why the other explosion was so "Holly-wood" as someone qualified it was becuase the plane flew into the corner of the building after the pilot made a last minute directional correction (as he was going to miss the building)...resulting in ignited jet fuel flying out of the building hence the grandiose explosive result.

Regards,
Paul

[edit on 14-6-2005 by Paul Horrorshow]


dh

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
As The WebFairy's site shows, the plane hitting the North tower, blurry and fuzzy though it is in the Naudet's film, if analysed in close-up detail looks nothing like a jet airliner, more like a drone. We only accept that this was an airliner because we have been told it is
I'm not posting the link because the elements of
www.thewebfairy.com...
are down at this time





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join