wtc collapse likely a controlled demolition
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061505_world_stories.shtml#1
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition. -----------------------------------------------------
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
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."
June 16, 2005 1400 PST (FTW) While very encouraging, the deeper meanings behind these statements by Morgan Reynolds have yet to be revealed. Reynolds is not an engineer or scientist, and while he is a former Bush Administration official, the practical reality is that these statements are a long, long way from criminal indictments, prosecution, trial and conviction.
I offer praise to those diehard activist researchers who have never let go of their building collapse investigations, arguments and public activism. This is an achievement for them. But, in fairness, while it is an encouraging development, it is a long way from a public debate where the government has to respond to Reynolds. We all recall the hatchet job done by Popular Mechanics on physical evidence (carried out exactly as I said it would be). It is even further from the point where the major media musters a horde of well-paid engineers to discredit Reynolds publicly because he is an economist or send them into court in droves to confuse a jury which has not been empanelled in a case which has never been brought to trial. Such distractions are called Red Herrings. They inspire false hope.
I am sitting with a well-earned attitude to see what shakes out of this. Summed up, it is: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." As I have said many times, I have no doubt that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions; especially WTC 7. I corrected and retracted a story we (re)published just days after 9/11 a long time ago that said otherwise.
However, my points about the inherent strategic weakness of physical evidence arguments remain unchanged. What I wrote in Crossing the Rubicon remains a complete, stand-alone criminal investigation that could secure indictments and convictions today without the inherent risks of falling into battles of dueling experts. Those activists who are serious about 9/11 justice could/should be waving Rubicon without the inherent risks of physical evidence arguments. But then there is still the problem of a corrupt judicial system in a totalitarian regime where the legislature has long since abdicated any real authority and the major media is an agent of the Empire.
Rubicon is a record that cannot be challenged by scientists and - in spite of the fact that it remains the best-selling book about 9/11 (excluding the Keane Commission propaganda) - it has never been challenged by the media or the government. Why? Because it can't be challenged. To be safe, it can only be ignored.
At FTW we measure real success only by a change in the political landscape and this is a long way from that.
