Former Bush Admin Economist Says Official Story of WTC Collapse 'Bogus'...

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "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." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. 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."

-0-

Two years after President George W. Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq, some thoughtful officers are beginning to question who the insurgents actually are. In a recent interview the head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary Iraqis would take up arms against U.S. forces because "they're offended by our presence." Taluto added, "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could (want to fight us). There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'" Taluto insisted however that the other foreign forces would not be driven out of Iraq by violence, observing, "If the goal is to have the coalition leave, attacking them isn't the way," he said. "The way to make it happen is to enter the political process cooperate and the coalition will be less aggressive and less visible and eventually it'll go away." Taluto's comments are sure to raise hackles at the Pentagon, which insist that all insurgents are either Baathists or al-Qaida. Taluto observed that "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the U.S. were Iraqis.

-0-

Ah well, there's always Argentina. The German government is reportedly blocking the deportation of Nazi war crimes suspects from the U.S. back to Germany to be tried and punished. The German interior ministry has refused to accept the suspects even though the United States already has stripped them of their citizenship because of their World War II history and has asked Germany to accept them; German officials worry the suspects might join neo-Nazi groups. Deputy director of the Office of Special Investigations at the Department of Justice Jonathan Drimmer said, "By and large we're talking about concentration camp guards, we're talking about collaborators, people who were involved in indigenous police forces, that kind of thing." German interior ministry officials said that Washington had not given Berlin enough proof that the suspects were war criminals, despite repeated requests from Germany. Deportation in U.S. court cases requires not criminal, but just civil, proceedings, with a burden of proof of "clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence." German Interior ministry officials noted that if Germany accepted the deportees, they would be supported by the German social system and possibly would involve themselves in the extreme right or anti-Semitic political activities.

-0-

The first conflict that the newly independent United States engaged in began in 1801 with the Barbary States; now descendents of those corsairs have participated in naval exercises with their former enemies. On June 7 Algerian and U.S. Coast Guard warships conducted a joint naval exercise, improving interoperability and developing cooperation in securing the western Mediterranean. The vessels conducted maritime patrol missions, testing their joint capabilities to monitor and board suspicious vehicles and interdict illegal migration. U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Robert Wyner said Washington regards Algeria as a strategic partner in the war against terrorism and that Algeria would play a major role in U.S. efforts to bolster the stability of North Africa and counter the threat of al-Qaida. Interestingly enough, former counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke closed Boston harbor on 9-11 because of concerns that al-Qaida terrorists were stowaways aboard liquefied natural gas tankers from Algeria bound for Boston's Everett LNG facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have absolutely no doubt that WTC7 was brought down my demolition. Nothing else can even come close to explaining it's implosion. With many fire experts saying that 1 and 2 never could/would have come down like that without explosives being used. WTC7 is the key IMO because it was so blatantly imploded. You even have the owner Larry Silverstein saying so on a PBS documentary. Frequency levels on the seismographs indicate a form of explosives going off seconds before both implosions of 1, 2, and 7. So much more goes into this then the American public are aware of. Each person that comes forward will only aid in getting to the truth surrounding that day.

The day it happened and it came down my first reaction was "wow, that looked like an implosion, why didn't the building fall over?"

...and I've stuck to that ever since.

I'll never believe that the American government would participate in killing of thousands of its' own citizens in order to gain support for military action in the middle east.
Sorry.

i completely agree

I'm not reading this

Why would an economist know better whether the buildings were intentionally imploded than, oh say, the staff at Popular Mechanics who determined that almost all of these govt conspiracy ideas can be dismissed with scintific investigation?

The guy is an ECONOMIST, and does not seem to have any first (or even second or third) hand knowledge of any conspiracy. Why should we believe him? Really? How is he any more of an authority on this than you are, IEB!?

Even when presented with evidence that proves Governement complicity in the attacks? Then my next question would be what kind of evidence would prove it to you? How many high ranking officals need to stop flying commercial flights in the week prior to 9/11? How much insider trading would have to occur and not be investigated because it leads back to the CIA? How many hijackers would have to be trained by the U.S.? I can go on and on with these, but if it's too much to fathom Government complicity in these attacks, then I imagine all the evidence I can put up to support such complicity will just fall on deaf ears. Because you don't care to follow up on it and investigate what happened that day to attempt to find the truth as to why 3,055 Americans were allowed to be slaughtered.

The Project for a New American Century created a blueprint that could only be carried forward with such attacks. This PNAC document is our new foriegn policy. Requiring an external threat or a new Pearl Harbor to garner the support from the public. Without the events of 9/11 this Administration would be nothing. Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings of May of 2000 outlined what this country has to do to stay the number one super power. And that is control the world's remaining natural resources. Starting with Afghanistan and Iraq.

If anyone is interested in learning more about our current state in the world I highly reccomend Crossing the Rubicon by Michael C. Ruppert. It will explain everything I've ever talked about on these forums regarding 9/11, Afghanistan, CIA/Wallstreet, and drugs. It's backed up with 100 pages of footnotes and sources to each piece of evidence presented. It's also written by a former cop so it's written in a format to be used in a criminal prosecution.

I'll never believe that the American government would participate in killing of thousands of its' own citizens in order to gain support for military action in the middle east.
Sorry.

Neither will 98% of the rest of America. I would need to have a group of people in charge of this (Bush, Cheney, a senior General, a senator, etc) come out to ABC, NBC, CBS and every other news organization with a press conference and show in overwhelming detail exactly how it was planned, with the documentation to prove it. Video, documents, etc. Everything. Full disclosure. Not undercover independent investigations by people with an agenda. Sorry, I have more faith in our government than to believe that they would participate in mass murder of Americans just to make some money or go to war.

I'd basically need this to be the biggest news story/governmental collapse in United States history to believe it.

How about any ONE of the dozens, if not hundreds, of people who would have been necessary conspirators to come forward and tell a respectable journalist what he knows? People's consciences always get the better of them when they are involved in something like this, but you expect me to believe that ALL of these conspirators are sleeping well knowing that they enabled the murder of 3000 Americans in one day, which then led to a bogus war which led to the deaths of 2000 more Americans and countless thousands of Afghans and Iraqis?

They're all completely heartless, soulless automatons, right IEB!? Because that's what the government is to a conspiracy wackjob. They're all dead inside, that's the only way you can make these ideas work in your head. Because you're SO SMART, you see the truth that everybody else is blind to because we're all just stupid sheep who eat what we're fed. It's completely fucking condescending, and I'm sick of it.

Bring me REAL fucking evidence. I'm 100% ready to accept it, but there is nothing but coincidence and conjecture in this story so far and for you to treat us like idiots because we don't imagine the same picture between the lines that you do is just plain insulting.

So let me see if I have this straight - planes fly into the towers, burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel - which scientifically has proven to compromise steel girters, but the towers collapsed because of placed explosions?

Now, were the explosives brought up to the 90-somethingth floor once the planes crashed (maybe by insider trading firemen - were they really just carrying hoses up?) or were the explosives pre-placed? And if so, how many wtc building employees were in on it to get that much explosives up there?

He's a high ranking offical that worked for the Cheney Administration. He's comming out saying this for a reason. What reason is that? I don't know. Other then he like myself are sick of the lies that have been perpetrated by this Administration and the cover-up that has taken place. Think about his repuatation for making something up like this and comming out with it? Why would he do this if it wern't something he truely believe in?

Who do you consider an authority on matters of Government complicit attacks? Fox, CNN, Cheney Administration? I just don't understand the constant lack of trust in anyone who would try to offer explanations to what happened that day that go against the "offical story" and investigate it. While you can be so cynical of the opposition never question the same Administration that will lie and decieve it's people and Congress into creating a WAR of choice. Costing at this point over 1700 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and billions in treasure. But hey, they could never allow such an attack like 9/11 to take place to enable them to go about the agenda they set in '98 that was published in 2000...

Popular Mechanics? The author of such piece was Michael Cheritoff's cousin. I can name a list of things that Popular Mechanics NEVER touched on that were key to proving Government complicity. They covered the tip of the iceberg. And were limited to "mechanical" questions. They covered many crazy far fetched theories that could be easily debunked while staying far away from the actual evidence that proved otherwise.

Personally, I believe Kofi is the one that pushed the plunger down on the detonator.

I agree with you here.


Governments do some fucked up shit, ours included, but this is a little much. Come on...blowing up downtown New York?

We're doubting that the government would give us a reason to go to war that was so costly. Highly, highly doubting it.
I would consider someone who was actually involved in the alleged conspiracy with truckloads of documentation to show meetings planning it and executing it an authority. Have we seen this information yet?
Circumstantial or coincindental evidence is not proof of the single worst act a US government has ever committed.

You say one thing about what you participated in (even not knowing after the fact) not only will we kill you, but also your family, and anything else you loved. If you aren't murdered immedietly we will make your life a living hell on earth. Your children, wife, mother, will suffer humilation at the hands of our hearless, souless automatons. That enough to keep someone quiet. It would take less to pull this off then to create the first A-Bomb or Stealth Fighter and both of those were kept a secret. If you were to apply the correct amount of pressure you could easily conceal this.

Also your approach is that this couldn't be kept a secret so it must not be one. That's just absurd. Because as shown above secrets can be kept. Even easier with enough fear of what will happen if you do speak out. I know for a fact that if a member of the CIA came to me and said STFU about 9/11 or your whole family will be burnt alive in there sleep, you wouldn't see me posting on here anymore. It's that simple.

A. I don't think that something like this would necessarily take hundreds of conspirators. Power is so centralized in this country that it's not necessary. All you would need is some very high-level people and some smoke and mirrors and everyone else would fall in line.

B. Why exactly is it so hard for some to even approach these questions? I mean, just think about some of this stuff for a second and you have to wonder? Why would two skyscrapers that were hit at the upper levels, collapse the entire building? I watched plenty of imposions--up close--in my life growing up in Vegas that the WTC towers, and especially WTC 7, look very similar. If anything, surely you have to acknowledge that there's something fishy about WTC 7, a building that was not hit by any aircraft, that was still standing many hours after the attacks, and then the aforementioned comment on the PBS special by the property's owner. If he didn't mean implode it, what exactly did he mean? Has he ever clarified his comment?

Look, I don't have the answers to these questions, so I don't have a solid foundation for what I believe happened on September 11, 2001. If pressed, my theory is that not just the WTC, but numerous buildings in Manhattan are pre-wired for implosion as a safety measure so these huge buildings don't collapse onto one another and do even more damage in the event of some disaster. At some point perhaps on 9/11 a call was made to take the buildings down. I don't know for sure about the towers, but definitely #7. So if I believe that 7 was imploded, I then have to ask, "If this relatively small building was wired, why wouldn't two of the tallest buildings on the island be? It doesn't really seem that far-fetched to me, to be honest. I don't believe that this was some orchestrated attack by the government, but I do believe that there's a lot more to the story of Sept. 11 than they're telling us.

beat me to it, thank you sir.

Physics brought those two towers down. Period.

Enough of these unsubstantiated BS conspiracy theories.

As if such evidence would be allowed to stay available. It was most likely all destroyed in WTC7 which housed FEMA, SEC, CIA, etc etc. Which is why it's implosion was so neccesary later that day.

Your right circumstantial evidence is not proof, please read Crossing the Rubicon. It gives the most detailed, sourced, explanation to back up everything I've been saying. I really don't do it justice. I'm not good enough to present it in such a convinving and undeniable way as Ruppert.

Sorry, I'll wait for 9/11's Deep Throat. Until then, I'll believe it was a bunch of whackos from Saudi Arabia.