Former Bush Insider Says Official 911 Story is Bogus?
 

http://www.phenomenamagazine.com/0/e...id=80&sub_id=0

Conspiracy News
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And `Inside Job`

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dateline: Wednesday, June 15, 2005

By: STUART MILLER
By: News Editor
Source: arcticbeacon


This just won?t lie down and die. Is it the shock of the disaster and a kind of arrogance that presumes that it couldn?t possibly happen ?here? because this is America or, is there a real perception that it could only have happened here with help?


?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.?








3 comment(s), 1 page(s), showing page: 1 [ 1 ]
sort: [ descending ]

dumbass :upsidedow

that's BS. Why would you collapse it with all those people in there. Especially a friend of mine, damnit!!

plus there are way better ways of doing it then crashing planes into them

Like?

1234

exploseinve,just like they always do when they demo buildings in the the middle of town

It's amusing the language we choose like "Former Bush Insider" and "highly recognized former chief economist". Hmm, maybe he knows something? No, Reynolds is not claiming any inside knowledge. He is not claiming to have learned anything about a conspiracy from working over there in the Department of Labor. Insider? Hell, the guy once referred to himself as "a 3rd level political appointee in a dying department-level agency".

I told you it was a demolition.
That building COULD NOT just fall down like that. It would fall on a side, but not straight down.

Wow -- it's like deja vu all over again...

how do u know ? and if you do know then don't you think if people were trying to do demolition on it and hide the fact they wouldn't do it that way?

That's the exact same feeling I had.

What is the official version? That plane crashed into the building and blast heated 4 steel columns that were holding the top? So ok, all 4 of them suddenly got heated upto 6000'C and melted? I think this doesn't sound real..
Anyway 1 of the steel columns supposed to melt faster than 3 others, this would cause the "cap" to fall on a side of the building, and not directy down.
Pure Physics.

Arab terrorist dont do complicated operations like throwing 2 planes on building
too much complicated

they fill a truck of 4 tons of TNT and crash it on a wall
redirecting 2 boing like that is VERY VERY complicated.

According to what I've read and seen on television,The fire burned away the protective insulation from the floor clips and the girts.They weaked and failed which allowed the first damaged floor to fall and overload the floor under,etc...

The buildings were designed to fall exactly as they did. You think they designed them to fall on and crush 3/4 of southern manhattan? Hell no. They were designed to almost implode in the event that something happened much as the actual events.

OK, a 450,000 pound plane with a half-football wide wingspan filled with many thousands of gallons of fuel slammed into a 1400 foot tall building at about 600 mile per hour. After burning for nearly two hours the building collapses from the height of where the plane happened to hit. Then the face of Satan appeared in the clouds.

a day that i'll never forget :(

i took a bunch of pics on 9/11 from new jersey i was right by the meadowlands when everything went down...

http://september-11-2001.digitalstockart.com (some of the pics there)

http://september-11-2001.digitalstoc...es/wtc_05a.jpg

It's not "pure physics". It's a quite-complicated engineering problem. You know, engineers, those guys who designed the Tacoma Narrows bridge. Physicists and engineers have presented many different explanations of how it is that bridge collapsed. Sixty years later they still do.

There's quite a degree of imprecision in trying to model what will happen under such complicated circumstances.

Blind Sheep..


Simple as this.. Why did building 7 fall? Why did they PULL it? How in hell was it READY to be pulled?

Sheep, you people need to start reading the eyewitness accounts at ground level. Firefighter, police, civilians, reported explosions, blast marks in pillars..

Or that Air Plane fuel burns super fast and doesn't burn at 6k degrees. If you notice BEFORE the building fell, the fires started to go down.. After all the building does have a sprinkler system. Clear photos of people standing in the exact places where the planes hit.

Why did a few different top political offices not show up to work that day? The entire office? Israelis, CIA, etc..

You need you research the facts.. That building didn't fall because of two airplanes that hit it. Our Gov KNEW about the attacks, allowed the attacks, and assisted..

Why? Simple.. A reason to go to war for Oil. A reason to take away our freedoms with the patriot act, which was already printed and ready to go..

Think it?s really that far fetched? Then you know nothing about History.
It will come out, in time..

Exactly!

Now the speculation on the opposing opinions do have some interesting info. Last night on 'Coast to Coast AM' they had a huge, big ass debate that got hot as a sumbitch and people got to cussin' and shit live on the air! It was a first for that show!

If you go to www.coasttocoastam.com and if they have last night's debate in the free archive or the paid one it-is-worth it to get and download that one!!!

What I didn't know was there was news footage and audio of hundreds of people being told to haul ass because they were told live on the air that the 'buildings were being pulled'. Even the OWNER of one of the buildings was told this and that is also recorded! There's an overwhelming amount of first hand proof they 'said' they were pulling those buildings. No doubt about that shit at all.

Check out www.prisonplanet.com with Alex Jones. He's a bit hot headed 'but' he's got great links to data on what happened. Take what he says with a big grain of salt and balance it.

Doc, what's scarier is Bush got elected the first time under very, very suspicious circumstances, then to throw off the suspicion and investigation we get the attacks, then to throw off suspicion we got Iraq. What's next?

With all the overwhelming evidence that Bush is being used as a pawn for some evil attempt at ripping people off again look at what the mainstream press and people are more concerned with:

Britney Spears, Tom Cruise and that chick, Desparate Housewives, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, Michael Jackson's dick pictures, Paris Hilton...

We deserve to be invaded and used as mulch. As a species we're no different than chimps on dope.

Hey Greg.. Ive you seen his video? Only 1 hour of evidences out of 3... But very good..

http://70.84.33.210/%7Einfomedi/vide...law_911_hi.wmv

Like in a Micheal Moore movie.. analyse and judge each evidence one at of time... Keep what you think make sense reject the rest.. and make up your mind... But you know how the sheeps are.. If they find 1 thing they dont like.. they'll blindly and stupidly reject all evidences... lol

Exactly right Greg.. Or why doesn't the news bring up the pentagon?

Where is the plane?
http://www.niftythings.org/usattack/pentagon/pent-2.jpg

http://www.niftythings.org/usattack/...n/mdf50529.jpg

http://www.niftythings.org/usattack/...on/pent2-2.jpg

http://www.niftythings.org/usattack/pentagon/pent3.jpg

Where did the voices of opposition go?

Do a search. You are posting things which have been said ad nauseum the past few years in GFY threads on the same topic. Waiting for you to say something new, interesting or to be frank, sane.

Take your own advice :2 cents:

Try PNAC.. Try Bilderberg...

my gf at that time had a sister that was in the pentagon when the PLANE hit,but one thing that is strange is that she called and told my gf about 1 hour before it happend that something was going to happen and to stay away from san fransisco.nothing happend in sf though

Well, I wouldn't say I have been over posting about this subject. I don't post on it much.. And you can't over post facts when people are walking around with blinders on.

New things have been posted.. I haven't seen anyone post about the people standing in the plane inpact areas. Which was on the History Channel and not on a conspiracy website.

Oh man, not again. Get a clue man. There is plenty of evidence that it was a plane crash. I could find you pics of the engines and shit but its not even worth my time. Stop the conspiracy bullshit. A plane crashed in the pentagon.

I know why you say this...because some kid made that little movie last year that went all over the internet. He simply left out ALL the evidence and all the dumb sheep believed it. How stupid can you be.

No way a plane hit the pentagon. The size of the wingspan alone would have taken out more of the building. The body of the plane is larger than the hole. You also don't hear anything about the pentagon on the news, ever.. The amount of proof with the pentagon is overwhelming.

I think something hit the pentagon, but I don?t think it was a plane.

Sorry I didn't see this video. Would have been nice to see.

I was just looking at the news videos. And I don't visit conspiracy sites, I couldn't tell you the URL to a single site.

There was also that bestselling book in France.

I'm sure all the people on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon and their families believe it never happened also.

Ask Greg. He reads all the conspiracy nut sites like Rense.com

Well you got me to go look and I found something interesting. Oh, and it's odd how the plane hit at "EXACT" ground level.


Could you show me the plane?
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentag...xplosion-1.jpg

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentag...xplosion-2.jpg

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentag...xplosion-3.jpg

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentag...xplosion-4.jpg

My god!!! It looks as if they plane struck a day late as well. This was a huge conspiracy that they reported it over a day earlier.(almost a day and a half)

Good find.. I just did a search on google images and found them.. And a ton of other crap.. No I don't think it's all 100% real.. And I can't find the victim fund for the pentagon victims. I do think something hit the damn pentagon, but I sure as hell don't think it was a huge plane.

I have seen the photos of airplane debris. A few un-scorched parts laying in the yard, and one motor they said was pulled from the building. They even said the block box reported nothing unusual.

To me, the pentagon doesn?t add up, at all.. The twin towers can be argued, but the over whelming amount of video from the pentagon doesn?t ever show a plane or any proof of what it was.

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

I see a photo like this and it makes me think it was something else. When the planes hit the twin towers they ripped through the buildings, a massive hole was a made, an explosion way larger than what is shown here.

No mater how you look at it, it's rather odd that a huge plane only did that small amount of damage.

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_crash05.jpg

Um? What about the twin towers can be argued?

I also don't really see why the governemnt should release a video of its vulnerabilities during an attack of one of its most sensitive locations.