9/11 - Former Bush Team Member... 'Inside Job'

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Former Bush Team Member... 'Inside Job'
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:11:14 -0500
From: Jueri Svjagintsev deepeddy@texasdata.net

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled
Demolition And 'Inside Job'
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
HTTP://www.arcticbeacon.com

Greg Szymanski

Contact:

Greg Szymanski

2419 Harbor Blvd #209

Ventura, Ca. 93001

email at patriott2424@aol.com

805-907-9799
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/page/page/1559968.htm
======================