portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

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
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."

homepage: homepage: http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1350


Great stuff. 13.Jun.2005 02:50

Tony Blair's dog

"-- 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."

If I'm not totally wrong, these companies were on floor 7:

Provident Financial Management
American Express Bank International

and on floor 12:

Securities & Exchange Commission


Money, money, money... ;-)

It seems like 9/11 was used to cover up MAJOR financial crimes 13.Jun.2005 03:39

just a lil recap

Sept 11, 2001: Recovery experts extract data from 32 WTC computer drives revealing a surge in financial transactions. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some WTC computer systems immediately before and during the disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01]

Following the Sept. 11 money trail
 http://www.wanttoknow.info/011218reuters
Computer disk drives from WTC could yield clues
 http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/12/20/wtc.harddrives.idg/

and the day before:

Sept 10, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that by some estimates the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." CBS later calculates that 25% of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for. A defense analyst says, "The books are cooked routinely year after year." [DOD, 9/10/01, CBS, 1/29/02] This announcement was buried by the next day's news of 9/11.

DOD Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week Kickoff—Bureaucracy to Battlefield
 http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html
The War On Waste
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

comments re: wtc #7 13.Jun.2005 03:47

from elsewhere

This matter is terribly important, and it may turn out to be the key to the whole mess. That building housed, among other things, Mayor Giulianis impenetrable bunker, established and originally run by Jerome Hauer and the Office of Emergency Management. It also housed the largest CIA offices outside of Langley Virginia.

Building #7 was not hit by any airplane. It was a large office building, 47 stories tall. To date, however, the common view is that the building somehow caught fire and collapsed along with the two towers. No investigating committee has been examining its "collapse."

Originally, it was claimed that illegally stored diesel fuel and emergency generators exploded in building 7, setting fires that compromised its structural integrity. Mayor Giuliani had been warned repeatedly by fire marshals that storing thousands of gallons of fuel in that way was a serious violation of all fire codes. But the Federal Emergency Management Agency report stresses that the fuel tanks remained fully intact. In pictures of building 7 at 3 pm on September 11, two and a half hours before it collapsed, the only fires are on the 7th and 12th floors; they are considered small and containable and could have been forseeably put out by the building's sprinkler system. FEMA was puzzled in its report about what happened to building #7 and could only conclude, The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.

The report is available is located at FEMA website.
 http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

The section dealing with WTC 7 is chapter 5
 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

¿En qué piso era la carbonera? 13.Jun.2005 04:50

libertas

yo no se

More on theft opportunities at the WTC 13.Jun.2005 07:13

Jody Paulson

One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center.

I once read an excellent and convincing article alleging that a major gold heist had been pulled off just prior to the WTC's collapse. Not surprisingly, I can't find it anymore. Has anyone else heard of this? There were hundreds of millions of dollars in gold down there.

Re: possible gold heist 13.Jun.2005 07:27

Jody


Bush?s Barrick Corps drops bombshell 13.Jun.2005 08:18

me5

Lates: BUSH SR. MINING COMPANY GOES FOR THE GOLD IN CHILE
La Nación Domingo (Chile)
Sunday May 29, 2005
Bet you didn't know that George Bush Sr. was a high-paid fixer for a Canadian gold mining company. While he left its payroll once Junior set off for his presidential run, Barrick Gold has continued to reap the benefits of its presidential connections worldwide. The following is from an interview from Chile's leading paper. If you can't read Spanish, it's time to learn.

¿Cuáles son las conexiones de Adnan Khashoggi con Barrick Gold?

 http://tinyurl.com/cj75p


From Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA), Tuesday 10 June 2003, 1:19a ET

(one more piece of evidence. It can hardly be denied any more that the dollar exchange rate control mechanism, the magic invoked behind the scenes when the US talks up the dollar, has been the suppression of the price of gold by essentially short-selling massive quantities of central bank gold. The world economy is in deep doodoo)

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Barrick Gold has confessed that it and its bullion banker, JP Morgan Chase & Co., are the direct agents of the central banks in the international control of the gold price.

Barrick?s confession was filed in U.S. District Court in New Orleans as part of a legal maneuver to gain dismissal of the federal anti-trust lawsuit brought against it and Morgan Chase by Blanchard & Co., the New Orleans-based coin and bullion dealer. Barrick moved to dismiss the Blanchard lawsuit on the grounds that the suit had failed to include as defendants some ?indispensable parties? whose vital interests are at stake, the central banks; that the central banks, having what is called sovereign immunity against suit, simply could not be included in the suit; and that the suit therefore had to be dismissed.

Barrick?s confessional motion was dated February 28 this year and is posted at the Barrick Internet site here, headlined ?Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties?:

 http://www.barrick.com/2_Press_Releases/

GATA has copied the memorandum and posted it at GATA Chairman Bill Murphy?s Internet site for some permanence in case Barrick removes it from the company?s own Internet site. GATA?s copy of the memorandum is posted here:

 http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/img2003/memoformotiontodis.pdf

Fortunately, the judge hearing the Blanchard lawsuit, Helen G. Berrigan, denied Barrick?s motion two weeks ago after an exchange in open court with one of the company?s many lawyers, Mark D. Wegener. That exchange is appended here. The judge concluded that Barrick?s motion to dismiss argued in effect that an illegal action involving ?so many powerful entities from all around the world? is ?going to be immune from being challenged.?

?That?s, as we say, not acceptable,? Judge Berrigan said, denying Barrick?s dismissal motion.

Barrick and Morgan still have other dimissal motions pending and much remains to be done before they can be held fully accountable for themselves in court and compelled to produce evidence and testimony.

But it is thrilling that Judge Berrigan has indicated that she will not be intimidated by all the (fiat) money and power in the world, and thrilling that one of the issues on which GATA consultant Reg Howe?s trail-blazing federal lawsuit against the same conspiracy foundered?sovereign immunity?has been removed as an obstacle in the Blanchard case because of the much smaller number of defendants.

Building on the Howe case, the Blanchard case has an ever-improving chance of bringing transparency and honesty to the gold market and to national economic policy generally. GATA supports the Blanchard suit and urges its friends to inform the mining industry about the suit?s encouraging progress.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

From oral argument in
Blanchard & Co. et al
v.
Barrick Gold Corp.
and JP Morgan Chase & Co.

U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Judge Helen G. Berrigan, presiding

May 29, 2003

The Court: How would those contracts be challenged, under your theory that everybody has to be involved? Because, how do you get jurisdiction over everybody?

Mr. Wegener: You can?t.

The Court: So you all can just tally-ho and do anti-competitive stuff? ... So the idea is, if you get enough people involved in a monopoly, then you?re immune from litigation?

Mr. Wegener: Well, I don?t think it?s quite that. ...

The Court: And you?re saying it?s not possible to bring everybody in?

Mr. Wegener: Yeah, I think you can?t bring the central banks in, because they?re immune. You can?t bring in all the bullion banks, because they?re beyond the jurisdiction of the court. ...

The Court: I mean, if what you say is correct, then it sounds like the legal remedy is for individual plaintiffs, like, say, Blanchard, to go to the United States court, like he?s done here, and go after J.P. Morgan. And then wherever these other entities are, to go to those courts, in those countries, in those locales, and try to seek the same relief. ... But I?m very much troubled by the end result of your argument, which is to the effect that if an outfit is large enough and involves enough people, enough entities, then they can kind of do what they want. .. But I just don?t find it possible to think that something could?if, in fact there is an anti-trust violation going on here?that because it involves so many powerful entities from all around the world, therefore it?s going to be immune from being challenged. That?s, as we say, not acceptable.

Mr. Wegener: Uh-huh.

The Court: If that?s the logical result of your argument, then I?m going to have to find some other way to deal with it than that.

Judge Berrigan denied Barrick?s motion to dismiss.

---------------------------

Bush Sr./Barrick Gold
Submitted by emk on Wed, 09/01/2004 - 17:25.

Yes. From 1995 to 1999 he was the "Honorary Chairman" of Barrick's "International Advisory Board." Also on the IAB - Brian Mulroney (frmr PM of Canada), Vernon Jordan (FOB), and Howard Baker (now ambasador to Japan).

Sources: Barrick Annual reports for 1998 and 1999. Articles cited below.

Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada) May 13, 2000 Saturday Final Edition

Copyright 2000 Toronto Star Newspapers, Ltd.
Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada)

May 13, 2000 Saturday Final Edition

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. C11

LENGTH: 2129 words

HEADLINE: Globe-trotting dad's cashing in; George Bush Sr. has been picking up six-figure fees for speeches overseas ... and putting his nose in where he shouldn't. Were he to be handed a new role- father of the president- it would herald a new sensitivity and junior might have to rein in father

SOURCE: The Los Angeles Times

Maclean's, June 1, 1998

Copyright 1998 Maclean Hunter Limited
Maclean's

June 1, 1998

SECTION: DEIRDRE MCMURDY; Pg. 45

LENGTH: 722 words

HEADLINE: Luck and great timing

United Press International May 3, 1995, Wednesday, BC cycle

Copyright 1995 U.P.I.

United Press International

May 3, 1995, Wednesday, BC cycle

SECTION: Domestic News

LENGTH: 184 words

HEADLINE: Bush to head Barrick special panel

DATELINE: TORONTO, May 3

hacked 13.Jun.2005 10:07

bobdaslob

The original link to this story was at Arcticnews. Their site can't be downloaded at all right now, no how, no way. This is a potentially damaging situation for the coverup, and the site's removal illustrates this clearly. Dum-dee-dum-dum- DAAAAAA!

Not clear yet if this is more bogus nonsense or for real 13.Jun.2005 10:11

reader

Likely, it's another 'flash in the pan' where this guy will just dissapear into the woodwork in a few weeks and no mention will be made of this again . . . BUT

by 'discovering' him, or by him going to a certain person first, he will establish credibility for the person who originally put his word out, someone who is likely trying to infiltrate the 9/11 movement to spread bogus crap about pods or whatever. Or worse, be a closet hardcore neonazi or something.

This is how the disinfo works.

Like I said, I hope that isn't the case. We can always hope.

They Lied, People Died 13.Jun.2005 11:32

Roland

The 911 Commission concluded, "Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions." (Chapter 5, p. 172 paperback edition.) Taken at its word, this means that the 911 Commission knows the identities of everyone who had advance knowledge of the attacks. But this can't be correct since we know that from 5 to 7 of the alleged hijackers were using purloined identities, the real owners of which later turned up protesting their complete innocence. So, the 911 Commission's assertion is at least misleading if not a downright lie on this point.

More Links on WTC-7, implosion etc. 13.Jun.2005 20:06

happy landings

New York Firefighters Discuss Bombs in WTC Towers
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284064.shtml

THE "CONTROLLED" COLLAPSE OF WTC-7
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

cutter charges in Building 7
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7collapse.html

WTC7.net
 http://www.wtc7.net/index.html

FEMA REPORT ON THE COLLAPSE OF WTC SEVEN IS A JOKE
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/01/42048.shtml

911 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions
 http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/new-footage/index.htm

The 9/11 WTC Collapses:
An Audio-Video Analysis
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

The 9/11 WTC Collapses:
Questions the Media Won't Address
 http://whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_media.html

* Is it pure coincidence that FEMA was in New York on September 10? Why did they deny this fact?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html [A]

* If WTC 1 was constructed with weak trusses and weak bolts then how did it withstand the impact of Flight 11?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

* Why were staff in WTC 2 instructed to stay in the building following Flight 11's impact into WTC 1?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jackasses.html

* How was it known that the World Trade Center was going to collapse? Why were only a select few told?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html [V]

* Where were the 800°C infernos in the buildings?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm [A] [V]

* Why didn't firefighters in the impact area of WTC 2 report a blazing inferno or failing trusses before the building's collapse?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_firefighters.html [A]

* Why did firefighters report bombs in the WTC buildings? Why did firefighters report explosions before the collapses?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html [A]

* Why didn't structural debris fall from the burning towers? Why did trusses in WTC 2 spontaneously fail across entire floors?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_trusses.html [V]

* Why did white smoke appear at the base of WTC 1 roughly 10 seconds before its collapse?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html [V]

* How did WTC 1's structure remain intact as it collapsed?
 http://whatreallyhappened.com/911_smoking_gun.html [V]

* Larry Silverstein said of WTC 7 "the smartest thing to do is pull it" (i.e. demolish it), and all evidence points to this occurring. When and why were demolition charges placed in the building?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html [A] [V]

* How could conventional fires produce temperatures in excess of 700°C in the WTC wreckage?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

* How could conventional fires in the WTC wreckage burn for three months?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fires_911.html

* Why was the investigation into the WTC collapses an underfunded farce?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fema_911.html