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

9.11 investigation

Washington Times: Bush Economist Claims 9-11 Probably "inside job"-Where's Local Media?

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."
"Construction began in 2002 on 7 World Trade Center, designed by David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill for Larry Silverstein, who owned the previous building on the site"
"America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3,
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." - Larry Silverstein on collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001

Morgan Reynolds
Causus Belli: Illiberal Ideology
by Morgan Reynolds
Morgan Reynolds... retired professor of economics at Texas A&M University and former chief economist, US Department of Labor, lives in Hot Springs Village, Arkansas.
Name a war and the alleged causes are numerous: man's innate aggression, vain glorious princes, stupid tyrants, imbalances of power, preserving the union, the military industrial complex, ties to al-Qaeda, WMDs, democracy, freedom, and a hundred other reasons. And what about access to natural resources like, say, black gold? Such issues are rarely mentioned.
With regard to war, Hobbes asserted three principal causes, "First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; the third, for reputation."
Many of us suspect that G.W. Bush thirsts for the last. Major politicians wear buttons saying, "ME," don't they? As Thomas Campbell wrote in 1799, "What millions died—that Caesar might be great!"
It is hard to see Bush the younger as great, but his imagination may be more fertile than mine.
Bush and his supporters argue that Hobbe's motive number two really drives their astute invasions: we launch preemptive wars against the bad guys over there to make you folks safer back here. There's doubt about how well this theory will work out in practice. Somehow, a manual on "How to win friends and influence people around the world" authored by the gentle souls at the Pentagon, with superior firepower at the center, and then executed on unwilling subjects in distant lands, is not all that reassuring.
Maybe I'm wrong. If the tables were turned, I guess we North Americans would embrace invading Chinese, Latins or Arabs bent on improving our ignorant way of life and then be pals forever more. Still, I can't quite see it. The tendency to resent being conquered by a foreign military is universal.
That leaves material gain as a motive for war (all three of Hobbe's causes, of course, may operate simultaneously). The economic success of the West rested on the fact that it "succeeded better in checking the spirit of predatory militarism than the rest of mankind," wrote Ludwig von Mises. Reason, not accident, led the West to develop the institutions to safeguard the individual's rights against expropriation and confiscation. Capitalism is the only system based on individual rights, the only one that bans force. That permitted saving and investment on a wide scale and hence mass production resulting in unprecedented economic progress. Private property and relative freedom to trade gave humanity the longest period of peace in history.
Statism scrapped all that. Only a veneer of individual economic rights remains in the U.S. polity. Why do modern unlimited governments prefer aggression to peace? What transformed limited wars into total war? The short answer is that the welfare state replaced the laissez-faire state. A multitude of sovereign nations at peace is possible under laissez faire, but it's impossible under interventionism. In an interdependent world, another government's interference in oil or trade is too important to be left to local politicians.
Interference in business generates nationalism, and economic nationalism generates bellicosity, as Mises said. If people, goods and investments cannot move across borders, then armies pave the way.
Despite the fact that the international division of labor requires the abolition of war, the economic philosophy espoused today by nearly everyone is nationalism, protectionism, massive taxation and borrowing, cheap money, forced redistribution, and regulation. Will those damaged by another government's restrictions, expropriation and confiscation sit back and tolerate it? "Not if they believe that they are strong enough to brush it away by the use of arms," writes Mises. "The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war."
In a world of arbitrary barriers against trade and foreign investment, Hitler sought lebensraum (elbow-room), suzerainty over resources in economic backwaters, as did Japan. Ordinary folks in Germany and Japan expected these takings to yield a higher standard of living. Today, the pugnacious Mr. Bush, leader of a rather well-endowed, continental-size nation, seeks "democracy" overseas—that is, stable oil supplies, including secure pipelines and related investments from central Asia all the way to the Med. Surprising, isn't it, how Russia's Putin is not quite on board with all this U.S. invading and meddling in his backyard?
Today's neocons genuinely believe that the key to durable peace is establishing democracies throughout the world. Two problems here: first, it will require lots of warring and, second, even if achieved it will fail because peace depends on governments abandoning unlimited interventionism. As Mises said, "The tragic error of President Wilson was that he ignored this essential point."

Oil is not really the root of war today. It's bad ideas about economic policy. "Modern civilization is a product of the philosophy of laissez faire," Mises wrote. "It cannot be preserved under the ideology of government omnipotence. . . . The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war."

Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions
Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria.
David Shayler joined MI5 in October 1991 and worked there for five years. He started at F Branch (counter-subversion) in January 1992, and worked in T Branch (Irish terrorism) from August 1992 until October 1994. He left the organization in 1996.
Shayler appeared on The Alex Jones Show to kick off what will be a wider public campaign to educate the public on 9/11 issues and government corruption.
Shayler again risked jail by speaking out. The British government has a legal gag preventing him from speaking about his work during his MI5 tenure. Since what Shayler discussed was already on the public record (a consequence of which was his imprisonment on two separate occasions), he now feels safer in stepping back out into the limelight.
Shayler delved into his past investigations and the evidence that led some within MI5 to conclude that the Israelis bombed their own London embassy in July 1994. Shayler said that the Israelis framed two Palestinians who remain in jail to this day.
"The same thing has happened with two Palestinians who were convicted of conspiracy to cause the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Britain in 1994 but MI5 didn't disclose two documents which indicated their innocence. One document indicated another group had carried out the attack and the other document was the belief of an MI5 officer that the Israelis had actually bombed their own embassy and allowed a controlled explosion to try and get better security and these documents were never shown to the trial judge let alone the defense."
Shayler said that his suspicions were first aroused about 9/11 when the usual route of crime scene investigation was impeded when the debris was immediately seized and shipped off to China.
"It is in fact a criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene and yet in the case of 9/11 all the metal from the buildings is shipped out to China, there are no forensications done on that metal. Now that to me suggests they never wanted anybody to look at that metal because it was not going to provide the evidence they wanted to show people that it was Al-Qaeda."
Shayler then went on to dismiss the incompetence theory.
"The more I look at it, you realize that it's not incompetence. There were FBI officers all over the country, Colleen Rowley is obviously the one who managed to get a congressional hearing, but there was plenty of evidence certainly."
"There are so many questions that need to be answered, protocols being overridden within national defense, people actively being stopped from carrying out investigations. This wasn't an accident, they were aware there was intelligence indicating those kind of attacks, there were FBI intercepts saying it in the days before the attacks. When you look at it all, that is a big big intelligence picture and yet these people were crucially stopped from doing their jobs, stopped from trying to protect the American people."
Shayler elaborated by saying the evidence suggests the attack was originally meant to be much wider in scope and was an attempt at a violent coup intended to decapitate the entire government as a pretext for martial law.
"So you're looking at a situation in which you almost have a coup de'tat because you've got to bear in mind that there were weapons discovered on planes that didn't take off on 9/11. Now people have obviously postulated that they were going perhaps to attack the White House, Capitol Hill. That looks to me like an attempt to destroy American government and declare a state of emergency, in fact a coup de'tat, a violent coup de'tat."
"There are so very many questions about this and you realize again that none of the enquiries ever get to the bottom of any of these things, they don't take all the evidence, they don't often take any evidence under oath when they should be taking it under oath."
Shayler was forthright in his assertion that the attack was planned and executed within the jurisdiction of the military-industrial complex.
"They let it happen, they made it happen to create a trigger to be able to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and of course what they're trying to do now is the same thing with the invasion of Iran and Syria."
Shayler ended by questioning the highly suspicious nature of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7, the first buildings in history, all in the same day, to collapse from so-called fire damage alone.
"I've seen the results of terroristic explosions and so on and no terrorist explosion has ever brought down a building. When the IRA put something like a thousands tonnes of home-made explosives in front of the Baltic Exchange building in Bishopsgate and let off the bomb, all the glass came out, the building shook a bit but there was no question about the building falling down and it doesn't obey the laws of physics for buildings to fall down in the way the World Trade Center came down. So you have the comparison of the two, Building 7 compared with the north and south towers coming down and those two things are exactly the same, they were demolished."
David Shayler joins a spate of recent credible whistleblowers who share the same sentiments about the real story behind 9/11. Former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds publicly questioned the unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7 earlier this month. In addition, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, shared his concerns last week when he said the Bush Administration were making the same mistakes as the Nazis when they invaded Russia in the dead of Winter. Roberts seriously doubts the official explanation behind 9/11.
Click here for a clip in which Shayler discusses 9/11.
That makes three this month, be sure to follow this up with the recent articles on Paul Craig Roberts and Morgan Reynolds.

homepage: homepage: http://home.comcast.net/~xysterxxavier/index1.html

we're really... really... about to cover this we swear ! 30.Jun.2005 18:41


we're really... really... about to cover this we swear ! but first let's go live to Florida with an interview about a shark...

Disreputable source 30.Jun.2005 23:43


Well, where is the local media? Are they informing us of the fact that the Washington Times is owned by the Moonies? They should be.

who knows 01.Jul.2005 09:12


Of course we are talking about the highest of treason if this was internally done or whatever...hell, even the Downing Street revelation of lies is probably grounds for not just high crimes but treason too.

I don't believe that the "welfare state" is to blame for this war...if anything, it's the interests of the large corps. among others. I'm busy writing something right now about why a truly laissez-faire economy can't effectively happen, hope to get it done in a week or so.