shotbanner.jpeg

June 15, 2005

Garofalo and Malloy Are Going To Talk About This For Days

I've often wondered what it takes to be a serious conspiracy-monger. What provides the motivation? Are they nuts, or is it the rest of us?

Ask Morgan Reynolds, a former Department of Labor chief economist.

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.
A brief aside, and perhaps my good friend King Banaian can answer this; do economists have any institutional background in demolitions? Structural engineering? Metallurgy?

And am I the only one who notices the disconnect?

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."
Questions:
  • How is it that Mr. Reynolds, according to the UPI, is able to discern this conspiracy?
  • By what evidence does he make that conclusion? The UPI doesn't seem to think that's an important point in their article.
  • He commented "...from his Texas A&M office"? Did anyone ask Texas A&M's president, who says "while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus. " Got that, Sam Seder?
By the way, in an era where university administration seem to run scared of the imperial faculty, it's nice to see A&M's president, Dr. Gates, kick Reynolds to the curb:
Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University. Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University:

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.

I don't know what stuns me more - that a demented economist can get work, or that a Univesity president tossed him over...

Posted by Mitch at June 15, 2005 12:43 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Tin foil hat stuff.

Presumably UPI picked it up on the American Free Press -- the new crew of the old Liberty Lobby/Spotlight bunch.

See Wikipedia and and Southern Poverty Law Center.

Anti-semitic front group.

Run away!

Posted by: MN Skeeter Girl at June 15, 2005 04:00 PM

Remember Dr. Gates' job before going to A & M -- he was CIA director. He's also not at all shy about tossing those who deserve it under the bus.

His predecessor at A & M had started a process to 'modernize' the University for the 21st century -- some of which is sorely needed but large sections tend to be pure political correctness. Still, look to A & M to remain one of the most conservative campuses in the country's mainstream for decades to come.

Posted by: Aggie ExPat at June 15, 2005 04:37 PM

I guess he doesn't read Popular Mechanics; all of the 911 conspiracy theories were shot down using some things called "science" and "common sense".

Posted by: spacemoose at June 15, 2005 05:48 PM

Buildings collapse the same way they're constructed--one floor at a time, or "one domino at a time." The heat from the jet fuel only has to melt a single level of the building's steel skeleton, and then everything above is the first domino--big fat first domino. As I recall, the architects calculated once that a commercial jet, alone, couldn't bring down the towers--a commercial jet without fuel. They never thought to consider what the jet fuel would do to the steel.

Posted by: RBMN at June 15, 2005 05:55 PM

Yes, this is stupid. I hope it is summarily ignored. Please! How many people saw 9-11 happen with their own eyes?

Posted by: Luke Francl at June 15, 2005 06:13 PM

Karl Rove, in the boiler room, with a wrench.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Posted by: Eracus at June 15, 2005 06:47 PM

We're generally relatively sane down here in Texas, but when we do have folks go off the reservation, they go waaaaaaay off the reservation.

We're a conservative California, in that regard.

At ny alma mater, we have a journalism prof named Robert Jensen who is a pretty regular spewer of moonbattery: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/home.htm, if you dare!

Posted by: Steve in Houston at June 15, 2005 09:30 PM

If I recall, the WTC was designed to take such a hit. the colums were to be protected with asbestos. however, half way through construction, asbestos was banned and so an inferior insulation had to be used on the upper floors.

Posted by: rick at June 15, 2005 10:45 PM

Discovery network carried a computer-animated special report for several months, highlighting the official science and engineering report on why the towers collapsed.

To put it mildly, Dr. Reynolds is not typical of Aggie Profs but apparently he would fit in at the journalism department at UT-Austin, which as I understand it hangs upside down under the Congress Street bridge 'til dusk.


Posted by: ttyler5 Houston at June 15, 2005 11:21 PM

I think it would be almost impossible to design a good looking building and make it impervious to the sort of assault such as that that happened on 9/11. Tne forces at work are just to great.

Posted by: davod at June 16, 2005 06:19 AM

Oh well, he would fit in with some professors and staff members at the U -- one door here has a sign claiming that Bush and EVIL corporations are destroying the Iraqis' way of life by not giving their workers unions everything they demand!

No mention on when the unions were formed (last two years anybody?)

Posted by: mnconservative at June 16, 2005 07:36 AM

Oh yeah, the "jet fuel" which was almost entirely used up by the time they got there caused them to "collapse". Anyone ever wonder why the South tower "collapsed" first when the North tower was the one hit first AND at a head-on angle so as to dump almost all of the fuel inside, wheras the South tower, hit later, got almost no jet fuel inside, as what it had exploded outside in the fireball everyone saw? Anyone wonder why WTC # 7 "mysteriously" "collapsed" later that day even though it was hit by almost no debris and had two tiny fires? It fell in exactly the same manner as the twin towers, which is to say, a controlled demolition. Sorry, but otherwise there's no way excepting some September 11th suspension of the laws of physics for the towers to "collapse" at the same rate an object freefalls without all FORTY-SEVEN core support columns being simultaneously severed like with cutting charges. It also would not have been so uniform-looking and symmetrical; why wouldn't part of it fall over onto the other tower or onto another building? Instead they came down right in their footprint, just like the controlled demolition engineers do it, nice and neat. Also, why if supposedly the passengers were all burnt to cinders then why was "Mohammed Atta's" passport found in the rubble intact?? Why did NO Middle-Eastern names appear in any of the flight manifests?? How did six of the "hijackers" appear alive and well days later?? How could anyone believe that "nineteen hijackers" who couldn't fly a Cessna or a Piper Cub to save their asses would suddenly be able to fly the airliners like fighter pilots?? Why are the NY firefighters under a GAG ORDER to not talk about what they saw or heard (like explosions) on September 11th?? Why do FAA air traffic controllers have a similar GAG ORDER?? Why did the FBI confiscate WITHIN FIVE MINUTES the other security camera tapes from cameras near the Pentagon like at the
gas station across from the Pentagon?? Also where are the wings, tail section, luggage, etc. from the "airliner" that hit the Pentagon?? Not on the Pentagon's lawn. Perhaps most damning of all, just WHERE IN THE HELL was the U.S. Air Force, the most expensive in the world, on September 11th for the OVER AN HOUR that it took the "airliners" to reach their targets?? And why did the Pentagon not fire ANY surface-to-air missiles in its own defense?? But who needs physics, logic, or even common sense when you've got smug, childish "retorts" like calling anyone who doesn't unquestioningly and robotically accept the "official" horseshit fairy tale as being "tin foil hat-wearing nuts"?? I think your head is so far up your ass it would take the 'jaws of life' to pull it out.

Posted by: Fuck the U.S.A. at July 10, 2005 08:02 PM

Oh yeah, the "jet fuel" which was almost entirely used up by the time they got there caused them to "collapse". Anyone ever wonder why the South tower "collapsed" first when the North tower was the one hit first AND at a head-on angle so as to dump almost all of the fuel inside, wheras the South tower, hit later, got almost no jet fuel inside, as what it had exploded outside in the fireball everyone saw? Anyone wonder why WTC # 7 "mysteriously" "collapsed" later that day even though it was hit by almost no debris and had two tiny fires? It fell in exactly the same manner as the twin towers, which is to say, a controlled demolition. Sorry, but otherwise there's no way excepting some September 11th suspension of the laws of physics for the towers to "collapse" at the same rate an object freefalls without all FORTY-SEVEN core support columns being simultaneously severed like with cutting charges. It also would not have been so uniform-looking and symmetrical; why wouldn't part of it fall over onto the other tower or onto another building? Instead they came down right in their footprint, just like the controlled demolition engineers do it, nice and neat. Also, why if supposedly the passengers were all burnt to cinders then why was "Mohammed Atta's" passport found in the rubble intact?? Why did NO Middle-Eastern names appear in any of the flight manifests?? How did six of the "hijackers" appear alive and well days later?? How could anyone believe that "nineteen hijackers" who couldn't fly a Cessna or a Piper Cub to save their asses would suddenly be able to fly the airliners like fighter pilots?? Why are the NY firefighters under a GAG ORDER to not talk about what they saw or heard (like explosions) on September 11th?? Why do FAA air traffic controllers have a similar GAG ORDER?? Why did the FBI confiscate WITHIN FIVE MINUTES the other security camera tapes from cameras near the Pentagon like at the
gas station across from the Pentagon?? Also where are the wings, tail section, luggage, etc. from the "airliner" that hit the Pentagon?? Not on the Pentagon's lawn. Perhaps most damning of all, just WHERE IN THE HELL was the U.S. Air Force, the most expensive in the world, on September 11th for the OVER AN HOUR that it took the "airliners" to reach their targets?? And why did the Pentagon not fire ANY surface-to-air missiles in its own defense?? But who needs physics, logic, or even common sense when you've got smug, childish "retorts" like calling anyone who doesn't unquestioningly and robotically accept the "official" horseshit fairy tale as being "tin foil hat-wearing nuts"?? I think your head is so far up your ass it would take the 'jaws of life' to pull it out.

Posted by: Fuck the U.S.A. at July 10, 2005 08:03 PM

You french-kiss your sister with that tongue?

Posted by: Allison at July 10, 2005 08:32 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi