Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Thursday, June 30, 2005

    Former Bush regime insider's "9/11" claim gets huge response

    From LewisNews: Bush Insider Claim WTC Collapse Bogus Gets 'Huge Response' And Read By Millions Worldwide

    Two weeks ago, the former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush’s first term told the world he thought the WTC fell from a controlled demolition, indicating 9/11 was "an inside government job." Reynolds, a respected economist and former Republican conservative, made his claims after researching many aspects of 9/11, including scientific and engineering data for and against the government story. He presented his findings on the Internet in a long, detailed article, concluding: "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. 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.
    This isn't some so called "crackpot conspiracy theorist" talking, this is a well respected economist, and a man who was part of the Bush regime. See all recent "A Logical Voice" posts


    At 6/30/2005 03:57:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Yes it is, the guy is off base, even A&M disavows him.
    Personally, I don't give much credence to an economist's theories on mechanical and metallurgical failure.
    However it stokes the fires of anti-Americanism so folks like you lap it up because you want to believe it.

    At 7/01/2005 02:36:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    Your personal attack aside (the article might stoke anti-American government-ism, but if the government were in it it, it would obviously garner more sympathy for American people - of course, to the totalitarian mind, the government is to be equated with the people), I think that the idea that the towers were brought down by a controlled charge inside the towers is a load of crap. Imagine yourself working in the tower while a team of workers come in over a period of days carrying crates and crates of explosives, drilling holes in the support posts of the building (partway up as if they knew exactly where the planes would hit), packing their explosive charges in the holes, wiring them to explode, and telling all the staff not to touch them or they might go off. Isn't it funny that in all this time, not one of the people working in the building stopped to ask, "Hey, why are you guys crating in many tons of TNT and wiring it to holes you've drilled into the posts?" That's quite an odd thing. Surely building security in a building that a terrorist group had already tried to blow up once would have something to say about all this. If not, surely some of the staff working in the building might have had something to say to the media after the towers went down.

    At 7/01/2005 10:00:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Have to agree. For every significant event that happens there are always crackpots who for whatever reason want to take the alternative stance.

    The comment that made me laugh was this:

    This isn't some so called "crackpot conspiracy theorist" talking, this is a well respected economist, and a man who was part of the Bush regime.

    Wow, a respected economist is telling me about structural enginering. Best I listen up.

    At 7/01/2005 11:04:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    Being a respected economist (actually, he is a member of the crackpot pseudo-science branch of economics known as the neo-classical school) doesn't necessarily exclude one from having something relevant to say about structural engineering. It is enough to judge the merit of what one says. In this case, there is no merit.


    Post a Comment

    << Home