Page 1 of 1

Rut-roh...

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:03 pm
by Cl1mh4224rd
John Daly, UPI International Correspondent wrote: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."

Source: The Washington Times

Honestly, though, he sounds just like any of the other 9/11 conspiracy believers. He doesn't claim to have any evidence, yet claims the official theory about the collapse is "bogus".

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:14 pm
by Bill_Thompson
Maybe it didn't collapse and it is all an illusion.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:19 pm
by Lance
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor


Why would that be a position that would be "in the know"? I think it more likely that he's just a conspiracy-theorist that happened to have a good job. They do have to come from somewhere, after all.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:20 pm
by Cl1mh4224rd
Lance (LBM™) wrote:
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor


Why would that be a position that would be "in the know"? I think it more likely that he's just a conspiracy-theorist that happened to have a good job. They do have to come from somewhere, after all.

Hehe. It never really occurred to me before, but for all the rabid hatred toward "the establishment" (and, generally, anyone with any kind of political power) that these people display, they sure are quick to accept the words of any one of "them" that might happen to think like they do.

Typical, I suppose, but it almost seems like they're even more willing to ignore facts, just because an "insider" agrees with them.