Bush Defector to Demolish 9/11 Big Lie in Madison

Kevin Barrett, 30.03.2006 19:41

The former top economist in Bush's Department of Labor, Morgan Reynolds, will speak out on the 9/11 inside job at the State Historical Society, University of Wisconsin-Madison on Saturday, May 6th. The film Loose Change will be shown, and refreshments served, starting at 1 p.m, and Reynolds will speak at 3:00 p.m.

Dr. Reynolds, who holds three U.W.-Madison degrees, and who is currently Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University, will present evidence that top Bush Administration officials orchestrated the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the murder of almost 2,500 Americans, as a pretext for initiating their pre-planned “long war” in the Middle East.

“While more Americans doubt the 9/11 story every week, evidence abounds that many have a mental block against rational examination of the evidence about 9/11” writes Dr. Reynolds in a recent article. This mental block, he thinks, amounts to willful ignorance—not just about 9/11, but about history.

“Governments throughout history have provoked or staged attacks on their own people to serve the powers behind the throne (‘the money power’), glorify themselves, engage in vast government spending, reward friends, exert domestic control, stimulate the juices of war, annex neighbors and pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements (the ‘global domination project)” Reynolds asserts. He notes that every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the “Operation Northwoods” plan to murder Americans in fake “Cuban terrorist” attacks in 1962. The planned Operation Northwoods murders of ordinary Americans in fake terrorist bombings and a fake “airliner shoot-down” would have involved hundreds of military and intelligence personnel. Yet the existence of Operation Northwoods was successfully kept secret from the American people for forty years until James Bamford revealed it in his book Body of Secrets, published in January 2002.

Though government officials have historically been able to successfully conceal their fake or arranged war-trigger attacks long enough to avoid being hanged for treason, Reynolds thinks the 9/11 cover-up has already unraveled. “Skepticism about conspiracy, small or large, is somewhat beside the point in the case of 9/11 because the official Osama-and-Nineteen-Young-Arabs (ONYA) conspiracy tale is so farcical and impossible. Nearly everyone in America has easy access to the internet and hundreds of websites expose the 9/11 fraud.” (Morgan Reynolds, “Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11”:  http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911)

Reynolds argues that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were destroyed in a manner that can only be explained by controlled demolition with pre-planted explosives—which should not be surprising, since no steel framed high-rises have ever collapsed in the way the three World Trade Center buildings did for any other reason. In his article “Why Did the World Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?” Reynolds writes that among the many features of the WTC demolitions that suggest explosives, rather than jet-fuel fires, are:

1. 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.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. 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.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. 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.

Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself". In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).
(“Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?” by Morgan Reynolds:  http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911)

The apparent demolition of the three skyscrapers, and a perhaps inadvertent statement by heavily-insured WTC landlord Larry Silverstein that WTC-7 was “pulled” (slang for “demolished”) can be viewed on many 9/11 truth DVDs and web-videos, including Loose Change, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 and the American Empire, (Dr. David Griffin), and 9/11 Revisited (Dr. Steven Jones). Dr. Reynolds’ articles on 9/11 and other matters can be found at  http://nomoregames.net. The videos, and further information about Dr. Reynolds’ May 6th speech, are available from the event’s sponsor, the Madison-based Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth:  http://mujca.com

e-mail:: kevin@mujca.com
Homepage:: http://mujca.com

fires 23.04.2006 - 16:00 I would like to address a few of your points. Speaking as a chemical engineer, it is quite plausible and indeed likely that a small fire fueled by a jumbo jet worth of jet fuel was what caused the twin towers to collapse. Even if the temperature is below the melting point of steel, it still weakens the steel a great deal, which can be catastrophic when it must support thousands of tonnes of structure above. Fires usually don't cause buildings to crumble because (a) their temperature is too low to soften the steel, eg. conventional fires; (b) the steel beams are surrounded by insulative foam, which in this case was blown away by the airplane impact; and (c) the building is smaller, ie the steel has less weight to support. I'm not a demolitions expert, but the engineering analysis of the twin towers collapse seems quite reasonable to me. Andrew> Asymmetrical vs Symmetrical Collapse 03.05.2006 - 10:19 Where I do believe that it is "plausible" that a collapse could occur due to heat, I find it very difficult to believe that the WTC collapses occurred by fire caused by the jet impacts. If the tops of the towers fell over into the street asymmetrically, I would have thought the possibility of fires being the culprit more significant. The fact that the collpases were perfect symmetrical collapses and people were seen in the impact sites prior to collapse and the black, smoldering smoke indicates a relatively cool fire incapable of such. The entire structure of the towers below impact grows stronger as it progresses lower which creates massive resistence. If demolitionists could drop 100% of the buildings (as occurred with the Twin Towers) by planting the equivalent explosive force in the top floors of any buildings (as alleged to have resulted by the impacts of the jets) and get them to fall as precisely in their footprints as occurred on 9-11 then they could save themselves a lot of time and money. There should have been beams sticking up in the air hundreds of feet tall. 9-11 was an inside job. Dave> e-mail:: taanru@hotmail.com buy lisinopril 14.08.2007 - 20:13 nice news thanks!Cardular buy lisinopril> e-mail:: hf@joke.com Homepage:: http://remeron buy evra 14.08.2007 - 20:54 nice news thanks!Metranidazol buy evra> e-mail:: idfo@dssewt.net Homepage:: http://flonase