Here we go again with another conspiracy theory about how the WTC Towers ans building 7 collapsed. This time it is a former Bush Administration official bandying about an old conspiracy theory that the 3 building were imploded by the use of explosives. We have seen many buildings demolishe din that manner and some of the usual tin foil hat candidates posted and spread this particular theory around early after 9/11. This time it is Morgan Renolds who was a Labor Department economist during the first Bush Administration. Here is the article in full:
"By John Daly
UPI International Correspondent
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.""
I have a few questiond for Reynolds and any others tht buy into this bunk.
If any of you care to challenge my remarks or answer any of the questions I have presented, feel free to do so. I will await your replies. As for Reynolds, he has no clue what he is talking about.- Sailor Source
First, when were these buildings rigged with explosives? Was it during the construction or after?
Second, do you have any idea of how many thousands of pounds of explosives it would take to collapse any of these three buildings? So, exactly how did all of thses explosives get into these buildings with no one noticing? If the buildings were rigged after construction, want to explain to us how that was accomplished? You do not just go around placing explosives here and there. The charges must be precisely shaped to get the desired effects. Also, why did not the tower that was bombed in 1993 have it's alleged pre-rigged explosives go off as a result of that blast? Or for that matter, why weren't there
secondary explosions after the planes struck?
Third, what type of detonators were used? Certainly it was not
primacord or any manual system. So that leaves radio frequency detonators. Do you have any clue how many thousands of radio frequency devices there are in Lower Manhattan on any given day? The odds would favor an accidental detonation. Now,all of these explosives need to be wired and set off in a very precise order. While the fires generated by the plane crashes did not achieve teperatures high enough to melt steel, (though the temperatures generated were sufficiently high enough to weaken the tensile strength of the steel by 50%), the temperatures generated would most certainly been high enough to have melted the wiring and detonators themselves. That goes for the fuel oil fire in building 7 as well.