Monday, June 13, 2005

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

"'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," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. '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.'"

Regardless of whether 9/11 was an "inside job," I think it's darkly comic that most Americans don't seem to realize a third building was involved; if nothing else, it's an alarming example of how simple it is for a select few to manage the facts surrounding even a massively public catastrophe.

16 comments:

TheUltimateCyn said...

I think I posted about this before... we all know it, it's just a matter of the WH admitting it, which will never happen.

stankan said...

There is of course some major flaws in this argument.
The "allegeded" planes were seen by many eyewitnesses and were filmed from several different angles.
What made the hole in Pennsylvania, and what happened to the flight that according to the article did not crash there?
You can visibly see in the films that the point of initial collapse of the trade centers are at the same place as the impact of the planes. A conspiracy would have to have known the exact floor the impact was going to occur.

Stan

TheUltimateCyn said...

...and if well planned, why wouldn't it [they] know the exact floor?

W.M. Bear said...

Stop me before I post on this one!

TheUltimateCyn said...

aw, come on w.m.bear, jump on...

:o)

Mac said...

I think there's a case to be made for demolition. But no conspiracy theory can hope to exclude the very real presence of actual airplanes hitting the towers.

stankan said...

It seems to me it would take incredible piloting skill to hit the correct floor.
It would have to have been a highly trained pilot willing to die for the conspiracy to pull this off. An Arab doing Jihad is far more likely. Not however likely to cooperate with the American government.
This is not important anyway as the article implies that there were no planes. That implication completely negates the credibility of the writer.

Stan

Mac said...

"This is not important anyway as the article implies that there were no planes. That implication completely negates the credibility of the writer."

I agree. I'm not writing off the possibility that 9/11 was an engineered "Pearl Harbor," but I don't understand this stuff about phantom planes.

W.M. Bear said...

OK, I'll try to keep it short (to start, anyway).

A) I thought this was an excellent summary of the physical evidence pointing to government complicity in 9/11. It also made the telling point that establishing the case for demolition of the 3 NYC buildings would IN AND OF ITSELF suffice to nail the whole thing as an "inside job" with at least the complicity of some elements in the U.S. govt.

B) This is not important anyway as the article implies that there were no planes. That implication completely negates the credibility of the writer. I didn't get this implication at all, except possibly for Flight 93 that supposedly crashed in PA. The most sensible explanation I've read is that Flight 93 was shot down by an air-to-air missile (or missiles plural) and basically disintegrated before it hit the ground, accounting for the lack of concentrated debris. (They did, in fact, find one engine several miles from the impact site, further evidence of the plane basically exploding after being hit in midair.)

Mac said...

And remember Rumsfeld's Freudian slip when he briefly mentioned shooting down airliners.

The Andy-Christ said...

I wish the reporters at press conferences and such would pound these guys on this stuff. Wouldn't it be fun to watch Bush, Rummy, Cheney and Rice (among others) reactions if reporters started only asking them HARD questions? Pin them down on the lies and hammer away until they crack. Too bad the media has no spine!

The Andy-Christ said...

As for the remark regarding the plane's ability to hit specific floors, what if they were remotely controlled via GPS? I read an article about Predator drones operating in Irag and Afghanistan being controlled from a base somewhere in the US. I want to say it was Nevada, but I could be wrong. Obviously, the military/government is skilled at this type of thing. I'm sure there is a way to bypass the controls of a plane and hand them off to a remote ground station. It might take a little re-fitting of the plane, but that would be easy enough to accomplish it seems (for a government, that is). The only people who might know the whole story would be a few "commanders" and the remote pilots (who could then be taken out). Actually, it would probably be possible to automate the entire remote flight sequence, taking the pilots out of the picture as well. The planning and execution could be so compartmentalized that no one person would understand the whole scenario. A lot of people contributing seemingly innocent and unrelated pieces under orders from "above". Sure it may be far-fetched, but I think you have to admit it is within the realm of possibility from a technological perspective.

The Andy-Christ said...

Oh, another option I just thought of. Suppose demolition charges were placed on every floor above a certain level(below which it would not be possible for a plane to hit due to surrounding buildings). Then it would just be a matter of waiting a sufficient amount of time to make it look good (and maybe even to allow some people to escape) before detonating the appropriate charges. As for the plane in Pennsylvania, the rumor is that it was shot down. Many eyewitnesses saw/heard missles, and also a fighter jet in the area. Not sure why that would be, though. Unless it was a backup plane, which wasn't needed to complete the objective, and was taken down to destroy evidence of the remote control devices. As a bonus they fabricate the crash story to create some instant patriotic hero mythology about passengers fighting the terrorists and forcing the plane to crash. I could go on for days!

TheUltimateCyn said...

I am not saying there were no planes, but I do think it was all a set up - and I agree somewhat with a lot of what the andy-christ said.

W.M. Bear said...

Many eyewitnesses saw/heard missles, and also a fighter jet in the area. Not sure why that would be, though. Unless it was a backup plane, which wasn't needed to complete the objective, and was taken down to destroy evidence of the remote control devices.

Not sure about the remote control devices, although I did read somewhere that such devices actually already exist and ARE slated to be installed on some commercial airliners, so this is a distinct possibility. One argument for it is just that the supposed "jihadi pilots" lacked the training to crash the planes into the two towers as precisely as they did. But I dunno. Crashing a plane into a building doesn't look like rocket science to me.

If the pilots WERE in control, this would explain the need to shoot down Flight 93 -- It was headed for the White House, or so one theory goes. (As for allowing the Pentagon to be hit, hey, that wing was slated for renovation anyway!)

The overall theory that makes the most sense to me is that U.S. intelligence at some level learned of the Al Qaeda plot and simply abetted it -- made things easy for the pilot trainees, didn't arrest people it knew about, etc., etc., and then, on 9/11, made sure no interceptors were around to shoot down the stars of the show.

Ken Younos said...

This whole scenario reminds me of George Orwell's 1984...