Morgan Reynolds says: "Bogus!" to WTC Collapse

[illuminati]

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."

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by illuminati

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 presume mr. reynolds is also cuckoo for cocopuffs.

[TW2005]

Originally Posted by illuminati

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,

Although I dont believe that it was a controlled demolition, It is mind boggling that the towers for the most part went straight down.

[nvalleyvee]

Originally Posted by anastrophe

i presume mr. reynolds is also cuckoo for cocopuffs.

Thank you for putting it soooo politely Paul. I had a bit stronger reaction to the thread.

[Clint]

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."

Wow!! This guy has spent too much time on a ten key.

[turbonium]

So finally the truth comes out from a former Gov't member. I agree with his assessment. I've pored over everything about 9/11 and am convinced the towers had to have come down almost in a free fall only with explosives. The clincher for me was WTC 7 - this building collapsed and no plane even hit it. There were a couple of small fires inside it and suddenly it collapses in something like 8 seconds. There has never been a decent explanation for why this building came down. And all three buildings had molten pools of steel in their basements - fire can't melt steel into molten liquid form.

[turbonium]

I'm going against the popular opinion here, but I am convinced it was a demolition with explosives. Like I posted elsewhere, the clincher for me is WTC 7, which was not even hit by a plane, came down in around 8 seconds, with a couple of small fires within it. The second oddity is the pools of molten steel in the basements of all three buildings that came down. Fire cannot melt steel into a molten liquid state. These hot spots were there for three weeks after 9/11. They have never adequately explained these anomalies. No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, and every controlled experiment done has proven the same thing. They can not duplicate the three collapses.

[spot]

Oh, we're all polite. Especially Paul. But, just so it's been asked at the right moment - You don't find it strange that WTC7 came down? Nothing had hit it. It was 355 feet from the nearest part of the North Tower. WTC6 was between the Towers and WTC7 and stayed up. WTC7 was a broad based, 47-story steel-framed building. No other high-rise in the world ever collapsed as a result of fire. This fire was minimal compared with others that have failed to bring down buildings.

It's a pity the 9/11 Commission didn't feel able to ask questions about WTC7's collapse. It only needs one lie to be outed for the rest to be apparent, and WTC7 is one of the focal points.

Faith, that's what keeps people's minds away from looking and asking. Faith and fear. Much like the jihadis we keep hearing about. Faith, fear and a fanatical devotion to a cause. The world's a puzzle built of mirrors.

[anastrophe]

ahem.

the notion that the collapses - all three of them - were done with explosives is absurd. never mind the logistics that would have been involved in covertly wiring the buildings on each of 110 floors with strategically placed explosives (it would have taken months to do so, and have taken a conspiracy of extraordinary proportions).

the hiroshima bomb, that wiped out an entire city, was the equivalent of about 12,500 tons of TNT. the world trade center collapse(s) represented the equivalent of between 250 and 600 tons of TNT going off at ground level.

for further comparison, the bomb that was used to take off the front half of the building at oklahoma city has been estimated at between 2 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent.

do the math.

fire can't melt steel? how do you think it's melted? the towers were struck by jets filled to capacity with commercial aviation fuel. that fuel burned at more than adequate temperatures to melt metal.

why are people so willing to believe absolutely lunatic conspiracy theories, yet discard the simple evidence that's right there in front of them?

[turbonium]

Originally Posted by anastrophe

ahem.

the notion that the collapses - all three of them - were done with explosives is absurd. never mind the logistics that would have been involved in covertly wiring the buildings on each of 110 floors with strategically placed explosives (it would have taken months to do so, and have taken a conspiracy of extraordinary proportions).

the hiroshima bomb, that wiped out an entire city, was the equivalent of about 12,500 tons of TNT. the world trade center collapse(s) represented the equivalent of between 250 and 600 tons of TNT going off at ground level.

for further comparison, the bomb that was used to take off the front half of the building at oklahoma city has been estimated at between 2 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent.

do the math.

fire can't melt steel? how do you think it's melted? the towers were struck by jets filled to capacity with commercial aviation fuel. that fuel burned at more than adequate temperatures to melt metal.

why are people so willing to believe absolutely lunatic conspiracy theories, yet discard the simple evidence that's right there in front of them?

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two):.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A):
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
See full calculations at the link at the bottom of this post...

Summarizing
It is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.


Jet Fuel Temps & Calculations