It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Highly recognized former chief economist (Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D) in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.
June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
www.arcticbeacon.com...
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
"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," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.
A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent.
Originally posted by slank
.
A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent.
This is fact I haven't seen before.
The north tower wingspan, which was incidentally caught on film should show this. If the wings extend past the edges of the building it is a 767, if not the official explanation is bogus.
Gonna go view it now.
Will report back.
.
There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system.
The engineering establishment’s theory has further difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I’d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68–9) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1.
The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag.
Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
I read somewhere that the CIA was having a drill at 8:30 am on 9/11 of planes being hijakced. The CIA then told Norad to stand down because it was only a drill. This would make a lot of sense because there is no way that Norad would let 4 planes fly around off course for over an hour without radio contact. Has anybody found any hard evidence of this claim?
Originally posted by dbates
A controlled demolition? Does he expect us to believe that no one on the upper floors minded sharing their offices with explosives that morning. I love it when Hollywood actors become political analysts, and economist become structural engineers. Once we trade jobs like this then anything will make sense.
"Hey Bob! What's that on and around your desk?"
"I think it's TNT but I'm too busy filing this report to deal with it right now."
"Okay, just curious, cause the same stuff is piled up around the copier."
Aside from the stupidity, who ever saw a building destroyed with explosives palaced at only the top end? Don't they ususally take out the foundation of the building?
If this is true, it would explain why FEMA was there on the night of the tenth of September. It does not explain why the Pentagaon was attacked a full hour after the second tower was hit. They should have gone into full alert status after the hit on the second tower.
"The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)
Do you see an "out-of-control" fire engulfing the 47-story WTC 7 like a "giant torch", or just a few floors on fire?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Has been directly contradicted by the NIST report, which has clear pictures of the exterior columns bowing inward significantly before the collapses.
Based on what he has written and the sites that he cites in his articles, I would put no faith at all into anything this man claims.
Originally posted by Sauron
June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
www.arcticbeacon.com...