StoryImage( ‘/Images/Story//Auto-img-11194617033000.jpg’, ‘Image courtesy of media.popularmechanics.com’, ‘Popular Mechanics magazine ran an article in the March 2005 issue titled, 9/11: Debunking The Myths in which the magazine examines the evidence to refute conspiracy theories of Sept. 11.’);
A former member of the Bush administration has charged that the official story of what happened on 9/11 is bogus and that the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers was an inside job.
Greg Szymanski, writing for ArcticBeacon.com, quotes Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former chief economist in the U.S. Labor Department during the first term of the Bush government.
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 said.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas, believes it was next to impossible that 19 Arab terrorists could outmaneuver the U.S. military and that scientific conclusions about the Twin Towers collapse may reveal the mysterious plot behind the attacks.
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, Reynolds said. He added: If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrongas I believe it isthen policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The governments 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.
Reynolds said if impartial analysts concluded professionals imploded the WTC, then there would be very significant political and social consequences. He said the job of scientists, engineers and researchers is to get the engineering analysis right.
The latter is a daunting task because explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11, he said.
The Bush administration has continued to claim that burning jet fuel caused the buildings to fall. While many investigators disagree, they have been unable to prove otherwise because the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] promptly removed the debris from the site immediately after the collapses, so little evidence remains.
Critics charge the administration has attempted to cover up the evidence and that the recent 9/11 Commission was nothing but a whitewash that ignored the major evidence, which contradicts the official story of the WTC attacks.
Among the contradictory evidence available:
Photos of people walking around in the opening in the North Tower, where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were said to be burning;
The fire in the North Tower burned only 16 minutes and could have been contained and extinguished fairly easily;
New York firefighters are still under a federal government gag order not to talk about the explosions they heard, felt and saw. A similar gag order applies to FAA personnel;
WTC-7 was not hit by any aircraft and had only small fires on two floors, but it collapsed in 10 seconds or less;
It is nearly impossible for fires like those fed by jet fuel to burn hot enough to soften or melt steel.
One who supports the official story is Thomas Eager, professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. He argues the collapse happened because of extreme heat from the fires, causing the steel to lose its load-bearing ability. He said the steel could collapse only if heated until it lost 80 percent of its strength, about 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics say that theory is flawed because the fires were not that intense and did not reach those temperatures.
Others say the impact of the aircraft caused the steel to buckle, but critics say the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear to be weakened severely, much less the entire structural system.
Not only did authorities quickly remove the steel before it could be analyzed and studied, they tracked each truck hauling it by global satellite.
Reynolds, in his own analysis, said: First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not.
These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.
On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: a 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphias Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage. Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.
Reynolds summed up: In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.
In addition to all this, investigative reporter Tom Flocco talked with two civilian defense contractor employees who were working at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/11.
The two, who asked not to be identified for personal safety, said the Air Force brought in separate teams to fit Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior jets with updated missiles, remote control systems, engines, transponders and new radio-radar navigation systems in the weeks immediately before 9/11.
Photos taken during the attacks show clearly that the aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet, much like the Douglas Sky Warrior. Air traffic controllers in Washington, D.C., that day originally said the incoming plane was a military jet.
From the june 22-28, 2005, issue