US Government, Not Terrorists Brought Down WTC

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

OK conspiracy buffs. Try this one on for size...

[ QUOTE ]

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."


[/ QUOTE ]

And no, I didn't make this up. It was from a Washington Times article.

[TreeStandBowHunter]

You know I don't know who is worse, the Washington Times or the Boston Herald. You should hear the crap the morning talk shows put on the radio about excerpts from that mornings Boston Herald. They all need to be shut down.

All I know is Arabs hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings. Can we all agree on that?....or is another paper going to come out and say that Secret Service men dressed up in bed sheets and hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings .

My Brother-In-Law believes all this crap too. He tries to get me into his conversations about this and I just ignore his theorys.

[slugshooter]

Ya know, it's no secret that I am not George W. Bush's greatest "campaign contributor" , but he is the last one I would accuse of bringing down the WTC, why?, because he ain't smart enough. No, all kidding aside, I in no way shape or form think the government was at all involved in this, if they were, Michael Moore would have exposed it. I don't know how many times I have read or seen on TV the special reports about how certain things happened and why, during the collapse. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the billows of smoke and dust coming out during the collapse were the individual floors collapsing on top of each other. That is the only basis for people believing in a timed detonation, but it is a very weak base to stand on and I wouldn't be caught dead standing next to them.

[horst]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read or seen on TV the special reports about how certain things happened and why, during the collapse. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the billows of smoke and dust coming out during the collapse were the individual floors collapsing on top of each other. That is the only basis for people believing in a timed detonation, but it is a very weak base to stand on and I wouldn't be caught dead standing next to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta say that even in a controlled demolition I think they wouldnt take the chance of starting the collapse at the top of the buildings if they wanted to bring them to the ground.Im not refering to the government, anybody blowing anything up would start at the bottom.If you start in the center or near the top theres to great a chance of things going wrong and the whole works not coming down like it should.Kinda like taking the legs out from under something.If it was a government conspiracy which I dont think theres any chance of, Im almost sure it woulda involved a large explosion in the basement area and not jet planes hitting near the top.IMO the terrorists musta hit things just right for the whole works to come down anyway, had they hit more in the center and not on the outside edges theres a good chance the towers wouldnt have came down like they did because it woulda left a lotta the structural supports in place.

[Mathews XT Man]

first off thats alot of B>S>!!! I know our government is not perfect....but kill our citizens and endanger thousands ??? I dont think so!!....and secondly, it was the intense heat that melted and buckled the supports that started it on its way down, didnt really have anything on where the planes hit that caused the collapse. Actually the buidings took the hit and stood, if not for the fuel fire...they would still be standing today!

[buckee]

I have worked in demolitions before for a short stint. But that experience isn't necessary after seeing the trade centre collapse.
It is obvious that it did not collapse from the ground up, but from the top down.
It was the shear weight and force of everything above the crash sight, coming down on the rest of the tower that made the whole works go. Like Martin said, the intence firs had a lot to do with it too.
If the plane entered a few floors higher, it may also still be standing.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a demolitions expert to see that from all the footage they got.

There is always someone out there with some other crazy twisted conspiracy plot, to try to make an already crazy plot by terrorists to look even crazier.

[stevebeilgard]

what a bunch of garbage. that paper isn't worth using to line a bird cage.

[slugshooter]

[ QUOTE ]
It was the shear weight and force of everything above the crash sight, coming down on the rest of the tower that made the whole works go. Like Martin said, the intence firs had a lot to do with it too.
If the plane entered a few floors higher, it may also still be standing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't a lot of "experts"(engineer types) conclude that since the first plane went in so high that if the other tower hadn't been hit so low that the first tower wouldn't have come down. The terrorists knew that hitting the towers more in the middle would weaken them more, the first guy must have misjudged and hit the first tower too high because remember, the second tower hit was the first one to come down and the engineers believe that the destruction from the first collapse severely weakened the other tower and most likely cause it to come down.

That terrorism conference I did back in May had a report about the Pentagon and the guy giving the report was one of the lead Special Agents from the FBI coordinating the cleanup. Remember the thread awhile back ago with the speculations about it being a smaller plane hitting the Pentagon and this and that, heck, they showed a ton of pictures that will never make it into papers or on the news and gave a lot of info not made public. Pretty interesting stuff.

[wtnhunt]

Had seen something about this before and it is a bunch of garbage. Seems someone here posted a link to a site that had all this "evidence" and "eye witness" accounts that it was not the act of terrorists but was instead the work of our own government.