The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.
And the conclusion:
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.
Ah, but if the "official wisdom" is wrong, that means it's not wisdom at all -- nor "erroneous engineering analysis" -- but a grand deception of unprecedented magnitude. The fiendishly Orwellian minds which dreamed it up did so for propaganda purposes only, and thus would be far too bright (and too sinister) to use it as a genuine basis for policy. (Or does he think the government is both clever enough to pull off such a deception and dumb enough not to suspect they did it?)
Who is this former Bush administration official, and from where does he get his newfound expertise in engineering? His Lew Rockwell "report" offers nothing more than a regurgitation of crackpot conspiracy theories which have been debunked by Popular Mechanics. (If you are even slightly skeptical, the latter offers much greater breadth as well as a fuller range of facts than these superficial rehashes of conspiracy factoids.)
Morgan Reynolds is a former economist for the Labor Department, a former professor of criminal justice at Texas A&M, and was once known for compiling crime statistics.
So where did he get the demolition expertise? I don't know. He doesn't say.
What's not being as widely reported is the professor's contention that the planes might not have existed:
"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," said Reynolds. "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."
Yeah, and no plane hit the Pentagon, either.
Sorry, but I'm just not in the mood to take this guy seriously.
I apologize for my own blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth, but I'm late for this morning's controlled demolition.
posted by Eric on 06.15.05 at 07:29 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2451
Comments
These 9/11 deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers as far as I'm concerned. Not even lovable crackpots like the Flat-Earthers, the Inside-Out-Earthers, the Zig-Zag-and-Swirlers, etc., or me.
If the 9/11 memorial gets lost to the multi-culti 'genocides throughout history' pap, then I want a section devoted to craphat conspiracy theories, too.
I often wonder how many conspiracy theories start out as a joke or satire, and get snapped up and spread about as serious allegations by people too simpleminded to understand humor or irony. I'm almost afraid to tell such a joke: you never know who will use it as justification for some totally insane world-view - or worse.
It's waaaaay too early for me to go hunting through his conspiracy theory — steam will shoot out my ears and then there'll be blood and tears — but if all these airliner crashes are alleged, how is he getting around the 2nd air crash at the WTC, considering it was filmed by numerous crews from every New York media outlet?
So now the plot thickens. Obviously, the "demolition" theory is right. Someone put lots of explosives in the buildings and brought them down. That much is obvious. But there was the whole problem of the planes--how did the CIA get those planes to hit the buildings at the right moment to make it look like planes brought the buildings down?
Simple. We just write them out of the record! Viola--no planes! Why didn't I think of that?
There is a problem remaining, of course--all those people who saw the planes. The easy explanation is that the newsmedia, in the service of the CIA, convinced everybody they saw planes--manufactured memory. Psychiatrists do it all the time. Except I was there. My back was turned at the wrong moment so I didn't see the planes. But people around me did see them and talked about it--long before they saw any news report.
Did the CIA drug everyone so they thought they saw planes? That must be it. It's the only rational explanation.
byrd · June 15, 2005 10:39 AM
What I wanna know is, where's that Marxist-turned-uber-conspiracy-buff, Lyndon LaRouche? I should think he'd be all over this, trying to pin 9/11 on Kissinger, the Queen, Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and whoever else he had a wierd dream about last night.
"Zig-Zag-and-Swirl", a.k.a., "Lawsonomy", was a theory of physics invented by one Alfred Lawson*, who rejected the concept of "force" or "energy" and instead explained everything in terms of "Pressure" (Male) and "Suction" (Female) acting in a "Zig-Zag-and-Swirl" pattern. The style of that. I don't know about physics (I haven't begun to figure out Dr. Khlausthyne's Chaotic Field Theory), but I have observed that history does indeed seem to move in a Zig-Zag-and-Swirl type of pattern.
(*which always makes me think of Eugene Lawson -- and also.... Floyd Ferris + Eugene Lawson = ?)
I like the style of Lyndon Larouche, including his name, but, as a Royalist and a Transcendental Femocrat, I can never forgive his attack on the Queen. He also said something blasphemous against Isis once.
I've always considered myself a crackpot, but certain crackpots I cannot tolerate. (I think it takes a crackpot to hate a crackpot.) The aforementioned Holocaust deniers and 9/11 deniers, and also (with the exception of Flat-Eathers) anybody who denies the Apollo 11 Moon Landing. I also have never liked the theory that Bacon wrote Shakespeare (though I don't mind the theory that Queen Elizabeth I wrote Shakespeare....). Isn't there somebody out there arguing that Shakespeare wrote Bacon? Hmmm....
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
These 9/11 deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers as far as I'm concerned. Not even lovable crackpots like the Flat-Earthers, the Inside-Out-Earthers, the Zig-Zag-and-Swirlers, etc., or me.