Updated July 2, 2005








Amazing Special Offers from the Barnes Review Magazine

My page   Tell-a-friend about this page





By Greg Szymanski

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 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.

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.

“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,” said Reynolds from his offices at Texas A&M. “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.

“More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9-11 right.”

However, Reynolds said “getting it right in today’s security state” remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9-11.


From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was hastily removed by the federal government prior to independent investigation. Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover up the evidence. The recent 9-11 commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9-11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

• Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.

• When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

• The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.

• FDNY firefighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9-11 gag order.

• Even the flawed 9-11 commission report acknowledges that “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.”

• Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9-11.

• The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

• WTC-7 was unharmed by any airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and 12th floors of this 47-story steel building, yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

• WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

• It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.


Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has ignored all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

Hard evidence is lacking due to FEMA’s quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, but FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9-11 attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named “Tripod II.”

Besides FEMA’s quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

“The government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day,” said Reynolds. “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.”

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003