No, But I Did Stay in a H__day Inn Ex__ss Last Night
Morgan Reynolds, a former chief Economist for the Department of Labor, has what can only be described as a hallucinogenic explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 and Building 7.
From The Washington Times:
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.”
The folks at LGF point out how unlikely and implausible this scenario actually is:
None of the chuckleheads who propose theories like this ever seem to consider that professional demolition on such a scale would have been a gigantic task, would have taken a lot of time to set up, and would have been very visible to the tens of thousands of people who worked in the Trade Center every single day.Amen.
I surely hope no one seriously puts any stock into a theory espoused by an economist who moonlights as a demolition expert/structural engineer. This is proof that sometimes a theory says more about the intelligence of the person proposing it than it does about the subject it is being applied to.