Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Forum Member gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,425

    Default Official claims WTC "professional demolition"

    Here's another conspiracy theory from someone with no understanding of building construction. Guess he never bothered to read the NIST study.

    UPI Hears...

    By John Daly
    UPI International Correspondent

    Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

    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."


  2. #2
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,583

    Default

    Jeeze Louise... he knows nothing about building design and engineering, so must have slept at a Holiday Inn last night...

    Just another (expletive deleted)tard looking for his 15 minutes of fame....
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber jaybird210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    911 N. Sycamore St. Yep, that's really our address.
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    "Professor Emeritus." Hmmm. I thought A&M was a big engineering school.

    Wait, didn't they have a big collapse a few years back that killed several students?

    I think two things oughta happen:

    1) We should all send "Perfesser" Reynolds a copy of Brannigan's "Building Construction for the Fire Service."

    2) We should start writing and emailing the Dean at A&M and let him know they've got a raving lunatic on staff.
    Omnis Cedo Domus

    www.hinckleyfd.org

  4. #4
    FH Mag/.com Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    In addition to being a great engineering school, right across campus is one of the premier Fire Training facilities in the world, full of highly knowledgeable instructors trained in all disciplines, especially building construction considering the Disaster City 'prop' that's up there. I think they ought to wander over to his office and advise him to stick to economics. Either that or drag him over to some burn props and show him what goes on in a fire.

    I'd say Gonzo is right, he heard something at the cafeteria and since he thinks he has some clout, he made some phone calls and comments trying to be the first person to break this "story". Probably can't explain any of it, but since he was a White House expert on something, he must know what he's talking about.

    Further proof that there are more wingnuts than bolts.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Yeah, he's a perfessor, allright..

    A professor of economics.


    As to his web site, he REALLY needs to get a clue.

    One of my favorite engineer/lawyer jokes could be modified for this occasion.

    "What's the difference between an ECONOMICS PROFESSOR and and Engineer?

    The Engineer doesn't think he's an Economics prof....."

    Jon
    BSEE 1985

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber EFD840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Eclectic (no, NOT electric), Alabama
    Posts
    1,510

    Default Here's what A & M has to say:

    You can get it straight from the Aggie's mouth here

    The following is a statement from Texas A&M University regarding recent news reports about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

    Dr. Morgan Reynolds is retired from Texas A&M University, but holds the title of Professor Emeritus-an honorary title bestowed upon select tenured faculty, who have retired with ten or more years of service. Additionally, contrary to some written reports, while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus. Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University. Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University:

    "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    You have to look at exactly what he is saying...

    "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."
    IF

    THEN

    He personally believes something that has no basis in forensic or engineering fact. He wants it to be true. He knows it is not. He provides a scenario that would make a compelling case.

    Seems like he needs something to do.

  8. #8
    Forum Member DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Originally posted by BC79er
    Probably can't explain any of it, but since he was a White House expert on something, he must know what he's talking about.
    He was not even a "White House" expert, he was teh senior economist at the Department of Labor. It is likely that the only time that he was ever at the White House for official business was the photo-op for his appointment.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default

    I think that he will be taken seriously because "It is not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge!" Just like how CBS ran theose fake docs on bush and then said that ok the docs are fake but the seriousness of what they say justify the story!

  10. #10
    Forum Member adamkhalil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    251

    Default

    Thats odd, i never knew there was a Fire Training institute right across from A&M. If i do recall however, they had many students killed in a bonfire that collapsed...

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by adamkhalil
    Thats odd, i never knew there was a Fire Training institute right across from A&M. If i do recall however, they had many students killed in a bonfire that collapsed...
    And your point is what, junior? Go ahead. Say it. I dare you. Say it.

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber sconfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    836

    Default

    Thats odd, i never knew there was a Fire Training institute right across from A&M. If i do recall however, they had many students killed in a bonfire that collapsed...
    whooooooo boy...
    Always remember the CHARLESTON 9

    Captain Grant Mishoe, Curator of History
    North Charleston and American LaFrance Fire Museum
    "You'll never know where you're going until you remember where you came from"
    www.legacyofheroes.org
    www.firehistory.org
    www.sconfire.com

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    This is what happens when they don't monitor computer usage in the HS study hall.

    [/B] IT WASN'T ON FIRE!


    From cnn.com
    [B] Texas A&M bonfire collapse blamed on structural, organizational problems

    Twelve people were killed and 27 others were hurt after thousands of logs collapsed on November 18, 1999

    Student drinking, fatigue not factors, report says
    May 2, 2000
    Web posted at: 7:16 p.m. EDT (2316 GMT)


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Too much stress on logs
    Structure built 'without adequate ... control'
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- Last November's collapse of a stack of bonfire logs at Texas A&M was due to several physical and organizational factors, but there is no evidence that student drinking or fatigue played a role in the accident that killed 12 people and injured 27 others, according to a report released Tuesday.

    The logs were to be burned for what's billed as the "world's largest bonfire," an event that draws thousands to the College Station campus on the eve of A&M's annual football game against its archrival, the University of Texas. The bonfire has been a 90-year tradition at the school.

    "Structurally, the collapse was driven by a containment failure in the first stack of logs," according to Leo Linbeck Jr., chairman of the five-member commission that investigated the accident.

    The stack of 5,000 logs was 59 feet tall when it collapsed November 18, 1999. That's 4 feet higher than the university allows.

    Too much stress on logs
    Linbeck said two primary factors caused the failure:

    1. Excessive internal stresses caused by aggressive wedging of the second stack of logs into the first stack.

    2. Inadequate containment strength. The wiring used to tie the logs together provided insufficient binding strength. Also, steel cables that in recent years had been wrapped around the first stack of logs were not used in 1999.

    Linbeck said the commission ruled out several factors that had been considered as possible contributing factors for the collapse:

    • The bonfire's center pole. Linbeck said the "center pole, which was of high quality, had very little to do with the structural strength" of the stack. The center pole "did not contribute to the collapse."

    • A crane that hit a cross-tie. The committee verified that the crane hit the stack of logs, but Linbeck said it "could not have generated enough force to materially weaken the structure or contribute to the collapse."

    • Soil under the logs, ropes used to secure the logs and other equipment. Linbeck said all were tested. "None of them played a role in the collapse," he said.

    Structure built 'without adequate ... control'
    Linbeck said the panel found that "organizational failure" contributed to the bonfire accident. He said the failure had its roots in decisions made by university officials and students over many years that "created an environment in which a complex and dangerous structure was allowed to be built without adequate physical or engineering control."

    Linbeck said there was evidence of drinking, horseplay and other irresponsible behavior by students but that those activities did not play a role in the collapse.

    Authorities are still weighing whether the bonfire tradition, which dates back to 1909, will resume.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts