Once in awhile we come across a story that leaves us shaking our head, completely at a loss as to its validity and/or implications. Here’s the lede of the latest one we’ve happened onto:
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 more 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, TX.
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.
Whew. Our general reluctance to go along with conspiracy theories makes us leery. And yet, it would seem the guy suggesting all is not as we’ve been led to believe appears to not only be a solid citizen, but a learned one.
Some of these contentions bear looking into. Such as, how is it the WTC buildings, alone among modern steel skyskrapers, went down because of fires affecting limited portions of their structures? That question applies especially to the one that wasn’t even hit by a plane.
Another question is one we’ve wondered about before: Why the rush to dispose of all the structural components, before serious forensic and engineering analyses were at least attempted?
“A government attack,” the story says. Could such a thing happen? Before rushing to judgment, consider that many a loyal German in the 1930s probably thought there was no way Herr Hitler could be responsible for the Reichstag fire — the equivalent of a U.S. president having the U.S. Capitol destroyed.
Maybe questions raised by and doubts expressed in the story can all be readily cleared up. Maybe, but we’ll be surprised if they actually are.
What do you make of it?
It’s odd (or the result of a vast conspiracy) that this news item appears not long after the latest release of a report from the National Institute of Standards & Technology, this one on recommendations for building fire safety and such matters. NIST has been studying the WTC’s collapse in great detail. (See, e.g., this press release.)
Authorities and experts are not always what they seem, either. The National Center for Policy Analysis is well-known as a right-wing “think tank”. So, this attack fits right in with other ideological attacks on science. The apparent basis in personal incredulity — “What are the chances that those building would fall down? I, for one, can’t imagine it!” — is the same as the current batch of the Intelligent Design crowd, and leads delightfully easily to a profound belief in conspiracty theories. (Theories which, in this instance, would require conspiracies much vaster than any needed to rig the 2004 election in Ohio, which case is always dismissed because “who could imagine such a vast conspiracy?”) In that context, this counts as just another attempt to undermine science by seeding doubt.
I expect that RSF has the right answer, said with fewer words.
Jeff, the NIST report is very interesting. Thanks for the pointer.
You don’t accept the possibility put forth by Professsor Reynolds, fair enough. But I’m not persuaded the motive behind his skepticism and the story cited in this post is denigration of science. If I’m not mistaken, Reynolds criticizes the lack of forensic examination of so much of the steel before it was carted off and disposed of.
I am by no means convinced the buildings were rigged. I do think many of the questions raised should be taken seriously and addressed.