A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' 'Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?'

A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds'
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.1, June 26, 2005
6/26/05: 911Research publishes Version 1.0 of this essay
6/27/05: 911Research publishes Version 1.1 of this essay

The article 'Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?' published on the libertarian-oriented website LewRockwell.com, has garnered considerable attention. It makes the case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 with much the same eloquence as David Ray Griffin, whom it cites. Its author, Morgan Reynolds, brings unprecedented credentials to the community of skeptics of the official story: He is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and former chief economist for the US Labor Department during 2001-2002.

Reynolds provides an excellent summary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers. However, he also devotes about a third of his article to supporting the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01. His article thus weds the thesis of controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 crashed where reported. This is unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack -- especially the survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights.

The role of disinformation in undermining the exposure of the facts of the 9/11 attack -- the subject of the information warfare section of 911Review.com -- is appreciated by few in the 911 Truth Movement itself. Indeed most sincere researchers of the attack have been fooled, at least temporarily, by some of the many hoaxes that have been promoted under the guise of truth exposure. Reynolds, a relative newcomer to the skepticism of the basic tenets of the official story, is likely no exception. I can imagine several reasons he might give the no-jetliners theories so much credence.


* The no-jetliners theories have been pervasive in every forum of the 9/11 investigations since 2002, when Thierry Meyssan popularized the no-Pentagon-plane theory. These theories have persuasive advocates and noisy promoters who drown out criticism.

* Several aspects of the jetliner crashes, such as the paucity of visible aircraft debris, are apt to arouse skeptics' suspicions because they run counter to conventional intuitions about crashes. Not being a physical scientist, Reynolds may lack the informed intuition and understanding of physics required to correctly interpret the evidence in these unusual crashes.

* Given the number of outrageous lies in the official story, the recognition of some of these lies inclines many skeptics to reject all its aspects. This tendency has been amplified by officials' suppression of evidence that could quickly put to rest speculation of the no-jetliners variety.


In the remainder of this essay, I separate Reynolds' case for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers from his case for the non-involvement of jetliners in the crashes, highlighting errors in both. Whereas Reynolds accurately articulates the evidence for controlled demolition, he makes a series of flawed arguments to support the no-jetliners theories.


CONTENTS

* Reynolds' Summary of Demolition Evidence
o Defects in the Official Account
o Professional Demolition
o Floor Trusses, FEMA, and Eagar
* Reynolds' Analysis of the Plane Crashes
o North Tower Hole Column Deflection
o Pentagon Hole Size
o North Tower Hole Size
o Flight 11 Crash Debris
o Flight 175 Crash Debris
o The Evidence Vacuum
o Flight 11 Crash Debris, Again
o Flight 93 Crash Debris
o South Tower Hole Size
* Conclusion

(Continued)