Stunning Video: Bush Insider Says ’911 Was An Inside Job

Morgan O. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001 – 2002, George W. Bush’s first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Yep! Scholars for 9/11 Truth ... that pretty much says it all!

So, you don't appreciate the so-called professor you don't know being labelled as "Mr. Moron"? How heartbreaking for you. Well, he is, btw, have you figured out what is wrong with his paper yet?

It was for you to figure out not me.

Have you read some of the stuff on 'Pilots for 9/11 truth'? They have a problem understanding air traffic control procedures. I kid you not!

Well, it was blatantly obvious Mr. Moron didn't have much of a clue. I suppose you already understood that, but then, why post it? Hmm.....

I will try to be direct.

The reason I don't believe the official story has nothing to do with anyone else's wild theories. I don't have the time to evaluate all of them.

I am sure there could be endless discussions over countless details of every aspect of every theory of 9-11 until the end of time. Who has time for that? I don't.

My problem is that the official story just has too many holes in it, too many red flags, too many unanswered questions etc.

And no evidence at all to back any of it up, other than them spending 22 millions dollars creating a computer simulation that might be able to come up with a believable scenario of how a fire could bring down a skyscraper.

And even that is not believable apparently, given the hundreds of thousands of people who don't believe it.

Well, all that is quite subjective, but it is advisable to appraise one's evidence before considering it such.

If the official story of 9-11 is absolutely true, why all the unanswered questions?

If the official story is absolutely true, I wish there was someone who could actually convince me of that.

But stories of some of the hi-jackers who were still alive and well after the attacks give reasonable doubt.

In fact there are thousands of things that introduce reasonable doubt into the official story. Like the manner in which the 9-11 report was created, and the picking and choosing of evidence that was allowed to be included.

Red flags, all over the field leave reasonable doubt. This juror finds the story ..... unbelievable.

And what evidence are you referring to? I personally have no evidence in support of the official story and I have not seen any.

I'm referring to Mr. Moron's paper (I don't have time to evaluate them etc...). Aren't you talking about not being able to evaluate all the evidence as you don't have the time? Or was your post directed at no-one in particular?

No, I am only talking about actual evidence that would support the official account/story of 9-11, IE: the 9-11 Commission report, the official media accounts etc.

I have not seen enough evidence to support the official version.

I have noticed too many unanswered questions, too many red flags, etc.

One can get distracted by thousands of details, but in focusing on the official account, I am not convinced.

See, here is the crux of your problem. There is abundant scientific evidence but you don't understand any of it, so to you, it doesn't exist. If you only did a little study (maybe not) you could see how bad the troofer claims are. But instead, you are the troofer piling them on the threads saying such things as "I keep an open mind" when what you really mean is "I don't understand anything!" Then you post about the science (as above) "And no evidence to back any of it up.." which is just a stupid lie that everyone here knows better.

... and you say you don't lie ...

No there is only a 22 millions dollar simulated computer program. That is not "abundant evidence."

Where is your real abundant evidence? It does not exist.

Not only that, the data they programmed into that computer simulated program was a lie.

The fire was not hot enough and did not burn long enough to cause the towers to collapse. The data was not based on actual evidence. This is according to the NIST's own reports too.... witness accounts of the fires etc.

You are trying to tell me that the proof is so complicated that an average person just can't "understand" it.

Hey, what other building in history has ever totally collapsed in near free fall speed because of a fire? NONE.

And building 7 was not hit by a plane.

Yet a fire caused it to collapse at near free fall speed resembling a controlled demolition.

But I'm sure you think you have a computer simulated program that has figured out how that was possible right?

If so, it could only be because the data entered in the program was made up or designed to come up with the desired outcome.

Its just not believable.

I'm a private pilot and I know several commercial pilots. Some of them should have gotten a job driving a bus!!

I've read some of that, but a lack of supporting evidence and testimony suggested a questionable origin.



While the narrative isn't perfect, I find most of the theories posited to even more dubious and in some cases, downright absurd. Furthermore, there are many alternative reasons evidence can be excluded from a report other than a conspiracy. I tend not to reach a conclusion and then try and make what I consider evidence fit that conclusion. That is flawed methodology.



I have no problem with Al-Qaeda hijacking the planes and causing the destruction of the WTC. They tried to destroy the WTC in '93, and an escalation in AQ attacks in the years leading up to 9/11 also supports the OS (The USS Cole; the Embassy bombings in Tanzania & Kenya, etc.). There are anomalies within the minutiae of the narrative, but being an unprecedented event, it becomes difficult to ascertain what is actually anomalous for we lack a benchmark. Farmer's expose of incompetence between agencies lends itself to credibility moreso than most other theories posited by individuals of questionable credentials and motivation.

It was done to write the report. You really don't have a clue do you?

Still, reasonable doubt, unanswered questions, and a history of government lies leads me to be a non believer in the official story.

And I would like to know the truth, EVEN IF THE OFFICIAL STORY IS THE TRUTH. -- but so far it is losing the race.

I have yet to be convinced, and the government does not seem to care if people believe them or not.

Many other stories, some could be true, some lies, but there are thousands of stories, witnesses, etc. that lend reasonable doubt to the official story.

And the people telling the official story have not proven very trustworthy ...

This is my dilemma. Other than just expecting the people to believe what they say, they make no effort to actually open up the investigation to questions or present evidence or proof of anything. They cover it with a shroud of "classified secrecy" and "national security" crap.