My exchange with Morgan Reynolds, re: WTC demolitions
By Kevin Barrett on Veterans Today
Morgan followed up with “Bombs Did Not Unravel the Towers.”
I think Morgan’s articles are very much worthy of discussion, as is Judy Wood’s book Where Did the Towers Go, its main reference. One of Morgan’s (and Judy’s) strongest points is that the 9/11 truth movement has failed to hammer hard enough at one of the most obvious indications that the destruction of the Towers was not a natural collapse: The fact that it left no debris pile. The “rubble” at ground zero was basically at ground level, as Wood reminds us, with plenty of evidence, in chapter 9. Sure, some pieces of the Towers crashed through into the sub-basements, and others were projected beyond the perimeter of the buildings’ footprint. But any symmetrical collapse, whether from (absurdly improbable) fires or from (much more probable) demolition charges, should have left far more debris than this!
My main problem with Morgan’s article is the way he selectively presents evidence in order to deny that explosions played a role in the demolitions (or annihilations – for if a demolition brings the pieces of a building to the ground, then the Towers were not demolished, but annihilated). According to Morgan, there were no eyewitnesses to explosions. Oh really? Ever met William Rodriguez? Or the hundreds of others?
These are just a few of a huge number of similar accounts.
March 5, 2012
“According to Morgan, there were no eyewitnesses to explosions,” asserts Kevin. I never said any such thing. That’s why Kevin cannot quote me to that effect. On the contrary, the first sentence of my article was, “Explosions happened, true.” I continued, “Nor did I ignore witnesses…Yes, under the stress of extraordinary and murderous events, witnesses reported explosions (so stipulated) and some probably believe to this day that bombs destroyed the towers.” How does that translate to, “According to Morgan, there were no eyewitnesses to explosions”? It doesn’t.
At least Kevin dropped his conjecture that WTC destruction videos were edited to suppress the sound of explosions. I concur with Robert Salt’s observation below, that Kevin presents a 23-second clip of WTC destruction that “sounds more like a waterfall than the thunderous roar of a 47 story building collapsing.” It’s not only the absence of a distinctive bang, bang, bang explosion sequence but 240,000 tons of material suddenly falling chaotically and slamming into the ground so quietly. It was the equivalent of 12,000 dump trucks slamming to the ground within seven seconds! Seven hours of “lathering up” with immense amounts of dust billowing from WTC 7 provides a clue as to how it was done.
Kevin fails to understand two crucial ideas in my article: explosions do not imply planted explosives, and being an ear- or eyewitness does not confer a ‘Savvy Scientist’ or ‘Crime Scene Investigator’ title. Finding out what and how it happened takes more than being present at an event.
During the interview Kevin challenged my contention that destruction sequences were relatively quiet compared to what we would expect if conventional explosives were used, I responded, OK, I don’t need that proposition, the remaining four facts alone prove the five popular theories false. On hindsight, that was smart. Why get hung up on the sound debate? Not worth it, at least at the time. Prove up the bottom line.
Kevin has introduced the term “annihilation” to describe the near-disappearance of the WTC, especially the three towers. How does that help the conventional explosives theory? Or indeed help anything else. Beats me. Four facts remain: too little debris, intact bathtub, little or no seismic impact, and towers turned to dust. Conventional explosives suddenly release kinetic energy to fragment materials into chunks. That is not what happened. For sure.