My exchange with Morgan Reynolds, re: WTC demolitions
By Kevin Barrett on Veterans Today
I recently had Morgan Reynolds on my radio show to explain/debate his article “WTC Destruction: Five Facts Falsify Five Theories.”
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
Morgan Says:
“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.
nomoregames.net 
While it’s true that most of the material comprising the Towers has become pulverized into dust – and the Truth movement has not yet been able to find a credible explanation for it, while the Government Conspiracy Theory does not even give any consideration to it – we still have the problem of explaining the videos of the destruction. In the videos one can clearly see huge chunks of steel being pushed outward from the buildings, just as we would expect in an explosion. How do we account for that if “there were no explosions”?
Thanks,
Petros Evdokas, petros@cyprus-org.net
If you read the scholarly article about Tritium being found at the WTC site, you will also read that there was very serious damage done to the “bathtub.” I too always had the understanding that there was no damage to the “bathtub”, but apparently others say there was “serious damage” to the bathtub. So, which is true? And why can’t we know whether there was or wasn’t? Why is there confusion on this fact?
Many people have heard the phrase, “divide and conquer”. More accurate is confuse and conquer. The problem with that is what is conquered is based on illusion. IOW, conquer people by implanting an enemy outpost in their heads that is an illusion. This goes to the wider concept of the powers that were having control of mankind based on the illusion that the true creators of wealth are reliant on banksters and external authority of government. External authority of government rule over self-governing individuals is an oxymoron. Mankind didn’t advance by the aid of government but despite government.
WHAT IS THE SOUND OF A BOMB : A FALLING BUILDING IS BOUND TO GENERATE SOUNDS
THAT MAKE EXPLOSIVE TYPE NOISES . DO THEY COME BEFORE OR AFTER ? STRANGE OBSERVATION OR QUESTION . CAN I FORWARD CD FROM LEGISLATIVE ARCHIVES FROM MONTE BELGER .? JUST THE LAST SECTION IS RELEVANT ?
I WOULDN’T KNOW A BOMB FROM A CRUMBLING BUILDING ; I ONLY KNOW IT WAS NOT A PLANE OR FIRE THAT BROUGHT THEM DOWN . AND WITH GIULIANI AND HIS ENTOURAGE RUNNING OUT OF TOWN HAS FAST AS POSSIBLE ,MEANT ONLY ONE THING ,”HE KNEW . KERIK KNEW ,VON ESSEN KNEW . AND THE REPORTER WHO WAS WITH THEM KNOWS . HIS STORY CAN BE FOUND IN ALLISON GILBERT;S BOOK .”COVERING CATASTROPHE ‘. HIS LAST NAME IS KIRTZMAN .
I am not a US citizen and I live in Europe, but I pfetecrly remember this day I was schocked, sad I wish on this day that people will remember and still respect and hope
The 23 sec. video near the end is particularly interesting. You hear voices near the photographer, but the destruction of WTC-7 sounds more like a waterfall than the thunderous roar of a 47 story building collapsing. I find the witnesses in all these videos credible. Yet, in the case of WTC-2 none of us standing outdoors a half mile away with intervening buildings heard explosions or anything else that would indicate its demise. I understand technology exists to create sounds in people’s minds without an accompanying atmospheric disturbance. It’s not as farfetched as it sounds. The 911 massacre was a very sophisticated operation.