The Washington Times and UPI --- two news outlet owned by the ultra-reactionary Reverend Sun Myung Moon -- are publicizing a revisionist take on the collapse of the World Trade Center:
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "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." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7.
If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
Do I share this view? By no means!
Then why discuss the matter here? Because Moon
apparently wants us to believe in this "controlled demolition" nonsense. The question is: Why?
Although I've long felt that many aspects of the 9/11 disaster remain mysterious, my concerns revolve around such issues the movements, associations and funding of the terrorists. Allegations of a controlled demolition always struck me as absurd. How could so many explosive charges be smuggled into buildings teeming with workers? (Bringing down a skyscraper is no covert op!)
What would have been the point
of a controlled demolition? The image of jets slamming into the twin towers provided all the necessary cause for war; the presumed master planners of this conspiracy had no need to reduce the buildings to rubble.
Daniel Hopsicker has argued that the 9/11 "truth movement" is a misnomer. This growing movement
-- which, in his view, resembles a UFO cult -- focuses on the more outlandish claims while ignoring the subtler, and more provable, irregularities in the official story. In Hopsicker's view, we should concentrate on such matters as Mohammed Atta's links to a "flight school" with clear CIA associations.
Hopsicker has made some charges that I consider overblown; for example, he has issued dark insinuations -- unjustified
insinuations, in my view -- about Fred Burks, with whom I've had some cordial correspondence. But Hopsicker is surely on firmer ground when he casts a wary eye toward the notorious Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi, who (Hopsicker claims) has helped to fund this "truth movement."
And now Moon has gotten into the act.
Even in the realm of samizdat, we have to choose wisely: There's the real
samizdat, and then there's the "approved" samizdat.