NY Times: "Bush Labor Economist Says 9/11 Engineered by Administration"

[JackRiddler]

NO!

That headline did not run in the New York Times. In fact, I'm pulling your leg to illustrate a point.

The headline is true. Morgan Reynolds, chief economist to the Labor Department under the Bush regime in 2001-2002, has in fact gone on record saying that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Twin Towers were likely demolished by explosives. This has been reported in two Moonie outlets, The Washington Times and UPI.

UPI treats the story as gossip, i.e. something of intramural interest to Reynolds's current and former fellow members in the Bush regime.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

But do tell: Why isn't this bombshell in the New York Times?

The question is not whether Morgan Reynolds is "credible" or not.

What matters is that he was a fairly high member of the regime, a political appointee who was called into the administration because of his anti-union views.

For a moment, let's say that Reynolds is full of bullshit about 9/11.

Nevertheless, imagine if the chief economist to the Clinton Labor Department were to publish columns stating his belief that Bill Clinton copulates with small furry animals, or sold secrets to China. This would merit at least a cursory item in the New York Times, and would generate outcry by pundits pro and con.

When the chief economist to the Bush Labor Department says that the alleged President is one of presumably dozens of unindicted co-conspirators in the murder of 3,000 Americans, this also merits coverage and analysis. Even if you don't subscribe to the same premise.

The media silence is deafening.

Also revealing is the form of denial expressed by some Democratic Underground members.

In Reynolds we see one of "THEM" saying he thinks the Bush regime blew up the Twin Towers!

If Reynolds was revealing some arcane matter about who outed Valerie Plame or what fucked Jeff Gannon, you guys would be ALL OVER IT IN JOY. You wouldn't be complaining that he's a right-winger, or that the story was covered by the Moonie press.

I expect the reductio ad absurdum to arrive in the following form:

Cheney will confess to engineering the 9/11 air defense standdown. This will be published only in the Washington Times. David Corn will dismiss the Vice President's revelation as conspiracy lunacy. A bunch of DUers will point out that Cheney was always a liar, and the Wash Times is an untrustworthy propaganda tool of the extreme right. THe NY Times will entirely ignore the story. Assorted gatekeepers will slap each other on the back for not taking the bait of disinfo offered up by the enemy side. When Jeb Bush stands in 2008, they will call him a wimp but not a gangster. He will squeak in...

Former Bush regime member Reynolds's "traitorous" statements can be found here:

Index: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds-arch.html
Commission: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/reynolds6.html
Towers: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[marmar]

1. I think it's wrong to automatically dismiss it...

A year ago, I would have just dismissed him as some disgruntled nutcase, but the more I read about 9/11 and contemplate all the events, something just doesn't add up, particularly at the Pentagon. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but sadly, I wouldn't put anything past this group that's in the White House, who have no qualms about the loss of lives when it comes to furthering their agenda.

[ComerPerro]

2. They probably don't want to be "Rathered" or "Newsweeked"

[JackRiddler]

3. Not applicable in this case.

Reynolds has made his statements. They are not forgeries.

Now all the media need do is report factually, that a former high Bush administration official, a political appointee, is going around saying that the Twin Towers were demolished by his own government.

[ComerPerro]

4. All Reynolds has to do is retract his statements once they report it

don't think they wouldn't get away with it!

[Frederik]

6. So what if he did?

The media will simply have reported that he said what he said.

[ComerPerro]

9. Yeah, but they will just report it as "baseless accusations and attacks"

EDIT to clarify: I mean, the rest of the media will treat the times as though they attacked the administration for no reason and without merit.

[JackRiddler]

11. They can get away with anything...

But Reynolds cannot deny what he has already published.

Even if he retracts, this does not reflect on the reporter but is entirely his decision. Many people reading that will assume he merely got cold feet.

Of course, my point is that we live in a land of insane spin, so sure, they can say liberal leprachauns temporarily hypnotized Reynolds to say a lie. They can say anything, but they will not get away with everything forever.

[ComerPerro]

14. Well, that was my point too, they can get away with anything at all

So, it wouldn't really matter what is said.

Maybe I've just gotten really cynical.

[Frederik]

5. Very good point

And the reason why they don't is probably that they fear he just might be on to something.

[amazona]

7. look the dude is talking "controlled demolitions"

I stand by my comment in the other thread that we all saw a couple of airplanes hit the Twin Towers. Yeah, OK, most of us saw it on the TeeVee but plenty of people were in New York and saw it with their own eyes.

I don't see where we stand to gain by handing over LIHOP/MIHOP to complete nutjobs.

[Frederik]

12. He isn't questionng the fact that the planes hit the

buildings. Besides, WTC7 was not hit by a plane and collapsed in the same way.

[Vinca]

8. If we hadn't seen jets fly into the buildings, it might make sense.

It's not a "bombshell" in the NY Times because it sounds nuts. After 9/11 there were detailed reports on how the buildings were constructed which caused the collapse. If they had been built using conventional methods, the damage would most likely have been confined to the upper floors. The collapse was caused from above, not by explosives below. (My tin foil hat is at the cleaners . . . sorry.)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Bingo.

[Frederik]

13. What about WTC7

It was not hit by a plane.

[Rex]

16. Some say a large chunk of one of the other towers landed on 7

and hit a huge tank, which exploded and caused the building to collapse. I've heard a few other variations. Don't know if it is true or not.

[RBHam]

20. Some say....

Judy Woodruff's legacy lives on.

[stickdog]

22. Some say the Moon is made of green cheese. Where is the evidence

for any of these claims?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Just you hide and watch - the NIST report will be released soon.

I doubt that the NIST report will talk about the Moon being made of green cheese, or missile pods on the hijacked planes, or even controlled demolition for that matter (all three topics having the same rationale for belief).

But evidence for damage on the south side of WTC 7 will be forthcoming. Just you hide and watch.

[stickdog]

29. Of course it will. Just like Flight 77's and 93's NTSB reports.

Just like the information from Flight 77's and 93's flight data recorders.

Just like the explanation for the 10:06 EDT seismic event in the vicinity of where Flight 93 supposedly crashed at 10:03 EDT.

Just like the confiscated tape of air traffic controller recollections and all of the rest of the air traffic control tapes that day.

Just like the sercurity camera tapes (gas station & hotel) that show what happened at the Pentagon that day.

[philb]

23. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Is your source credible?

[ROH]

24. "Some say ..." is incredibly weak

Do you have some kind of reference or link, please?

[RBHam]

21. wtc7 was "pulled" - the facts are known.

excerpt:
A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illlegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html

[JackRiddler]

15. POW!!!

Thread thrown straight into the 9/11 Ghetto.

[RedSock]

18. has he denied the comments as reported in the wash times?

has he denied the comments as reported in the wash times?

it is a major media outlet. surely if he had been misquoted about something as serious as this, he would have denied it by now.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Who says he's being misquoted?

Especially since the Moonie Times has picked up on the story - I don't have any problem with the idea of a former Bush administration member talking out of his posterior about the WTC collapses. It doesn't make him right. And being quoted in the Washington Times hella don't make him right in the head.

[RBHam]

19. I'm not allowed to express my anger over this censorship.

I'm on probation.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Censorship?? Here the thread is, using DU bandwidth all day long!

You have a strange definition of censorship. Please feel free to start your own blog and express yourself freely on all such matters...

...censorship. Sheesh.

[delver]

28. yeah, pretty maddening...

not much constructive conversation going on in this forum. just more isolation and frustration for those of us who are actually thinking strategically about the opportunities and implications of 9/11 TRUTH.

by the way, maybe i'll add that story to my flyer to hand out to NYT employees. i may try to get out there tomorrow for a little session...


"you just gotta know how to approach"
"geostrategy, eurasia"
"'the american people don't read,' you don't read"
"i've been on the record for 18 years..."
MCR

[RBHam]

17. Bush Knew

Limited hangout.

Remember the NY Post and the BUSH KNEW story?

Same deal.

Meanwhile, the deafening silence around Cynthia McKinney's crusade against the traitors Rumsfeld and Myers speaks louder every day.
Their half-assed cover up of the War Games they were conducting on 9-11 is laughable.

She soldiers on anyway, shunned by the leadership of her own Party and furiously ignored by the Media's incredible investigative prowess...

Why isn't the Media POUNDING on that crazy, conspiracy theorist McKinney? I mean, isn't she an easy target if she's talking out of her ass?

And if she's just a nut cake, how did she get re-elected by her constituents even AFTER her OWN party stabbed her in the back because she dared to utter the name that MUST NOT BE SPOKEN...
"The Carlyle Group."

W.a.k.e. T.h.e. F.u.c.k. U.p. E.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y.