You are viewing this page on 911Research.com, which is the backup mirror of 911Research.WTC7.net .
The original page is at http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/boulder/index.html.
Please link to the original page rather than this mirror page.
9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h letters

Boulder Weekly

The September 8 issue of Boulder Weekly ran a cover story article entitled 9/11: Cold Case, which featured Morgan Reynolds asserting that he could disprove that four jetliners crashed on 9/11/01. That article is critiqued in Boulder Weekly Trots Out Morgan Reynolds' Trojan Horse.


STATUS: sent to Boulder Weekly

Letters to the Editor
Boulder Weekly

October 22, 2005

Dear Editor,

Thank you for covering some of the legitimate, very disturbing questions 
about how and by whom the September 11 attacks were committed ("9/11: Cold 
Case," September 8). Your article was the longest and most apparently 
respectful one I have seen in the mainstream OR Left media.

The media have protected the perpetrators by pretending there is no solid 
evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. In fact there is a mountain of such 
evidence, documented in books such as David Ray Griffin's second book on 
9/11, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and websites 
such as http://911research.wtc7.net.

However, the person you chose to interview, Morgan Reynolds, is a miserable 
representative of 9/11 skepticism. He discredits the entire cause by mixing 
legitimate criticisms of the official story with ridiculous assertions that 
have been repeatedly exposed as either nonsensical or fraudulent (take your 
pick). The latter includes the denial that the alleged airliners hit the 
World Trade Center and Pentagon. Moreover, Reynolds takes "airliner denial" 
to a new level of absurdity by including Flight 93 in it.

Anyone who cares about what really happened on September 11 must be critical 
of both the government-approved conspiracy theory and the statements made by 
all the self-appointed Columbos and Sherlocks. Only a few websites, books, 
and videos investigate the attacks in a scientific, intellectually honest 
way.

The largest smoking gun of 9/11 is that the World Trade Center collapses had 
all the features of controlled demolition (except that those of the Twin 
Towers were even more explosive). The portions of the Towers above the
impact zones did not sag, then collapse slowly and unevenly, toppling over 
to one side, as they should have if randomly broken and heat-softened steel 
were the culprit. Instead, they fell straight down and explosively, 
symmetrically outward, ejecting massive pieces of steel hundreds of feet and 
spewing finely pulverized concrete. The rubble reached the ground only about 
50% slower than if it had been in free fall.

Uneven damage from airliner impacts and fires and collapses driven only by 
gravity cannot possibly account for these features. The 47 steel box columns 
of the huge core - which the 9-11 Commission Report lyingly called a "hollow 
steel shaft"! - had to have been destroyed evenly, every few floors, for 
this to happen. Osama bin Laden and his minions did not have the access to 
the building or the technological savvy needed to achieve this.

WTC 7 "collapsed" at exactly free-fall speed at [5:20] the same day, hit by
no airplane, and was barely damaged by fallout from the Towers.

Even severe damage cannot make steel skyscrapers collapse evenly at 
free-fall speed. That's what the art and science of controlled demolition is 
all about.

Good websites for further research include:

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.wtc7.net
http://911review.com
(Fair disclosure: I am an editorial associate at these sites and receive a 
modest amount in charitable contributions from visitors.)
http://oilempire.us

For a detailed critique of the Reynolds article, please see:

http://911review.com/boulderweekly/markup/coverstory.html

Gregg Roberts
Austin, Texas