Chief Economist in Labor Dept calls official explanation 'Bogus', possibly 'Inside Job'
By Brad Friedman on 6/15/2005, 12:24pm PT  

Not sure how we missed this. Okay, yes we are. Things have been a bit crazy lately.

Anyway...a former member of the Bush Administration (yes, the Bush Administration) is now voicing doubt about what brought down the Twin Towers and Building No. 7.

We haven't dealt much here with this particular matter, as we haven't had much to add to the various emerging skeptical voices out it. We'll keep our thoughts to ourselves for the moment, but the opinions of someone from within the Bush team speaking out about the matter seems notable enough to mention it here.

From UPI on Monday, as it ran in the Washington Times (yes, the Washington Times):

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."

A more detailed article on Reynolds comments, and a nice summary of the alleged flaws in the official report are available in this Arctic Beacon article from over the weekend.

As mentioned, we don't have much of an opinion on this matter at this time, other than to note that once credibility is lost (see the Downing Street Minutes) it's difficult to get it back.

(Hat-tip to Katrina W. for the heads up!)