UPI Hears about Prof. Morgan Reynolds
on the WTC Collapse

John Daly writes at http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm:

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."

Morgan Reynolds, PhD: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?

Corporate-controlled news media ignores Prof. Morgan Reynolds on the WTC Collapse

Mainstream Media Complicit in 9/11 Cover-up
"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7.", wrote Dr Reynolds. But ten days after UPI reported that he has concluded that the official story regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers is bogus the silence from the mainstream media is deafening.

If you go to Google News and search on "Morgan Reynolds" you'll get about 20 results (compared with about 1200 for "John Conyers" and about 4700 for "Michael Bloomberg").  None of the corporate-controlled news sources mention Dr Reynolds' conclusion — not the Associated Press, not Reuters, not Fox News, not ABC, not even the BBC. This is what is known as a "news blackout". What does this tell us about the mainstream news media?

There were some comments from 9/11 researchers, notably Michael Ruppert (who does not believe that "physical evidence" is sufficient to secure a conviction, though most 9/11 researchers would be more than happy to see even an indictment). Some commentators pointed out that Dr Reynolds is an economist not an engineer, but they failed to note that the attainment of a PhD (in any field of research) usually (though not always) means that a person is able think critically about evidence for or against a hypothesis. This is a lot more than most people (and most journalists) are capable of, so the conclusions of such a person at least merit serious attention.

Morgan Reynolds' story is so damaging that the corporate media will ignore it — crossing its fingers and hoping it will die — and shills like Michael Kinsley and Michael Getler will not even make sarcastic jokes about it like they did with the DSM [Downing Street Memo] story. For the corporate media, silence is golden.

— Kurt Nimmo, Morgan Reynolds' Nine Eleven Inside Job: Corporate Media Silence is Golden

Update 2005-07-02:

In his article Reaction To Bush Insider Claim WTC Collapse Bogus Gets 'Huge Response' And Read By Millions Worldwide Greg Szymanski writes:

Not only did millions read his story on the Internet, but Reynolds controversial comments then drew instant attention from numerous mainstream newspapers, radio and television stations, including UPI, MSNBC, FOX News and over a dozen other major market local radio and TV stations.

This is a curious statement. Szymanski gives no links to articles on MSNBC, FOX News or any of the websites of the "dozen other major market local radio and TV stations." So let us see if we can find any by means of a search of Google News.

If one goes to Google News' Advanced News Search and searches for pages on FOX News containing "Morgan Reynolds" one gets zero results. If one does the same for MSNBC one also gets zero results.

The website of MSNBC is at www.msnbc.msn.com. Searching there for articles on "Morgan Reynolds" produces nothing. The website of FOX News is www.foxnews.com. Searching there also produces nothing (except that an included Yahoo search brings up a link to Reynolds article on the www.lewrockwell.com).

So there seem to be four possible conclusions:

  1. MSNBC and FOX News ran the story but omitted to mention Morgan Reynolds on any page of their websites.
  2. They did, but these pages have now been removed.
  3. They did, but Google News, for some reason, was unable to index them.
  4. Greg Szymanski was either fabricating or grossly exaggerating when he claimed that this story "drew instant attention from numerous mainstream newspapers, radio and television stations".

We note, however (and thanks to Nico Haupt for pointing this out), that the Morgan Reynolds claim is mentioned by Christopher Hitchens in his article Conspiracy Theories on slate.msn.com:

A man named Morgan Reynolds, a former chief economist at the Bush Labor Department and now an instructor at Texas A&M, has proof that the World Trade Center was laid low by a "controlled demolition" and not by the hijacked planes.

However (i) Slate is not MSNBC, (ii) Hitchens mentioned the Reynolds claim only in passing, (iii) he subtlely reinforces the (false) "Arab hijackers" theory and (iv) Reynolds' claim is not mentioned on any other page of Slate's site.

It thus remains a fact that the corporate-controlled news media (with the exception of the one brief mention on the Slate page, if Slate counts as a corporate-controlled news source) ignored Prof. Morgan Reynolds on the WTC Collapse.

The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Reply to Scientific American's Attempted Debunking of 9/11 Skeptics
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 Serendipity Home Page