WorldNetDaily: Bush economist doubts 9-11 story
Webmaster's Note: This story was posted in the middle of the night on WorldNetDaily's front page.

After saving the story for posterity, I checked back a few hours later and it had been removed from the main page. It now only shows up when entering the actual address in your browser's address bar, or if you do a search on the site. In other words, the page will come up if you already know it's there.

But the story was quickly taken down prior to the morning rush of visitors hit the site to check the news. Therefore, the vast majority of them will never know this story exists, unless they see it here.

Perhaps, someone working overnight at WND doesn't know such a story is contrary to the neo-con publication's pro-war stance.

- Darren Weeks            

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Bush economist doubts 9-11 story
Ex-Labor Dept. hand says towers brought down by explosive

Posted: June 15, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, says the official story about the collapse of the Twin Towers is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed them 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 told UPI: "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 added, "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."