« Home | What's wrong with this letter? » | Damn its HOT! » | Darkly Brilliant - The Summer's Best Trip » | Return of The Draft » | Disturbing » | Right-wing nutjob sends fake anthrax to NY Times » | Wahhh! » | Moby, feat. Chuck D. - "Make Love, Fuck War" » | Stupidity? Or something worse? » | "The President is always right" »

Free Movie Tonight – The Truth About 9/11

Exclusive Interview with Dr. Morgan Reynolds, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth

By Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter

For The Lone Star Iconoclast

Former Bush Administration appointee Dr. Morgan Reynolds at the Lakewood Theater in Dallas, Texas.
Photo by Stephen Webster

Dr. Morgan Reynolds is a penny-pinching, free market, small government Republican. As the former Chief Economist for the United States Department of Labor from 2001-2002, he enjoyed a lifestyle much easier than many in the United States, having been appointed to the position by the well-oiled Bush team. Currently professor emeritus with Texas A&M University, Reynolds spends nearly all of his off-time fomenting a New American Revolution.

Unlike his former government colleagues, Reynolds does not believe the official line on Sept. 11, 2001. On Saturday, July 22, in partnership with the Dallas Air America Radio group, the Lakewood Theater in North Dallas devoted a special free screening to Loose Change: Second Edition and 9/11 Revisited. Reynolds was on hand to lecture the audience between films, and to give them several parting thoughts at the end of the evening. Loose Change played in front of a nearly packed house; about half the crowd remained through the end of Revisited. Both films are available online, free of charge. See further reading at the end of this writing.

The Lone Star Iconoclast was on-hand to watch both films and sit down with Dr. Reynolds after he spoke.

LSI: “Thank you for taking the time to speak with us, Dr. Reynolds. You are currently professor emeritus with Texas A&M, correct?”

MR: “Yes, I’ve taught there for 28 years. And in 2001-2002, I was the Chief Economist Department of Labor, a political appointee of the Bush/Cheney Administration. I was also the director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, which is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.”

Reynolds quit the Dept. of Labor once he began to question 9/11.
Photo by Stephen Webster

LSI: “So, short version … 9/11 was an ‘Inside Job.’ You lean more toward the side that says the Bush Administration made it happen, rather than those who think they simply allowed it to happen.”

MR: “Yes. I think we have compelling evidence that 9/11 was done by elements of the Bush/Cheney government, aided by select outsiders. They did it. It doesn’t have anything to do with Arabs or caves in Afghanistan. It was all set up to aid the war on terror, control, oil, promote the global domination project and the like …”

LSI: “So … How far does that rabbit hole go?”

MR: (Laughing) “It goes very far. But, first, 9/11 is the lynchpin event of this century. We have to bring the movement to a boil so we can prosecute the real perpetrators. Once this opens up, it’ll open up a whole raft of things … It will go very deep and very wide. Once the American public is really awakened, and it is happening week by week, this could lead, ultimately, to the paymasters, the so-called invisible government … But we’re not ready to go there just yet. We’ve got to crack 9/11. That’s the key. People who just want to try to oppose the war in Iraq, or be supportive of the Israelis in Lebanon, or try to stop them [the Bush’s] piecemeal are going to fail. None of this could be happening without 9/11. We’ve got to break 9/11 open for this movement to go further. I call it a constitutional crisis that we need to have. We need to go there.”

LSI: “How do you go about shaking the foundations of government’s story of 9/11 in the minds of others?”

MR: “Well, a lot of us [Scholars for 9/11 Truth] have worked on the physical evidence front, because it is a lot stronger than eyewitness testimony. So, for good or ill, a lot of us are pursuing this from a scientific standpoint. That may not make the best marketing, but I think we need this powerful evidence. Now, when it comes to convincing the American people and getting the word out, and educating, and using various types of persuasion … We haven’t gotten that far yet. But with the help of the Internet and the alternative media, we are making steady progress. Just not any great leaps yet. One way to approach somebody about this – and this is the approach my wife uses – is to just ask somebody out of the blue, ‘Are you satisfied with the 9/11 story?’ For a lot of people, it almost just begs to say, ‘Well, no, I’m really not.’”

Reynolds insists it is every citizen's duty to question the events surrounding 9/11.
Photo by Stephen Webster

MR: “So, you ask what they find unsatisfying or suspicious. Now, when some people are confronted with this, they don’t want to think about it. They don’t want to look at this. They want to shirk their duty as a citizen. So, maybe the nation can’t be saved. But I’m not that pessimistic. If 90 percent of the public doesn’t want to deal with the truth, deal with the facts, then the nation cannot be saved. I think it is only a small minority that doesn’t want to deal with the facts. We have to go there. The truth is, to me, the most important thing. After 9/11, there is no more important issue in the world than 9/11.”

LSI: “Many people will remember there was a 14 month delay, getting the 9/11 Commission up and running. The Bush Administration kept stonewalling. Why?”

MR: “They didn’t want, and they did avoid, an objective investigation of the facts, because it would lead right to the White House. They were forced by political pressure, especially by the Jersey Girls, to appoint such a commission. In normal circumstances, one would have been appointed or formed within a week. Any major event like this … We find out what went wrong, and how to fix it. Their whole resistance to an investigation had to be modified. What they did, of course, is control the personnel.”

MR: “Personnel is policy, as the old Regan government used to say. They get sellouts like Lee Hamilton. Insiders like Philip Zelikow. Thomas Keene … As only a prosecutor would say, ‘We’re mobbed up.’ There’s no way they can serve on any kind of criminal justice forum. Even when Max Cleeland resigned, saying he didn’t want to be part of a cover up, there was a lot of pressure to appoint Kristin Breitweiser, one of the four Jersey girls. But they didn’t even do that. They appointed an experienced guy, Senator Bob Kerrey. So, they couldn’t even let one outsider, a hopefully objective person, in on that. I mean, they appointed Henry Kissinger. (Laughs) But not even that made it in the mainstream, controlled media. They got a milder, cooperative-type set up. The idea of the government investigating its self objectively, I find, brings an even smaller chance of producing justice than any prosecution.”

LSI: “What do you believe regarding the Pentagon? Was it a missile that hit it?”

MR: “Most likely. It was a cruise missile, I think. I mean, if you want to bust bunkers, which is what they’re made for. They are sub-sonic, penetrating, explosive warheads. There are other theories that I would not reject offhand. It could have been an F-16. It could have been, and I don’t believe this, but it could have been an AT Sky Warrior. There are others that believe it was an entirely internal explosion. On my website (nomoregames.net), I assembled the strongest evidence I feel proves that it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. The most recent development is that you couldn’t, at 500 miles per hour plus, bring a plane in at the first floor. It is physically impossible.”

LSI: “What about the light posts? Wouldn’t a plane’s wing get ripped off from hitting just one of those?”

MR: “Right. Yeah. As the movie Loose Change shows, there was a small, corporate aircraft that his one light pole at Houston/Hobby and, um, it wrecked the plane. It was everywhere. People don’t appreciate the difference between steel and aluminum. I mean, I went and weighed my sledgehammer. It is 9 ½ lbs. I could take that hammer and just wreck havoc on a 757’s wing. I could whack a few panels off very easily. The fuselage is only two millimeters thick. It would not be difficult.”

"[T]his idea that a big jet liner vanished into the pentagon is a big non-starter. It is totally laughable."
Photo by Stephen Webster

MR: “The point is, while the towers were definitely more hardened than the pentagon, the plane would just shatter; crumple. There would be debris. I was talking on the radio to a woman just recently whose husband was witness to a plane crash out at JFK. You can’t imagine what a mess … There is people, there’s limbs, there’s blood, there’s millions of pieces of metal and debris. A big, big field of stuff, everywhere. So, this idea that a big jet liner vanished into the pentagon is a big non-starter. It is totally laughable.”

LSI: “Wasn’t part of the official explanation that the debris from the jet ‘disintegrated’ in the ensuing fires?”

MR: “They had different defenses, including vaporization, which could never happen. Couldn’t happen, physically. That some people believe the wings folded up and allowed the plane to enter a hole, which is also rubbish, physically. The plane did not leave a scar on the building where the wings would have been, period. If I put my arms out, and come walking toward you at a fairly fast pace, and then bump into you, my arms move forward. (Laughs) Just simple physics! This is 8th grade science, here! Then, you have these engines, with 50,000 pounds of thrust, driving these things into the building. And somehow they folded up and didn’t impact the wall of that building? People need to do their homework on such an important issue.”

Further Reading …


Links to this post

Create a Link

The Weird, Turned Pro.

Created by The Gonzo Muckraker
Based in Dallas, Texas
More about the author.

Stories I'm Digging today ...