Comment On The Morgan Reynolds "Demolition" Story

Comment on the Morgan Reynolds "Demolition" Story

By Michael C. Ruppert

June 16, 2005 1400 PST (FTW) While very encouraging, the deeper meanings behind these statements by Morgan Reynolds have yet to be revealed. Reynolds is not an engineer or scientist, and while he is a former Bush Administration official, the practical reality is that these statements are a long, long way from criminal indictments, prosecution, trial and conviction.

I offer praise to those diehard activist researchers who have never let go of their building collapse investigations, arguments and public activism. This is an achievement for them. But, in fairness, while it is an encouraging development, it is a long way from a public debate where the government has to respond to Reynolds. We all recall the hatchet job done by Popular Mechanics on physical evidence (carried out exactly as I said it would be). It is even further from the point where the major media musters a horde of well-paid engineers to discredit Reynolds publicly because he is an economist or send them into court in droves to confuse a jury which has not been empanelled in a case which has never been brought to trial. Such distractions are called Red Herrings. They inspire false hope.

I am sitting with a well-earned attitude to see what shakes out of this. Summed up, it is: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." As I have said many times, I have no doubt that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions; especially WTC 7. I corrected and retracted a story we (re)published just days after 9/11 a long time ago that said otherwise.

However, my points about the inherent strategic weakness of physical evidence arguments remain unchanged. What I wrote in Crossing the Rubicon remains a complete, stand-alone criminal investigation that could secure indictments and convictions today without the inherent risks of falling into battles of dueling experts. Those activists who are serious about 9/11 justice could/should be waving Rubicon without the inherent risks of physical evidence arguments. But then there is still the problem of a corrupt judicial system in a totalitarian regime where the legislature has long since abdicated any real authority and the major media is an agent of the Empire.

Rubicon is a record that cannot be challenged by scientists and - in spite of the fact that it remains the best-selling book about 9/11 (excluding the Keane Commission propaganda) - it has never been challenged by the media or the government. Why? Because it can't be challenged. To be safe, it can only be ignored.

At FTW we measure real success only by a change in the political landscape and this is a long way from that.