Bush Insider Says 911 Was An Inside Job

Talk E

Ripped from ATS. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread713393/pg1

Morgan O. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TicB_x6V9o

Boo Radley

Talk E wrote: »

Ripped from ATS. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread713393/pg1

Morgan O. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

He doesn't really say anything in that video. Just because he worked for Bush (starting a week before 9/11) doesn't add any credence to the debate really.

Talk E

Boo Radley wrote: »

He doesn't really say anything in that video. Just because he worked for Bush (starting a week before 9/11) doesn't add any credence to the debate really.

What debate ?

Boo Radley

Talk E wrote: »

What debate ?

Oh, excuse me. I meant it doesn't add any credence to his side of the debate.

jackiebaron

Boo Radley wrote: »

He doesn't really say anything in that video. Just because he worked for Bush (starting a week before 9/11) doesn't add any credence to the debate really.

So I join the police force a day before I witness a few fellow officers torture to death some suspect and cover it up, disqualifies me from having any word on the issue?

Boo Radley

jackiebaron wrote: »

So I join the police force a day before I witness a few fellow officers torture to death some suspect and cover it up, disqualifies me from having any word on the issue?

Well, that's quite the leap of logic. Did he actually witness anything while there?

As far as I can gather it was in 2003 when he decided it was a conspiracy based on other commentators work. Nothing to with his time working for Bush.

I pointed out he was there for a short time before the events to highlight if there was any planning he would not have been exposed to it and that coupled with not seeing anything while he was there adds up to zilch.

hinault

Interesting development.

Richard A.Clarke who also served in the Bush government suggested that counter terrorism policy was deliberately and wilfully amended and changed in the war on counter terrorism prior to 9/11 attacks and that he was prressured to help invent the lie that Saddam had some part in 9/11 attacks.

Talk E

Boo Radley wrote: »

He doesn't really say anything in that video. Just because he worked for Bush (starting a week before 9/11) doesn't add any credence to the debate really.

Well.. it kinda does boo tbh.

Boo Radley

Talk E wrote: »

Well.. it kinda does boo tbh.

As I said above:

"I pointed out he was there for a short time before the events to highlight if there was any planning he would not have been exposed to it and that coupled with not seeing anything while he was there adds up to zilch."

When you consider that he witnessed nothing while he was there and only drew conclusions after he left you have to think, well this guy is no different from anyone else in the world who believes that there was a conspiracy. He doesn't have any inside knowledge of this so called conspiracy from his time there and formed his opinions based on the work of others.

Essentially he has come to these conclusions the same way as the rest of the world who believe there was a conspiracy and he is merely using the fact he worked for the Bush administration as a tool to legitimize his claims, as if he is an authoritative voice on the subject, when in fact he has nothing new to bring to the table from his time working there.

Talk E

I would think his testimony for 9/11 being an inside job, having worked under Bush during and after 9/11 would be more credible than say, your testimony that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, you, not having worked under Bush for any time at all.

So, yeah. I agree with me on this is one.

Boo Radley

Talk E wrote: »

I would think his testimony for 9/11 being an inside job, having worked under Bush during and after 9/11 would be more credible than say, your testimony that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, you, not having worked under Bush for any time at all.

So, yeah. I agree with me on this is one.

But what merits credibility? He hasn't come up with anything, not even a claim of knowing something he learned while working there. You can't attribute credibility to the guy just because he worked for Bush. He clearly didn't have any access to any pertinent information about any plot. If he had I'd imagine he might have brought it up by now.

If anybody working under Bush at that time made these claims, say for example one of the office cleaners, would we say "Oh that guy/girl should be taken seriously. He/she worked under Bush's administration."

Again, if he did not see anything untoward while there and formed his opinions after-the-fact based entirely on other peoples work and not based on something he saw while working there, how exactly does him having held this job make his claims (which he derives from others work) any more credible?

This is not a debate about if there was a plot. This is a debate about credibility. He doesn't automatically get it because of his old job. Once again, if he saw something while there and was talking about that, then it might be more relevant. As it is he is talking about what he believes happened, based on the work of other people and not based on anything he learned while working under Bush.

He is as credible as anyone else on either side of the debate in that his opinions are formed on information that is mostly online and freely available. His role under Bush did not inform his opinions of what happened, he didn't happen upon a conspiracy when working there.

Brown Bomber

Boo Radley wrote: »

If anybody working under Bush at that time made these claims, say for example one of the office cleaners, would we say "Oh that guy/girl should be taken seriously. He/she worked under Bush's administration."

I understand where you are coming from but let's face it he was head of a government department during and after 9-11 his opinion DOES carry more weight than yours, mine or most. He is familiar with the people and the processes involved Even the aforementioned cleaners need security clearance.

His having working under Bush also makes him more likely to be disinfo IMO too.

Boo Radley

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from but let's face it he was head of a government department during and after 9-11 his opinion DOES carry more weight than yours, mine or most. He is familiar with the people and the processes involved Even the aforementioned cleaners need security clearance.

His having working under Bush also makes him more likely to be disinfo IMO too.

And I see your point but I don't agree. If he was in a department, maybe something like home land security, I might be swayed into thinking, maybe this guy should be taken notice of.

As far as I'm concerned he carries no weight for the reasons outlined previously.