Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Morgan Reynolds Struts His Stuff

Just when seemed the drivel interrupting engineering and scientific discussion on the collapse of the World Trade Towers on September 11 had subsided, another know-nothing has decided to offer his perceptive analysis. (ht: LGF)

Morgan Reynolds, professor emeritus in economics at Texas A&M University, has his doubts about the causes and conditions surrounding the collapse:

"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.""

Mr Reyolds is right about one thing. It is "... hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate." That's why those knowledgeable in the science and engineering aspects of this catastophe have been doing (and are still doing) the 'debating', debating that, in scientific and engineering circles, is more often described as investigation, analysis, review and comment because they, well, know more about it than dimwits who venture into fields of expertise to expound on subjects they have no grounding in.

Real scientific 'debates' like, you know, an "analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers" (taken from lede, here, fourth item down) that resulted in a 240+ page report shortly after the tragedy, and was a lead-in to the extensive 'debating' that is still going on today. That kind of 'debating' from contributors advances knowledge in their specialties, assists the community in a host of ways not to mention garners esteem for those taking on the task of 'debating', unlike the pseudo-scientific debates assisted by numbskulls like Morgan Reynolds who pronounce on secret demolition planning contentions resulting from epiphanies of conspiracy and tortured logic that serve only to make themselves a laughing stock for society.

I'd like to thank UPI's John Daly for the service he's done in bringing this chucklehead to the public eye. He could have ignored him. But he didn't and it's helped to 'raised awareness' of the capabilities of Morgan Reynolds, provided some much desired 'monitoring' of quality and diversity of thinking at Texas A&M, and put one big smile on my face, today.


0 Creaks:

Post a Comment

Trackbacks:

<\$BlogItemBacklinkCreate\$>

Email Me


Home Page



This page is part of CSS LAYOUT TECHNIQUES, a resource for web developers and designers. Does it VALIDATE? (Ha! Not likely.)

Template Credits::
Eric Costello at Glish for the base templates; Glenn Roveberg at Roveberg for the archives menu; and Ken Ward at Trans4mind for menu open window coding.


Powered by Blogger TM


Subscribe with Bloglines