In a brief item today, United Press International is reporting that a "former Bush team member" has come to the conclusion that the only acceptable "scientific" explanation for the collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Center and adjacent No. 7, is a "controlled demolition"...at least that is what is being claimed by Morgan Reynolds, President Bush's former Department of Labor chief economist.  To bolster Reynolds' scientific credentials (what scientific credentials?), the author of the unattributed UPI piece notes that Reynolds had also been director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, and that he is now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University.

Based apparently upon his stellar scientific credentials, which no doubt must include some knowledge of physics and engineering, the unnamed UPI author reports that Reynolds has concluded that "the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus' and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition" was responsible.  Further, for you conspiracy theorists and Bush-haters out there, UPI's unknown author dutifully reports that, according to Reynolds: "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."

The real journalistic crime in this bit of UPI gossip is not simply that it reports the totally irrelevant, unsupported and unsupportable meanderings of some deranged ex-economist from the Department of Labor (for that matter, UPI might as well report the theories of alien invasion and CIA mind-control from the guy on the street-corner wearing the aluminum foil hat).  The truly unprofessional and "bogus" aspect of this story is that it exists solely because the kook making the claim is ex-officio Bush Administration.  Anything wacky and weird, that can be used as fodder for more Bush criticism, is touted by the Olde Media, as in this story, regardless of basis, logic, common sense, foundation...or newsworthiness, none of which can be said to apply to this report. 

The writer of the report never addresses any of the key questions that should be asked, even assuming that Reynolds lunatic rantings should be repeated.  No inquiry is made into Reynolds qualifications to make the assessment.  No inquiry is made into the basis for the claim.  No inquiry is made into whether Reynolds relies upon any scientific evidence from experts is relevant fields.  No inquiry is made into Reynolds motivations for making the accusations.  And not a single moment is taken to ask one very germane, essential journalistic question: What, are you kidding, me?

If there exists a single, shred of legitimate reportage to be had around this story, it is this: How in the world did a looney toon such as Reynolds ever secure a position as chief "anything" in the Bush Administration?

Update:  Closely following the publication of "Professor Emeritus" Morgan Reynolds' lunatic rantings, officials at Texas A&M University were very quick to clarify Reynolds' current relationship with the University: Actually none.  According to the University, Reynolds is retired, and only holds the honorary title of "Professor Emeritus" by virtue of the number of years of service as a tenured professor at the time of his retirement.  Unlike some other retired professors at A&M, Reynolds does not maintain any office space there, and the University made clear that "any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University."  In a more blunt statement, University President, Dr. Robert M. Gates, said:

The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001.  To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.

Amen, Dr. Gates.  And, in the event that he is in search of office space, we would humbly suggest that "Professor Emeritus" Reynolds probably should look elsewhere than his former employer.