[EM] More comments Re: Can't we all get along?

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Russ said:

Mike, on the other hand, is so far out that he can't see any significant
difference between Democrats and Republicans.

I reply:

Many agree that there's no significant difference between them. For example, 
Kery voted for the Patriot Act, and voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, 
and promised that if he were president he'd send more troops than Bush 
would, and that the'd be in Iraq to win, not to leave. Kerry's only 
criticism of Bush on Iraq was that Bush wasn't defeating the Iraqis well 
enough or fast enough, or with enough troops.

Not only the Nader voters, but the many millions of nonvoters, say that "the 
2 parties" don't offer any significant choice.

Russ  continued:

  He is absolutely convinced that demolition expolosives were
pre-installed in the WTC to make it collapse in cue.

I reply:

Yet again Russ repeates that claim. And I repeat that what I've been saying 
is that the facts of the collapse were consistent with demolition, and 
inconsistent with the story that the collapse was caused by a collision and 
a kerosene fire.

A kerosene fire wouldn't  create pools of molten steel. Falling wouldn't  
pulverize  so much concrete, but explosives would. The downward acceleration 
at g or near-g is very odd, considering that the falling floors had to bash 
through 96 intact floors, in the north tower, and 80 in the south tower.  
WTC7 was 2 blocks away from the twin towers, and nothing had hit WTC7, and 
yet it fell in the same peculiar manner as the twin towers.

  And they all fell straight down, into their footprint, like demolition 
jobs--which,  though it may not prove anything, is still distinctly odd. And 
apparently the fire on the 80th floor of the south tower somehow collapsed 
all 30 floors above that, and caused the columns to fall too--straight down, 
of course, rather than fallilng over, and in neat truckbed-size pieces. And 
that all happened in one rief moment, during a freefall-rate fall. Experts 
find it inexplicable that there weren't more stories of the columns left 
standing.

  FEMA's report concluded by saying that its scenario was "highly 
improbable". FEMA was trying to explain the collapse in terms of the 
administration's assumptions, and admitted that the best such explaination 
that it could come up with was highly improbable.

And the steel from the wreckage was hurriedly removed and disposed of. 
Removal and destruction of evidence from the scene of a felony is itself a 
felony, and is difficult to reconcile with a desire to "smoke out" the 
perpetrators. A fire-journal editorial insisted that the removal of evidence 
must stop, but it didn't stop.

Russ continued:

How do I know it? Well, common sense plays a major role, of course, but
its more than that. I've read executive summaries of major professional
studies on the matter, and I've read explanations by structural
engineering experts of how and why the WTC collapsed.

  I reply:

  As I said, the link that Russ sent to me was only to an article that 
reported that a structural engineer had won a prize for his explanation of 
the collapse.

  Of course check out Russ's new  links. They're Russ's best support for his 
claim.

Russ said:

For Mike, I think this list *is* his career.

I reply:

Notice that most of what Russ says consists of guesses or assertions about 
other peoiple, their motives, their character, etc.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/