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/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
