(tobecontinued)

If you prefer to remain anonymous, you could set up a blog somewhere else. Alternatively, you are welcome to send articles to me so that I could publish them. (I am sure you can work out how to contact me, but I don't know how to contact you, except through this public forum.)

I am confident that if I did, they would draw an interested response from many people around the world including contributors to "The Final Energy Crisis" edited by Sheila Newman (http://candobetter.org/TFEC http://candobetter.org/FinalEnergyCrisis) and many others both she and I are in touch with.

If your proposals were to withstand their scrutiny, I am sure that it should not be too difficult to then arouse in them the interest that they deserve from the broader public.

---

I like the point you made about wood. David Holmgren made a similar point about wood some years back.

Nevertheless, even wood can be problematic when people are too crowded together, or when there are simply too many people. I know many years ago that the Launceston city council acted legislatively against wood stoves, because the Tamar Valley in which Launceston was situated tended to fill up with smoke from wood-fires in winter. I don't know whether they banned them or did not allow new wood-burners to be installed, however.

---

So, where's Paul these days? It seems odd that so few of Paul's fellow deniers seem to have been able to grasp his explanations of why the 9/11 attacks happened exactly as George Bush said they did, and yet they were so adamant that I was wrong.

I can't believe you w@nkers are still at it.

Obsessed much?

I watched a documentary a few weeks ago about the controversy surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania.

It appears that the British Government lied in order to deny that the Lusitania was carrying weapons and made a scapegoat of the captain in order to cover their own tracks.

Now the Lusitania would have sunk over 90 years before that documentary was made and less people died then than died on 11 September 2001.

I wonder, perhaps, if Bugsy also considers the makers of that documentary to be 'w@nkers'?

Perhaps the real w@nkers here are those who climbed aboard the 9/11 Truth denying bandwagon without knowing what they were talking about because they thought it was the fashionable thing to do.

Daggett, you really must press on to rack up a century of pages! There surely must be aspects of the case you haven't covered yet?
I would suggest that you write a book on the subject, "9/11 for Dummies". but be careful - the dark forces of evil that can blithely kill 3,000 of their countrymen would have no compunction in arranging for your disposal!

Controversy surrounds the reasons behind many historical events inlcuding 9/11 and the Lusitania. This is not an issue.

However, if the documentary makers were denying the obvious fact that the Germans sunk the Lusitania with a U-boat, and were claiming that in fact the British Government had organised the sinking by planting charges in the lower decks in order to blame the Germans, then I would not be the only one calling them w@nkers.

ZORRO,

Were you awaiting the publication of "9/11 for Dummies" before trying to form your own judgement on this issue?

Anyway, if you closely look at the posts, you will see that much of the size of this forum is due to people like yourself posting comments which have not added to the discussion and my having to respond to them.

---

Bugsy,

If the makers of the documentary had "den(ied) the obvious fact that the Germans sunk the Lusitania with a U-boat, and had claim(ed) that in fact the British Government had organised the sinking by planting charges in the lower decks in order to blame the Germans," then, given that there is no evidence for such claims, I would probably also be calling them w@nkers.

So, what is your point?