For those wondering what happened to Paul, I myself wondered aloud on the "Bush's democracy of hypocrisy" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#133131 whether he may have been hiding from me.

At the time he had not made any response to me on that or any of the other forums on which he had chosen to argue with me. It was as if he had run out of debating ploys and anything further he might have said, other than to finally admit that he was wrong, would have only made him look even more foolish.

However, my wondering aloud did draw an indignant response from Paul which included:

"I started a new job and i haven't had access to the internet for two weeks. So HIDING? From YOU. You NUTTER. As if.

"Don't worry, when I get my phone line installed I'll be back to exposing your increasingly insane global conspiracies theories, as the rubbish that they are."

---

Nonetheless, my gut feeling is that Paul is on his last legs and we won't be hearing much more from him.

I am not really trying to goad him to coming back, but on the other hand, having been forced to spend huge amounts of my time dealing with his obfuscation, in addition to insults and personal attacks, over the past four months, I don't see why he should be allowed to tippy toe quietly way either.

Of course, the 9/11 Truth issue remains relevant to a good many other political questions of the day including how to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Blair, Howard et al for their crimes against humanity. This was raised in the forum "What do we do about George W Bush?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2465&page=7#55436

My response was to re-publish an excellent, but brief article "Prosecute Bush and Company for their Criminal Negligence and Cover-Up Regarding 9/11" from "George Washington's Blog" at http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/now-is-ideal-time-to-prosecute-bush-and.html

This is about NIST's report which Paul insisted above fully explains the 'collapse' of WTC 7

"NIST doesn't know how to run their simulation??" at http://911blogger.com/node/19270

I've submitted my own foia asking for instructions to run the WTC 7 collapse simulation. So far the response is that there are no records, so I've submitted an appeal. I'm hoping the instructions will include some information about absurd initial parameters.

Complaint:

I want step by step instructions how to run the WTC 7 collapse simulation. Is this just a matter or rephrasing the request or does NIST not have step by step instructions? Are you seriously telling me that no one either in NIST nor outside is capable of reproducing the collapse simulation because the instructions do not exist?

Original request:

Freedom of Information Act Request

I respectfully request copies of the following NIST records:

Instructions for running the NIST simulation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on my own hardware including required software, required hardware, and any parameters to the program.

Disclosure of the requested information to me is not in my commercial interest.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Walter Ritchey

(for more, visit http://911blogger.com http://911blogger.com/node/19270)

This is a response to Forrest Gump in the forum "For the sake of OLO ...rule changes?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2479&page=26#56077

Forrest Gump wrote:

"Have I been persuaded by James/daggett ....? Only to the extent that he has posted supporting links, and that he has highlighted areas of seeming inconsistency between official explanations and other believably reliable testimony. Do I agree with his view? Not necessarily. In particular I think it dangerous to rush to judgement with respect as to who may have been actively involved in any orchestration of events. The convincing key, to me, lies in evidence of checks and balances, and standing operating procedures, having been violated."

Forrest, whilst it is a good start to realise that the official US Government explanation of 9/11 is rubbish, at some point we need to move forward from that.

Any police officer investigating crimes will try to propose one or more theory to explain the evidence they encounter and not just simply stop at stating that the story put to them by a crime suspect is rubbish.

Some times the theories are not good (i.e. Lindy Chamberlain and not a dingo, killed baby Azaria) and don't stand up to scrutiny.

However, unless theories are proposed, it will be impossible to make sense of the vast amount of facts that will encounter.

Nearly everyone who has seriously studied 9/11 have long since past the point of simply saying that the official explanation of 9/11 is rubbish and have no hesitation in saying, as I do, that they believe 9/11 was an inside job.

In the unlikely event that a proper investigation into 9/11 arrives at another explanation of 9/11 which is fully supported by the evidence, I will gladly change my mind.

Paul wrote, "If it were as you say, an explosion, how could such a momentous explosion not be captured on camera."

This is what I regard as one of the bullying and time-wasting "Emperorer's New Clothes" debating ploys that has helped caused this thread to reach such a huge size.

There is clearly vast amounts of pictorial and audio evidence of explosions, small and large, however, Paul, the qualified engineer who would have his word considered gospel by us mortal non-engineers, has deemed any image without a bright orange or yellow flash not to be an image of an explosion. Thus, all the spectacular images containing huge violently expanding grey clouds after the start of the collapse (where we did indeed see bright flashes), including the image on the front page of http://www.911speakout.org/ are somehow not explosions.

When I put to him "I presume Paul's definition of what constitutes an 'explosion' must have come from watching too many B grade war movies."

... he responded, "Sorry what? What do you know about explosives? You don't have a clue about any of this as we have shown time and again."

I think I have as much as clue as anybody else here and, it would seem, much more of a clue than Paul, that is unless Paul is being less than forthright with the rest of us.

If Paul insists that all those images are not explosives because of a lack of visible bright yellow or orange flash, then he would also have to agree that the images at http://www.maginternational.org/silo/images/858.jpg http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=31322

... are not images of explosives, where clearly they are.

And he would have to insist that the big clouds of grey dust in the following collage of images of buildings being demolished http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/gm22633/35647/428094/0/Collage-compressed.jpg are not explosives, where they clearly are.

Paul has promised to come back when his phone line is fixed in order to 'show me up'.

I somehow don't think he will as he will know, by now, that such debating ploys are unlikely to stand up any more around here.

Dagget,

Still talking to yourself I see. You are a nutjob of the highest order. Its a pity it took me so long to realize that you are an entirely irrational person.

You keep believing everyone is out to get you. Won't be long before you start introducing discussions about alien abductions and poltergeists.