Funny, I thought that Paul was going to come back "to (expose my) increasingly insane global conspiracies theories, as the rubbish that they are."

I don't see how he achieved that in his last post. It certainly didn't address any of the posts I made since he was last here.

---

Anyhow, Paul, in case you hadn't noticed, there are quite a few loose ends on this forum.

You repeatedly made the following assertion: "Every time I shoot down one of your stupid arguments you ignore it as if it never happened and move on," or one very similar.

In fact, as I showed above, you haven't been "shoot(ing) down" any of my arguments, rather, making strident statements of black is white, one, of course, being that in the images shown to you include no explosions when clearly they do, as I have shown.

However, if you choose to use unfair debating techniques and then claim to have won the argument, then I consider it my right to show up those arguments.

---

I don't see why I need be overly concerned whether anyone but you or me is looking at this discussion at this point in time.

If you think therefore that this discussion is of no consequence then why waste your time and my time making abusive posts such as that above?

For my part, I have found that others in other forums are interested and it seems to me that interest in this topic will remain at least until all the outstanding questions concerning 9/11 have been properly answered (and I believe that not very long after that occurs, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld et al will find themselves behind bars).

As there is likely to remain interest in this issue this forum remains an important and useful document, in spite of the best efforts of yourself and many others to confuse the issues.

As I have shown, it seems to me that it is you, and not me, who feels embarrassed by the existence of this record.

daggett says, in the preceding post:

"........ there are quite a few loose ends on this forum."

One of them is not only loose here, but also loose on Thompson's 9/11 Timeline site. Nowhere have I been able to find any mention of where the various aircraft that featured in the 9/11 events had come FROM immediately before embarking passengers on what were to become the hijacked flights.

United Airlines flight UA 93, for example, is of interest because it was seemingly delayed in departing from Newark airport by some 40 or so minutes with respect to its scheduled departure time. One of the reasons commonly able to be advanced as an explanation for a late departure of a flight is that the aircraft providing that service has arrived late from somewhere else. Was that the reason for the late departure of UA 93, or was that flight delayed for reasons related to air traffic control, the physical aircraft that can be shown to have performed it having been on the ground at Newark in plenty of time otherwise to have departed on schedule?

Unresolved contentions as to via which departure gate passengers boarded flights in Boston may not be unconnected issues to those as to precisely which serially-numbered identifiable aircraft may have actually made those suicidal impacts, or been shot down, as the cases may be (or not, with respect to flight AA 77), irrespective as to from which airport they departed.

I should imagine the flying time between Dulles International (Baltimore-Washington) Airport and Newark, NJ, would normally be something less than 40 minutes. Could it have been that one physical aircraft provided the passenger carrying capacity for both flights AA 77 and UA 93? It would be a big, big worry if it turned out to be believably so.

If the speculation that an aircraft identified as flight AA 77 acted as a decoy to provide an explanation for an impact upon the Pentagon that was in fact that of a missile has substance, how and where did 'they' get rid of the passengers?

Forrest, presumably the following is where on the 9/11 Timeline (http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project you would expect to find the information about flight 77 you say isn't there?

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090701floridanewark#a090701floridanewark

... and the location where information concerning flight 77 is lacking would be: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a820takeoff#a820takeoff

Forrest Gump wrote, "I should imagine the flying time between Dulles International (Baltimore-Washington) Airport and Newark, NJ, would normally be something less than 40 minutes."

Flight 77 departed from Dulles Airport near Washington 10 minutes late ad 8.20am

Flight 93 departed from Newark airport in New Jersey closed to New York at 8:42am (or 8:41am?) forty minutes late?

There is only 20 minutes which is quite a bit less than forty minutes between the two departure times. So I fail to see how "one physical aircraft" could have carried the passengers on both flights 77 and 93.

Anyhow, what might have happened to the passengers may not be what David Ray Griffin suggested might have happened in the "New Pearl Harbour" at http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf

The story of the successful passenger uprising on Flight 93 and the story of passengers fighting the hijackers on flight 11 (the first to strike) is a story that people of good will on both sides of the controversy would have liked to have believed.

However, the evidence, from recorded film footage strongly suggests that flights 11 and 175 were military drones (and is conclusive in the case of the latter) and not the passenger aircraft we were led to believe that they were, so this casts questions on whether there was an (unsuccessful) uprising on flight 11 (I haven't familiarised myself with the story of flight 175).

Furthermore, the story of the passenger uprising on flight 93 may have been invented. Another theory to explain why Flight 93 was shot down is that an an air-force officer, who, knowing of the three previous impacts, would have defied Cheney's orders and ordered Flight 93 to be shot down before it hit the Capitol Building.

(tobecontinued)

(cntinuedfromabove)

So, if none of those 4 aircraft were the passenger aircraft (as retired aircraft crash investigator Colonel George Nelson (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Nelson) has convincingly argued (http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson) then, as Forrest asks, what happened to the passengers on those flights?

If the airport security video footage of the passengers boarding all those flights were to be released as 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani demands (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE) we might learn the answer.

I suspect it would be quite chilling and unsettling to know that answer.

Daggett,

Re your recent expression of apparent perplexity here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103#57412 I hasten to assure you that the 'enemy' referred to was most certainly not yourself. I actually prefer the word 'opponent' in this context, and I have in fact switched to that usage in the 'Saga of the Undying Phlaigme'.

The inspiration for this little 'Tale of the Near Future' is the raw nerve reaction I have drawn from OLO article contributor Ross Buncle, commencing here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8569#135733 , and continuing three posts later. If you have the time, I'd be interested in your views as to whether I have been unreasonable, 'sleazy', or even ... unkind.

I suspect he has been either put up to this, or has been used. He admits to having not had a fuller appreciation of the implications of a feed-in tariff, but gives the impression there is no way he will abandon the promotion of the petition. I'm not really trying to divert his topic: he is the one who has created the opening, by leaving the whole thing up in the air with the word "BUT ... "at the end of his byline. "BUT" what?

I'd also be interested in your impressions as to any Federal government 'sponsorship' conveyed by the webpage you get to if you click his petition link.

I think he's just upset because the discussion has taken off in a direction he did not intend. This is OLO, not the MSM. Journo's don't call the shots here as of right, only if their article is good enough to elicit deference. This one isn't, in my opinion. But it provides one hell of an opening to put the subsidising of PV panels, as we presently understand them, in perspective, and to do that of necessity one must discuss the realistic alternatives. Others, notably Jedimaster, have done that rather well.

Sorry about the OT post. Have been meaning to post here, but short of time.

I shall return.

Forrest,

I think you are probably right and Ross Buncle is wrong, and, if so, you are right to argue strenuously against the proposal.

However, from my reading of his article I have, so far, seen no reason to question his motives. So, it might not have been a good idea to start off your first post by writing, "What a mischievous article!" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8569#135606)

However, I am open to persuasion, and I certainly don't believe in pulling one's punches in these sorts of debates.

The difficulty we face is that you are attacking what has been for some time held out by many environmentalists as a panacea for our problems, namely the feed-in tariff (in the context Australia's supposedly competitive largely privatised electricity grid).

Other false panaceas have been carbon trading, bio-fuels, urban consolidation, water recycling, water trading, timber plantations etc., etc.

So, in previous years, many genuine environmentalists have strenuously fought against seemingly complacent establishments, to bring about all the above policies. However, now that these cherished dreams have been realised or are about to be realised, it is apparent that these 'solutions' have only made matters worse or will only make matters worse.

Whilst it is possible that people who promote these false panaceas may be doing so out of self-interest, it may be safer to assume they are doing so out of good intentions, at least until we find strong evidence that suggests otherwise.

Sorry, I can't be a bit more definite about this, for the time being.

---

As I have written before, I think it is somewhat a waste to publish so many of your well-written posts just to Online Opinion forums. Many of them could be easily be articles in their own right.

I think it would be very useful if you were to write articles about, as examples, solar pondage and the problems of feed-in tariffs and submit them to the editors of OLO.

(tobecontinued)