Rob

Just to clarify, you have the handbrake assembly fitted on both sides, yes? You're not relying on the N/S handbrake only, while turning the hubnut on the O/S as the diff will allow it to turn.

Well I never knew that! Joyce Green has kong gone though, its all housing now, wallowing in the marshy gas smell. I recall something about your 200sx being parked on Park Road though. Last time I went to Dartford was for a relatives funeral, and the wife and I got food poisoning, either from the wake or from Panorama Kebab. We shat and puked our way north in every service station up the A1. Awful place. Moving out was the best thing I did.

I was born in Dartford, but I can't tell you about what anything looks like post 2003.

That's actually really good, and I shall keep it for a time when I am in employment again and designing karzi's.

Nah, Faye is the really gorgeous one, Louise looks like she's been in cryo-storage since 1984. So, this Jaye fella, he says he's slept with over 1000 girls. I make that at least 2 a week, from being about 16/17. Is that true Jurgen, in your experience of him?

Oh toilet stories is it? (wibbly flashback fade-out) Due to a rather hectic schedule on our anniversary that prevented us doing anything celebratory, and coincident with me getting a fistful of cash at 7:00am this morning for punting off the only Audi I own with folding seats, we decided to push the boat a few inches away from the jetty of frugality by having lunch in our local Wetherspoons, gourmet burger and a pint £6.10, you can't beat it. I decide to go for a wee I enter the room to find it empty, excellant, but as I approach the reproduction "vintage" urinal, another bloke walks in behind me. This gives me Shycock Syndrome, and its a while before I can splutter forth with a reluctant drizzle of golden rain. Its a poorly designed urinal however, and does not protrude forth like the modern "egg section" ones do. Therefore I loudly clatter onto the vinyl floor, and all up my shoes and trousers. I have to stand so far into it to prevent this, I'm sure the guy next to me thinks I'm trying to morph into the wall, like Orpheus and the Mirror, but with p*** and porcelain. He walks off, without even washing his hands, the dirty so and so, thinks I from within the steaming interior of my urine-dripping glasshouse. I wash my hands, no soap and the taps don't stay on for more than 2.8 nanoseconds. Annoying. Now Wetherspoons don't skimp on the quality of their hand dryers, it was like a Rolls Royce Olympus on the wall. I remove my wedding ring, to dry under it and the jet blast whips it from my hand onto the floor. It all went a bit Frodo as I leapt for the falling gold ring, but it hit the floor and rolled right across until its motion was arrested by the small lake of my own cooling urine. Then I washed the p*** off my ring in the public lavvy and rejoined my wife for lunch.

I looked once, the other guy said "Oi, stop 'king leering"

Shycock syndrome, more common than you think. I can't even go if there is a wall mirror and I can see my own face.

One of the chaps there is feeling jealous to the point of coveting the other guys hot mug of coffee/chocolate drink. Oh yes, its a mocha sin. You'd tell me if it was too contrived?

Looks high in the water, but there's no plimsoll line.

Slightly OT, but related to stuff about the engine wreckage. I don't know why this surprised me, but I was amazed that the maintenance diagrams for jet engines are identical in style to car manuals [ATTACH=CONFIG]139333[/ATTACH]

That's the thing about WTC7, no one really knows because it wasn't visible on TV. According to fire crews there was massive damage to the front caused by the tower collapsing into it and then we're into the same old stuff about how it was designed and whether it should have collapsed through fires or not. Was it rigged with explosives from its construction? Don't know Could it have collapsed if a 100 storey tower fell on it? Don't know Did anyone see it being rigged with explosives? No Did anyone see a 100 storey tower collapse into it? Ooh yes, I think so.

One other point occured to me last night. The argument is self-defeating. If I understand Scotty's point correctly, he is saying the towers were designed to withstand one or even multiple 600mph impacts from a fully laden 707, and therefore since a similar sized and slower plane did hit them, they should not have collapsed due to that incident, therefore they must have been rigged to collapse by nefarious deeds....and there is proof that the design is as he says. If that's the case, why then did this hidden collective of evil plotters go to all the trouble of hijacking 4 planes fulll of people and secretly rigging the buildings to collapse? Their plan would be instantly flawed and exposed If it is demonstrable that a plane strike would not cause the buildings to collapse, it would be obvious to all that the planned collapse is due to internal explosives so its pointless to even try it. The only way the plane strike idea could work is if say 10 planes hit each tower from all sides, or maybe one of those Starlifters or Ilushin 220 things, full of fuel, something spectacularly outside the provable design parameters of the buildings. In the ten years since 9/11 architects and engineers all over the world have discussed methods of consstructing tall buildings that would withstand the impacts from hijacked large plane strikes. D'you know what? While not technically impossible, its beyond reason to even try. Such a building would be so heavy and costly, no one would make any money from renting its office space. To start building such towers would be to signal to the terrorists that we are scared of them. The events of 9/11 and 7/7 have already caused huge changes to Western society in the way our freedoms are being eroded in the name of anti-terrorism. I don't like the idea that I'm on camera all the time if I drive to London, I don't like the idea that I have to be fully searched and remove my shoes in an airport. I think some of the things our Govt have done in response to 9/11 are very wrong, but that doesn't mean I think they were behind the whole thing just to gain more power.

I made a slight error in post 312, about the correct placement of the word "believe." He said it was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. My above post and links prove that he was wrong in his statement. He then says he believes it could take multiple impacts. Again, he is wrong in his belief, it took one impact and within the hour, collapsed to total destruction. Once again, you have done the same thing every CTer or "truther" does when slapped in the face with cold, hard facts. You have tried to jump subject. This time to WTC7. I'm going to bed, I can only present you with the facts and leave you to it.

No, you get your facts right. Robinson designed the towers to withstand a 180mph collison at best, with no consideration being given to exploding fuel damaging the fire protection to the steelwork. It was never designed to take a 600mph collision. There was a disagreement based in political point scoring between the Port Authority and Robertson, some of which you have quoted above. Of course, like all "truthers" you neglected to post the actual truth... So, an exaggerated report, essentially, bull****, to make a point about the towers' robustness that remained unchallenged by the ACTUAL designer until it filtered into public consciousness. All sources to to info can be found here...http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html Now, for the record I am a UK chartered architect, unattached to any Govt in this country or the US, with a lot of experience in designing steel framed buildings, and for you info and hopefully not boasting, when I watched the towers collapse back then and spent the next few days, even weeks thinking about it, I formulated my theory of why the whole thing collapsed. That was based on experience, building knowledge and common sense and guess what, it turned out to match what the official report eventually said. Maybe I'm a patsy and I don't even know it. You'll note that my description of the reason the towers fell contains nothing extraordinary, apart from a massive jet slamming into the building. My description/the official report does not require anyone to make any giant leaps of faith or to assume that secret things took place that cannot be proven. It is physics and building technology, and nothing more. The only thing I have to gain by changing your mind is to stop you wasting your time and your life believing nonsense or even living in some fearful paranoic existance that there is an evil force at work in the high echelons of power. Once again, just look at all the bad things that governments have done over the years, they've all been leaked...Watergate, Iran-Contra, Cash for questions, the "sexed up" WMD dossier, the Blue Peter phone vote scam. Do you really think that something of the magnitude that you believe in could be kept hidden? And even if there was a conspiracy to dupe the public into going to war in Iraq, the WMD dossier was enough for the UK to go to war. Why destroy central Manhatten, part of the Pentagon and 3000 of your own citizens when you could just fabricate a document saying WMDs could hit the U.S. mainland. An "evil" government could do so many simple things to convince its public it was right to invade Iraq that are so easier to hide than the nonsense you think actually happened.

Scotty. I've already explained why the towers fell. The guy in that video says "I believe the towers were designed..." It is not fact, the things he says, and if he died in the towers, well that's a hell of a way to be proved wrong. Factually, the original engineers explained it was designed to take a strike from a 707, low on fuel either lost in bad weather or looking for its airstrip, hitting at a speed, iirc, of around 180 knots.

Good god, that'll lead to talk about nano-thermite again. My point in mentioning the Holocaust as having its roots in christianity is that it was based on anti-semitism, and that came about, as I understand it, because the jews called for Jesus to be killed as they did not believe he was the messiah (oh yes, he was a very naughty boy). Ergo, the basis of anti semitism is in christianity.

Although it is wandering far from topic, I should also point out christian fundamentalism has caused a lot of horrific terrorism too, Oklahoma, the recent Norway shootings and of course the Holocaust. Its all religions fault, in my opinion. Now if Blair and Bush want to use those outrages as an excuse to slip into Iraq and topple Saddamn so that we can continue to get cheaper oil, I don't have a real problem with that. That's what political leaders do, safeguard the long term interests of their countries.

Ah, a copy clip repeated spelling error, and a rough one at that. Fundamentalism, is of course what I meant to type. Trouble with Blair is, he went all Catholic towards the end, maybe he thinks he can gain admission to his heaven if he absolves his sins. Mind you, the US did eventually knock off Bin Laden, but I suspect the Taliban is so widespread it won't really stop them perpetrating more of their own version of the truth. But I agree of course, my spelling mistake means the argument I raised is of course, groundless, sorry to have wasted your time.

Ok, islamic fundalmenatalists fly planes into buildings and kill 3000 odd people, islamic fundalmenatalists detonate bombs in the London Underground, and one on a bus cos he got lost, islamic fundalmenatalists oppress people in Afghanistan and prohibit education and subjugate women. All because they have their own twisted view of a made up nonsense religion. (nb, like all religions, I hasten to add.) Conclusion, islamic fundalmenatalism is the root of all evil.

I'm a Nespresso man myself, wouldn't touch instant these days. A previous employer had a Nespresso machine in the office and that ground the beans and made a cup, rather than use the capsules. It was a very expensive machine though but was as good as I've seen for getting fresh ground coffee with minimal fuss. The cheap coffee machines that use steam pressure to make coffee are to be avoided though. Steam means boiling water and that ruins the coffee. One with a pump is a bare minimum. ( I think it was Nespresso branded, anyway, it was 3 or 4 years back now)

Although, if they live in the same house as a family, its entirely reasonable that Fred would be driving the car even though he's not the main driver. Unless he has a string of motoring offences that prove he drives it every day of the week, its impossible to prove who is the actual main user of the vehicle. If Fred has gone to Uni 100miles away and has the car there, then that is fronting.

53??? That's great-grandad territory in Jeremy Kyle Land

Di ck is a swear filter word now?

I know nothing about US law. Does testifying under oath have to take place in a public court?