pap

Seen that. Good movie, written and directed by Joe Cornish of Adam & Joe fame. Apparently, he is now in the frame for bigger stuff after producing such a decent film on such a small budget.

In her defence, she's 69. Still, you have a point.

Yes, I can imagine old Gordon shuffling down the stairs around midnight for a deep-fried Mars bar. Still, doesn't look good when your PM is saying we've all got to tighten our belts when he's starting to look like Billy Bunter.

It's not just me. The Sex and the City costume designer thinks so too. link

I remember when kids used to take the p*ss out of Dunlop trainers. Does that still happen?

While 2.5 million unemployed people are feeling the bite of the cuts, David Cameron seems to have no trouble getting a steady meal. Is it just me, or is Cameron putting on the beef?

Beee-ump! Lock em all up? Influx of prisoners after riots 'fuelling gang culture'.

Many conspiracies have actually happened. You mention JFK. It is now accepted by the US government that Kennedy "was very likely assassinated as part of a conspiracy". They didn't get as far as naming names, but that was the conclusion they maintained. I posted a list of conspiracies that turned out to be true earlier in the thread. I don't necessarily buy that there was nothing to gain, either. Strategically, the US has a massive foothold in the Middle East in places that have valuable commodities. Those in the military industrial complex have made plenty of money, either through no-bid contracts or being part of the war economy. Many of the Bush administration openly proclaimed that "America's Next Century" would be shaped by force of arms in the 2000 document, Rebuilding America's Defenses - citing that they wanted the US military to be able to fight "multiple simultaenous theater wars". This isn't conspiracy - it's what they said and signed up to. Don't forget the highly contentious 2000 Presidential Elections, which saw George W. Bush win in a contest rife with accusations of electoral rigging, especially in the state of Florida, which happened to be governed by his brother. Or the fact that the plans for the Iraq War pre-dated Afghanistan and 9/11. All of this stuff is a matter of record. We Brits weren't entirely blameless either. What else was the Iraq Dossier but a deliberate conspiracy to mislead Parliament and the general public? None of this, of course, is proof of anything surrounding 9/11, but it does raise a few questions. I don't think you have to swallow any story wholesale, whether it comes from the Government or the Interwebs.

Hey, who says I believe anything? I've posted some links, punctuating your merciless bullying of the OP with some saner stuff. I've also posted a link to a number of conspiracies that turned out to be true, illustrating that this sort of thing is not unprecedented. You're playing the same record, and while I could speculate on possible motives, why is worth my time when you're just going to blast it down? It's obvious you don't entertain any of the alternate theories surrounding 9/11. I haven't got a problem with that. What's your problem with someone holding an alternate view?

Think I've already made that clear. I don't know. I haven't, at any point, said that I do. Is that a showstopper, though? Does not knowing the whole picture immediately stop police from investigating a murder?

I like the five positives plus one negative approach ( mentioned in the Beeb article ). No one minds being pulled up on one thing if you've been bigged up on five other things.

Asda were doing the A-Team movie on Blu Ray, which was quickly snaffled. I try not to think of it as a film. I go with the "best A-Team episode ever made". Imagine if we'd have seen that on a Saturday night in the 1980s. We'd have lost our sh*t The entire opening sequence ( shootout in deserts, car chases and the classic A-Team van ) is a massive nod to the original series. The extended edition features a few of the more whimsical scenes that were axed from the theatrical, but are in the tone of the original series. Worth a watch, despite Jessica Biel being a bit of a cold fish.

The problem with this whole debate is that it is almost religious. You have the likes of the OP claiming that this information is "too hot" and will be pulled by the Government. Then you have people slavishly adhering to the official account. That's why I posted the Architects and Engineers vid. Not sensationalist, based on forensic evidence and the application of scientific methods. If you're not even going to consider the case that these fellows have put forward, then there is no point in a relative thickie like me trying to make the case.

I've no interest in verbatim regurgitation of a point that someone has already made better than I ever could - but briefly, Popular Mechanics theory is that fires triggered a pancake effect which brought the building down. They completely ignore scientific principles like the theory of least resistance, or the fact that the building was turned to dust. Yet during the riots, we all watched a 100 year old building, with much worse fire-proofing, burn all night without turning to dust. The BBC actually reported WTC7 coming down 23 minutes before it actually happened, with the building actually in frame when the reporter announced it. That is proof of foreknowledge. Can you explain how the BBC were able to report on an event which had not happened yet? With the affected building still in shot behind them? You ask for everything to be explained in a nice little package. You invite people to speculate on stuff for which they have no proof, simply so when they stick their necks out, you can point out the glaring insanity of their speculation. Sure, there are some wild theories out there that cannot be proven. Yet when confronted with people who are applying the scientific method to stuff they can prove, you're not interested.

So your stance is "explain it all, or don't bother"? Those guys have put forward a pretty convincing case that the buildings went down via controlled demolition, using forensic evidence. As stated before, they are not speculating on what they cannot prove, merely illustrating what they can prove. Which of their findings would you dispute?

On the off chance you were interested , take a look at this:- 9/11 Blueprint for Truth Unfortunately, it is not very sensationalist. They give it a go on the little bits of VT, but mostly, it's a bald bloke giving a Powerpoint presentation supporting the hypothesis of controlled demolition. If you're expecting lizard men and ninja Masons, you'll be disappointed, but they make an interesting case. (I make absolutely no promises that shadowy Government forces will pull this vid in 5 minutes)

What is your opinion on the professional groups such as the Architects & Engineers for truth? These guys have an extremely narrow remit. They're not assigning blame to any organization, covert or otherwise. They're simply saying that the buildings could not have come down the way that they did. They focus especially on building seven, which fell down in freefall without being hit by planes. Essentially, 1500 people putting their livelihoods on the line saying that in their professional opinion, the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. How would you assess their motives?

Most class A drugs are out of your urine in 72 hours. As Patrick Bateman points out, THC ( cannabis ) will stay in your system for ages. From a "not getting caught on a drugs test perspective", you're actually better off doing hard drugs over a Bank Holiday than you are having a spliff every night. Personally, I don't like drug testing in principle. Assess their suitability on how they do their job, not what they do on a Saturday night. If someone has serious problems, you can spot it straightaway. That said, I did once work for a company which completely failed to spot that one of its employee's was an utter coke fiend. During the day, and in the office. egg : do your tests also look for excessive alcohol consumption?

On that note, a Wiganer mate of mine (not famous for their cultural subtlety anyway) went on his hols to Benidorm, adopting the common English conceit that in order to speak Spanish all one needs to do is append an 'o' to the end of any English word. Hence the chat-up line "sucko cocko" was born, which to this day, proudly maintains its 0% success rate.

Not really. Just a failure of imagination. There are plenty of other places that the Government could get the money.

From the interview, I think Schteve was referring to the dive.

Nice highlights. Looks like both sides rode their luck on some of the goalmouth scrambles. As for the old subscription stuff, defo worth it in my view. Last year, I had access to more Saints coverage than ever - even when we were in the Prem. The future's brilliant, innit?

Good shout, LGTL. I cannot watch this guy without wanting to put my foot through the television.

Pompey, but not because I think they'll beat us. Filthy team though. Liam Lawrence looked shocking on last night's Football League show. A Hammers fan said they were the "dirtiest team I've seen at West Ham for ages". Add that to two highly charged fixtures, and there's potential for injuries. Hopefully the refs will come down hard on them. Do they play like that all the time?

How about, as an alternative, "nice hat-trick Rickie"?