aintforever

Pap, instead of pointing out things you don't understand (and everyone else does) why don't you try and explain to us your theory. If there was an unfeasibly small amount of blood, what does it mean? Is Rigby actually still alive? Are these two guys in jail really just playing along with the whole thing? Give us a theory, go on...

OK then, I will waste 5 mins of my life explaining to you the obvious... 1) Reaction time of the OB - It would take time for the armed response unit to get to the loacation, it depends where in London they were at the time. 2) The fact that the alleged perpetrators milled around for 20 minutes when they could have easily prosecuted their agenda on a wider scale. - they were waiting for the security services to inflict harm on them. 3) Video of kids on the top floor of the bus. One of them asks when they're going to eat. Another responds "they've got another little film scene to do yet" - Cops, shootings, murders just like in the movies. 4) Right next to an army barracks, yet no-one comes out and sorts them - I'm no expert but I expect if a crime happens outside of their barracks they go into lockdown. I'm pretty sure they are not allowed out run out and start shooting sh!t up every time a crime is committed nearby. 5) Eyewitnesses report regular OB nearby, yet none of them do a thing. - Bloke beheaded by two armed men, they would be waiting for armed response unit. 6) The general lack of eyewitness on what is a very busy street. - There were witnesses, some on TV, some on twitter, how many we will find out at the trial. 7) The lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators clothing. - Plenty of blood where he got run over, probably already dead when beheaded, blood doesn't spurt out of a dead person. Two very different videos, one of which is pixellated to f**k, illustrating signs of manipulation, the other much cleaner - with a lot less blood. - video was clear to me, one with orange hands obviously been altered. 9) The fact that security services tried to recruit one of the alleged perpetrators 6 months prior to the event. - Had contacts with muslim extremists, if he was approached hardly a surprise. 10) The gung-ho pegging it into a hail of gunfire. -I assume you mean the armed response unit, looked like a slick, effective and appropriate response. 11) Lack of blood on the alleged perpetrators after the shooting. - See 7 12) The general vagueness of the big statement. "What we have done here...., etc". - They just murdered someone I expect they had other stuff on their minds. 13) The transformational genius of boyadee, going from street tweeter with lots to say about the event to articulate commentator with f**k all to say about it ( his latest piece is about Miley Cyrus entering hip hop ) - not sure of relevance but it's not at all unusual for a black londoner to speak gangster style to his homies on twitter, no matter how articulate. Just trying to look cool 14) The fuss. - Obvious, anything muslim related is hyped up by the media.

I think the problem is that things don't make sense to you because you are thick. Seriously, what is your theory about what happened at woolwich? Listing things you don't understand is not a theory. You won't post your theory - you never do, because you know they won't stack up.

I reckon we should ignore the worldwide scientific consensus and go with Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov's theory. That would be the prudent approach.

Well done Rickie, you should walk into that shower of a team.

Newspapers sensationalise stuff, blimey, is it that hard to understand?

Well there is none, just a load of "that looks weird" from you fantasists. Verbal is spot on with his post, you need to get in the real world.

You did imply that it was some sort of evidence for a conspiracy. I glad we agree that there is none.

You just don't get the concept of 'real life' do you? That website could have been put together by anyone, you don't know if the quotes are accurate, taken out of context or even from real people. Anyway all it is is a bunch of people saying "they want the truth" or "that was weird", no evidence of anything.

Very week, definitely no evidence that cosmic rays are causing the planet to warm.

One of those links basically says the opposite to what you are saying and the other just draws conclusions from the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere don't exactly match human output - of course they don't there are many other factors involved, mainly the oceans. I would be interested to see your evidence of solar high-energy activity...

That still doesn't explain the rise in temperature. Why do you find it so hard to believe the outrageous theory that the CO2 levels are linked to us pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere. And that given that it is a scientific fact that CO2 absorbs more heat temperatures are likely to rise. Your line of thought is bizarre, it's like p!ssing in the bath and blaming the increase of urine on the rising temperature of the water!

Exactly what is claptrap?

Historical changes in the Earths climate over millennia only add weight to the theory of man made warming. Numerous things effect the temperature (the sun, volcanoes etc) and will continue to do so but he recent warming can only be reasonably explained by increased greenhouse gasses due to man. Co2 levels have exceeded 400 parts per million, the highest point for 3 million years. The last time they were this high camels lived in the high Arctic and seas were at least 30 feet higher and that was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were already on their way down. We are entering a complete unknown, positive feedbacks like methane from melting Arctic tundra could mean catastrophic consequences. Ignoring what science is telling us is just plain retarded.

What sort of absolute proof do you think we should wait for then before we act? The polar ice caps could melt completely tomorrow and some sceptics will say it's not due to man. There will always be sceptics, there will never be an unveiling of a big banner by god saying "global warming is true". What are you waiting for?

97% is a pretty large majority, there will always be sceptics. What percentage should we wait for until we call it a consensus then?

Explains why they didn't get a safety certificate for full capacity - exits not wide enough for the 75th minute stampede.

Of course not. But the vast majority of really clever people who do the measurements, make the observations and analyse the subject in great detail agree.

Isn't that how you get a consensus?

Getting a talented manager is ALWAYS cost effective. They could still attract a promising young manager from non league.

Wonder how long it will take the thick c*nts to realise they should have hired a real manager, not just someone with "blue blood".

Bottom of the whole league. Streaming for the exits on their big day. PMSL

I particularly like Dave from Durham's comments that scientists have a vested interest because they are... ...scientists! Sergi's comment above sums up why we stand no chance of acting on climate change. A few weather forecasters get it wrong and people just don't take the science seriously.

If we don't get in at least one top striker we might regret it big time. Last year we relied too much on Lambert, if he gets injured or is not on his game this season I can't see where the goals are coming from. A few injuries up front and we are relegation fodder at the moment.

Hungerford Bottom as in the fox n hounds?