More on the Core

carcdr · Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:45 pm

Looking at the blueprints,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... rames.html

Fact: these blueprints are only for the North Tower WTC1.

#1 observation: North is incorrectly annotated on the blueprints. The arrow is drawn to show the north face of the building pointing directly north. As shown in this analysis

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php? ... p=15328057

the north face of the North Tower was facing 29.5 degrees to the east.

No draftsman would make an error of this magnitude.

#2 observation: the blueprints are optically inverted ("negative") versions of original drawings. Blueprints from those days had a blue background and chalky-white foreground. The "blueprints" shown at this site have a white background with a black foreground - exactly the opposite of what would be expected for blueprints. These are more properly called drawings, not blueprints.

#3 observation: look at the "REVISIONS" tables in the bottom right corners of the drawings, to the left of the seal (bottom right area of the blueprint). On "1stFloorPlan", the tables look OK and hand-labelled, although two or three entries are empty.

Now, look at "1stFloorCorePlan". Look at the REVISIONS table, the entry 2-1-71 (as best as I can tell). Each revision consists of four columns - the first column is a hand-drawn triangular icon, the other three columns contain hand-lettered text - date, some sort of reference number, initials.

In the left-most column, there are four entries. In the third entry down, the initials (fourth column) look clearly out of character. The lettering in columns 2 and 3 is in keeping with the lettering throughout the REVISIONS table, but the initials in the third entry down look distinctly out of place.

Here is what a normal set of initials looks like:

Here is a set of very odd-looking initials (I call them the U.N. initials):

Furthermore, someone with the initials OBL made revisions to the blueprints

The UN intials are overly-mechanical looking, to my eye. In 1971, the personal computer had not yet been invented (the IMSAI Altair 8800 came out around 1975, and the IBM PC was released around 1981).

It could have been possible to reproduce the UN initials using a set square, but such a waste of time would probably have been frowned upon by management.

Below is a list of drawings which were initialed by UN and OBL, along with dates, as best as I could make out.

Initialed by UN:

1stFloorCorePlan - 2-1-71
2ndFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
6thFloorPlan - 8-1-71
6thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
9thAnd10thFloorCorePlan - 8-16-71
11thTo16thFlCorePlan - 2-1-71
24thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
26thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
41stFloorCorePlan_LowerMechEquipRmLevel - 8-1-71
44thFloorPlan_SkyLobby - 2-1-71
44thFloorCorePlan_SkyLobby - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
50thTo54thFlCorePlan - 8-1-71
60thFloorCorePlan - 4-1-71
61stFloorCorePlan - 2-1-71
63rdFloorCorePlan - 2-1-71
66thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
67FloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
72ndFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
StairSectionsStair2_3 - 8-1-71
77thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
78thFloorPlan_Skylobby - 8-1-71
78thFloorCorePlan_Skylobby - 8-1-71
83rdFloorPlan - <blank>
83rdFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, <blank>
89thTo93rdFlCorePlan - 8-1-71
94thFloorCorePlane - 8-1-71
95thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
96thTo100thFloorPlan - 8-1-71
96thTo100thFlCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
101stAnd102ndFloorPlan - 8-1-71
101stFloreCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
102ndFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
103rdFloorPlan - 8-1-71
103rdFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
104thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
104thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
105thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
105thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
106thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
106thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
107thFloorPlan_RestaurantLevel - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
107thFloorCorePlan_RestaurantLevel - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
108thFloorPlan_LowerMechEquipLevel - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
108thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
109thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
109thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
110thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
110thFloorUpperLevelPlan - 8-1-71
110thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
BulkheadRoof_CopingPlan - 8-1-71
TowerSectionSectionA - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
TowerSectionSectionB - 8-1-71
TowerSectionSectionC - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
TowerSectionSectionD - 8-1-71
82ndFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
ScheduleOfDrawings - 1-4-71
FinishSCheduleZone5_7 - 1-4-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
FinishScheduleZone1_2_3 - 8-1-71
DoorBuckDetailsAndDoorSchedules - VOID
SubLevel1FloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
SubLevel1CorePlan - 8-1-71
ServiceLevelFloorPlan - 1-4-71
ServiceLevelCorePlan - 1-4-71

Initialed by OBL:

9thTo16thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
11thTo16thFlCorePlan - 6-18-71
24thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
24thFloorCorePlan - 18-1-71
27thTo31stFloorPlan - 8-18-71
27thTo31stFlCorePlan - 6-18-71
35thTo40thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
35thTo39thFlCorePlan - 6-18-71
41stFloorPlan_LowerMechEquipRmLevel - 6-18-71
41stFloorCorePlan_LowerMechEquipRmLevel - 6-18-71
42ndFloorPlan_UpperMechEquipRmLevel - 6-18-71
42ndCloorCorePlan_UpMechEquipRmLevel - 6-18-71
EscalatorSectionsEscalatorsA3A4A5A6 - 6-18-71
43FloorPlan_LowerEscalatorLevel - 6-18-71
44thFloorPlan_SkyLobby - 6-18-71, 6-18-71, <blank>
44thFloorCorePlan_SkyLobby - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
45thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
45thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
46thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
46thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
47thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
47thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
48thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
48thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
49thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
49thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
50thTo54thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
50thTo54thFlCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71(?)
55thAnd56thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
55thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
56thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
57thAnd58thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
57thAnd58thFlCorePlan - 6-18-71
59thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
59thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
60thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
60thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
61stFloorPlan - 6-18-71
61stFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
62nd63rdFloorPlan - 6-18-71
62ndFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
63rdFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
64thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
64thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
65thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
65thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
66thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
66thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
67thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
67FloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
68thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
68thFloorCorePlan 6-18-71
69thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
69thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
70thAnd71stFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
70thand71stFlCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
72ndAnd74rdFloorPlan - 6-18-71
72ndFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
73rdFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
74thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71, 6-18-71
74thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71, 6-18-71?
110thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
FinishScheduleZone5_7 - 6-18-71
FinishScheduleZone1_2_3 - 6-18-71
DoorBuckDetailsAndDoorSchedules - 6-18-71

carcdr · Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:50 pm

Stop this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsns9P_GGdc at 1:03-1:06.

WTC2

WTC1

stannrodd · Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:29 am

The UN intials are overly-mechanical looking, to my eye. In 1971, the personal computer had not yet been invented (the IMSAI Altair 8800 came out around 1975, and the IBM PC was released around 1981).

It could have been possible to reproduce the UN initials using a set square, but such a waste of time would probably have been frowned upon by management.

Lets be clear here ..

I was in an industry where the time frame and draughting technologies were changing.

We used a thing called "Letraset" which allowed us to "type" initials.

We laid down a transparent page which had fonts etc on it, .. rubbed over it with a pencil ... and the perfect letter was applied to the paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letraset

NO BIG DEAL

Stann

Gamolon · Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:47 pm

carcdr wrote:Looking at the blueprints,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... rames.html

Fact: these blueprints are only for the North Tower WTC1.

#1 observation: North is incorrectly annotated on the blueprints. The arrow is drawn to show the north face of the building pointing directly north. As shown in this analysis

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php? ... p=15328057

the north face of the North Tower was facing 29.5 degrees to the east.

No draftsman would make an error of this magnitude.

You are arguing the difference between True North and Plan North. True North is used on site plans that shows the real north direction. Plan north is used for floor plans and such. The reason being is that as far as drafting standards are concerned, the north arrow on the drawings should always be pointing up on the blueprints. This is a common practice and not an "error of great magnitude" as you claim. It makes the blueprint easier to read so the draftsperson does not have to "skew" the the actual building to the correct facing. Plans are drawn so that the person reading the prints looks at them with the bottom of the print being down (the text reading left to right) or from the right of the plan (with the text reading from bottom to top). You obviously have never done any drafting and to say something like this without researching it first is silly.

In all my years of drafting, I NEVER skewed a plan to show true north. I very rarely showed true north for the north arrow either. North arrow pointed straight up, floor plan horizontal and vertical. Typical drafting standard.

carcdr wrote:#2 observation: the blueprints are optically inverted ("negative") versions of original drawings. Blueprints from those days had a blue background and chalky-white foreground. The "blueprints" shown at this site have a white background with a black foreground - exactly the opposite of what would be expected for blueprints. These are more properly called drawings, not blueprints.

You are absolutely out of your league here and speaking as someone who has never created a drawing and then blueprints. For example. I have created drawings using mylar and ink. The mylar is white and the ink is black. Blueprints generated from these come out with the background being white and the lines and text being blue lines, not "negavtives" as you claim. I have even worked with drawings from WAY before the WTC prints and they would draw on stuff that was almost like cloth with pencils. I've worked with sepia prints (brown lines instead of blue). So you are completely wrong when you say the prints should be negatives. Do you even know how blueprints where made? Yes there are some prints that look as you claim, but 99% of architectural, structural, electrical, and mechanical prints are white backgrounds with blue lines.

http://www.theaterxtremeseattle.com/blu ... _level.jpg

I've worked in many steel mills, breweries, textile plants, new buildings, etc. and have NEVER seen the blue background and white lines as you explain.

carcdr wrote:#3 observation: look at the "REVISIONS" tables in the bottom right corners of the drawings, to the left of the seal (bottom right area of the blueprint). On "1stFloorPlan", the tables look OK and hand-labelled, although two or three entries are empty.

Now, look at "1stFloorCorePlan". Look at the REVISIONS table, the entry 2-1-71 (as best as I can tell). Each revision consists of four columns - the first column is a hand-drawn triangular icon, the other three columns contain hand-lettered text - date, some sort of reference number, initials.

In the left-most column, there are four entries. In the third entry down, the initials (fourth column) look clearly out of character. The lettering in columns 2 and 3 is in keeping with the lettering throughout the REVISIONS table, but the initials in the third entry down look distinctly out of place.

Here is what a normal set of initials looks like:

Here is a set of very odd-looking initials (I call them the U.N. initials):

Furthermore, someone with the initials OBL made revisions to the blueprints

The UN intials are overly-mechanical looking, to my eye. In 1971, the personal computer had not yet been invented (the IMSAI Altair 8800 came out around 1975, and the IBM PC was released around 1981).

It could have been possible to reproduce the UN initials using a set square, but such a waste of time would probably have been frowned upon by management.

Below is a list of drawings which were initialed by UN and OBL, along with dates, as best as I could make out.

Initialed by UN:

1stFloorCorePlan - 2-1-71
2ndFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
6thFloorPlan - 8-1-71
6thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
9thAnd10thFloorCorePlan - 8-16-71
11thTo16thFlCorePlan - 2-1-71
24thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
26thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
41stFloorCorePlan_LowerMechEquipRmLevel - 8-1-71
44thFloorPlan_SkyLobby - 2-1-71
44thFloorCorePlan_SkyLobby - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
50thTo54thFlCorePlan - 8-1-71
60thFloorCorePlan - 4-1-71
61stFloorCorePlan - 2-1-71
63rdFloorCorePlan - 2-1-71
66thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
67FloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
72ndFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
StairSectionsStair2_3 - 8-1-71
77thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
78thFloorPlan_Skylobby - 8-1-71
78thFloorCorePlan_Skylobby - 8-1-71
83rdFloorPlan - <blank>
83rdFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, <blank>
89thTo93rdFlCorePlan - 8-1-71
94thFloorCorePlane - 8-1-71
95thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
96thTo100thFloorPlan - 8-1-71
96thTo100thFlCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
101stAnd102ndFloorPlan - 8-1-71
101stFloreCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
102ndFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
103rdFloorPlan - 8-1-71
103rdFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
104thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
104thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
105thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
105thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
106thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
106thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
107thFloorPlan_RestaurantLevel - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
107thFloorCorePlan_RestaurantLevel - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
108thFloorPlan_LowerMechEquipLevel - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
108thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
109thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
109thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
110thFloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
110thFloorUpperLevelPlan - 8-1-71
110thFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
BulkheadRoof_CopingPlan - 8-1-71
TowerSectionSectionA - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
TowerSectionSectionB - 8-1-71
TowerSectionSectionC - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
TowerSectionSectionD - 8-1-71
82ndFloorCorePlan - 8-1-71
ScheduleOfDrawings - 1-4-71
FinishSCheduleZone5_7 - 1-4-71, 8-1-71, 8-1-71
FinishScheduleZone1_2_3 - 8-1-71
DoorBuckDetailsAndDoorSchedules - VOID
SubLevel1FloorPlan - 8-1-71, 8-1-71
SubLevel1CorePlan - 8-1-71
ServiceLevelFloorPlan - 1-4-71
ServiceLevelCorePlan - 1-4-71

Initialed by OBL:

9thTo16thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
11thTo16thFlCorePlan - 6-18-71
24thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
24thFloorCorePlan - 18-1-71
27thTo31stFloorPlan - 8-18-71
27thTo31stFlCorePlan - 6-18-71
35thTo40thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
35thTo39thFlCorePlan - 6-18-71
41stFloorPlan_LowerMechEquipRmLevel - 6-18-71
41stFloorCorePlan_LowerMechEquipRmLevel - 6-18-71
42ndFloorPlan_UpperMechEquipRmLevel - 6-18-71
42ndCloorCorePlan_UpMechEquipRmLevel - 6-18-71
EscalatorSectionsEscalatorsA3A4A5A6 - 6-18-71
43FloorPlan_LowerEscalatorLevel - 6-18-71
44thFloorPlan_SkyLobby - 6-18-71, 6-18-71, <blank>
44thFloorCorePlan_SkyLobby - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
45thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
45thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
46thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
46thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
47thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
47thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
48thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
48thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
49thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
49thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
50thTo54thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
50thTo54thFlCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71(?)
55thAnd56thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
55thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
56thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
57thAnd58thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
57thAnd58thFlCorePlan - 6-18-71
59thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
59thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
60thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
60thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
61stFloorPlan - 6-18-71
61stFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
62nd63rdFloorPlan - 6-18-71
62ndFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
63rdFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
64thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
64thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
65thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
65thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
66thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
66thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
67thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
67FloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
68thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
68thFloorCorePlan 6-18-71
69thFloorPlan - 6-18-71
69thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
70thAnd71stFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
70thand71stFlCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71
72ndAnd74rdFloorPlan - 6-18-71
72ndFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
73rdFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
74thFloorPlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71, 6-18-71
74thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71, 6-18-71, 6-18-71?
110thFloorCorePlan - 6-18-71
FinishScheduleZone5_7 - 6-18-71
FinishScheduleZone1_2_3 - 6-18-71
DoorBuckDetailsAndDoorSchedules - 6-18-71

Wow. I knew guys that considered their drawings as artwork. Some of them used straightedges (the side of a piece of paper, ruler, etc) to make their initials. Some also used stencils. Do you know what stencils are? Here's one example.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... n%26sa%3DG

I suggest looking up "lettering stencil" on Google and click the "images" link. You'll be surprised.

As far as it being "frowned upon", you are dead wrong. It took them maybe 30 seconds to do their initials. I knew guys that were so good, you couldn;t tell if they had used a straightedge or not.

carcdr · Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:19 pm

Fintan,

Time to live up to your promise to keep this thread "clean".

Evidence only.

Start deleting.

Clearly my post conflicts with Stannrodd's and Gamalon's responses.

Delete my post or delete theirs, or delete all of them.

In my defense, my post deals only with indirect evidence of wrongdoing - evidence of cover-up which implies evidence of wrong-doing, hence, the need for cover-up.

Clearly, the idea of using Letraset for initialing drawings is complete bullshit. Why you allow this entity to participate on your forums, is beyond me.

Calling something a "blueprint" when it consists of black ink on mylar is also bullshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint . I simply corrected the error in nomenclature.

Gamolon · Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:16 am

carcdr wrote:Fintan,

Time to live up to your promise to keep this thread "clean".

Evidence only.

Start deleting.

Clearly my post conflicts with Stannrodd's and Gamalon's responses.

Delete my post or delete theirs, or delete all of them.

In my defense, my post deals only with indirect evidence of wrongdoing - evidence of cover-up which implies evidence of wrong-doing, hence, the need for cover-up.

Clearly, the idea of using Letraset for initialing drawings is complete bullshit. Why you allow this entity to participate on your forums, is beyond me.

Calling something a "blueprint" when it consists of black ink on mylar is also bullshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint . I simply corrected the error in nomenclature.

Fintan.

I am posting here to refute carcdr's claims as presented by his evidence. It is obvious the carcdr has never worked in an engineering firm, gone to mechanical drafting school, or worked in the field supervising construction.

I have.

To sit here and post something from wikipedia as the end all be all of a definition is proof positive that all carcdr wants to do is push his view as being the correct view and ignore all other evidence that would lead to another conclusion.

Here is a definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blueprint:
A mechanical drawing produced by any of various similar photographic processes, such as one that creates blue or black lines on a white background.

As you can see, the term blueprint is universal in the engineering and construction fields when speaking about a drawing that was reproduced from an original.

Here is another site discussing blueprints http://science.howstuffworks.com/question321.htm which states the following:
The term "blueprint" is usually used to describe two printing methods, the blueprint and the diazotype.

So either carcdr is deliberately not posting additional information that refutes his claim so as to seem like he is correct, or he doesn't research thoroughly enough. I found this information within a matter of seconds.

Furthermore, carcdr's claim of the North arrow being wrong and that the draftsman made a big mistake is just plain silly and shows that carcdr does not know what he is talking about. The arrow designates "plan north" and not true north. It's a common practice and a drafting standard used to keep drawings easy to read.

As far as why Fintan let's us post here in these forums, it's because people like you need to be corrected and shown all the OTHER evidence as I did above above. Otherewise, people would have a skewed version.

1. Your definition of "blueprint" as you saw it is wrong and not only bound to blue backgrounds and white lines.

2. Your claim about the north arrow and it being a major mistake is also false.

3. Your claim that the initials are "too mechanical" compared to the other initials meaning "something is up" is also false.

stannrodd · Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:06 am

carcdr wrote:Clearly, the idea of using Letraset for initialing drawings is complete bullshit. Why you allow this entity to participate on your forums, is beyond me.

It is not complete bullshit .. I used the damn stuff myself. It was easier than stencils with a draughting pen.

It is you who is bullshit. The most common method used was stencil, but when Letraset arrived it became the standard in the office I worked in.

Reason .. it came in black and it came in white. It could be used in and ON any media. Font types were numerous as were font sizes.

These are facts .. your conjecture about the quality of signature initials is bullshit speculation .. based on your desire to show that something is wrong with the WTC drawings.

Get a grip man .... and do some research before laying your steaming wheelbarrow of manure in the path of the unsuspecting truther.

Stann

rustyh · Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:34 am

Fintan.
Sort this out before we end up with another 441 pages of people 'pissing off' people.

stannrodd · Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:02 am

rustyh wrote:
Fintan.
Sort this out before we end up with another 441 pages of people 'pissing off' people.

Hey rustyh ..

What did you contribute to the truth contained in those 441 pages ??

We have a verdict thread here which is dealing in FACTS !!

You can post here ... and piss people off too !!

Try doing it with TRUTH !!

Show your facts pal !! Quit the moaning ..

Nonsense being accepted as evidence .. without decent challenge. You are joking

Stann ??