dark light

Bruggen 130

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 2,114 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #265463
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    He, because a gentleman always opens a door for a lady.:D

    in reply to: General Discussion #265479
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    Don’t talk stupid, he’s not got pockets you know:D

    in reply to: General Discussion #265222
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    There was one report that said it had been seen crawling back into the water across the road on the east-side of the Loch.

    Fish, yes. Something that wasn’t a fish and was larger than a fish…no.
    The canal would be difficult to transverse without being seen due to the seven locks between the loch and the sea, and the creature would need to be very patient and determined, knowing what it needed to do and when to makes its move.
    The river would also be difficult; it is shallow along most of its length, knee deep in the low season at its deepest, and there are also two weirs to navigate. Salmon can get through since the fish channels were designed for their transit, but a larger ‘monster’ whose head might be the size of a salmon (I mean, who knows?) would have great difficulty.

    But its dead – there hasn’t been a reported sighting of Nessie for 18 months… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26081992

    But little fish have of habit growing in to very large fish, beluga sturgeon at 15ft long would get your attention don’t you think.

    in reply to: General Discussion #264815
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    Granted, but it is not going to make a habit of annually negotiating the locks/fish runs/weirs, is it..;o)

    I just said that something could get in to Loch Ness by the Caledonian/Canal, I didn’t say it went on vacation every bleeding year.:D

    in reply to: General Discussion #264212
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    Porsche

    Why not just buy a real one off Ebay, for less than $18,000?

    in reply to: General Discussion #263943
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    Jeez, another kraut with no knickers on.

    in reply to: General Discussion #263453
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    Looks like a Whale Shark made it through the locks.

    …with a little help from Photoshop or something.[/QUOTE]

    Must have had a key after all then.:D

    in reply to: General Discussion #247166
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    Interesting to speculate what the chap in the big Dodge (image #2) is trying to indicate.

    The size of his manhood perhaps?

    Moggy

    The p”llocks taking a picture πŸ™‚

    in reply to: My Image For This Year 2017 #448927
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    Nice set of pics Anna πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

    in reply to: RIAT FAIRFORD 2017 EXPERIENCE #781582
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    By David Cenciotti
    The incident happened on arrival day at RIAT Cottesmore in 2001.
    Some photographers and aircraft spotters were next to the perimeter fence on the northeastern side of the airport next to the runway 23 threshold. This spot provided a unique point-of-view as arriving and departing aircraft were pretty close.
    A B-1B Lancer 86-0104, 34th Bomb Squadron, was preparing for his rehearsal: it taxied to the holding point of runway 23, entered the runway and lined-up, while many photographers thought that the Bone’s departure would provide the perfect opportunity to get an impressive shot.
    However, as the pilot pushed the throttles to the stop, to full afterburner, exhaust gases reached the spotters assembled just a few meters behind the American bomber.
    Heat haze hit the photographers, some of those barely manage to escape the jet blast: some were burnt, others slightly injured cuts and bruises, others simply shocked.
    Fortunately, nobody was seriously hurt.
    Click on the image below to watch the video.

    in reply to: Mildenhall Line up 2000 #784738
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    It shouldn’t take long to figure out.

    https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4327/36270620136_00aacf454d_b.jpg20476096_10214128877756146_2846522881946137738_n by philip elcock, on Flickr

    in reply to: General Discussion #229857
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    I used to fit Sprinkler systems and a 300 head system in a large store used to be about Β£120,000, so Β£200,000 might not be few off.

    in reply to: General Discussion #230735
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    Sorry, I don’t believe that figure, nor do I believe the Β£200,000 figure I’ve heard to fit a sprinkler system to Grenfell Tower; I think these figures are just being plucked out of the air (or at least out of context) to fuel the general level of media, political and public (in that order) ‘outrage’!

    So what do you think the figure would be to fit a sprinkler system in that building? CD

    in reply to: General Discussion #242801
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    You asked why they didn’t use it, I’ve told you.

    in reply to: General Discussion #242812
    Bruggen 130
    Participant

    I wad hoping for a realistic answer rather than another question.

    1925

    For centuries there have been taboos against such weapons, but the use of poisonous gas in World War I led to the first international agreement – the 1925 Geneva Protocol – banning asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and bacteriological methods of warfare.8 Apr 2013

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 2,114 total)