If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Skelton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Peter Skelton" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Peter Skelton" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred? I responded to your claim that no such explosion occurred with an excerpt from the report No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on back and look. No answer? Odd how you yourself managed to snip Keith's bit about (the part you snipped follows): That's long since been discredited. The total loss form the process including the fire was 50 tonnes. You should know this. Cite please - you keep claiming you have some special knowledge of this event beyond that of the various reports in the literature. I suggest you present it. Meanwhile I suggest you read the report published in the journal of Hazardous Materials in 2000 http://hugin.aue.auc.dk/publ/hoiset2000.pdf (Qutes from cited document supporting keith's claim removed for brevity) What, no response? And you are trying to hound *him* for *allegedly* snipping your poppycock from the discourse? LOL! Brooks snip |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|