VBB
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 16:43
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: VBB wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Steve M wrote: bladup wrote: No you've totally misunderstood, there was a collapsing tunnel, they even showed it on the telly, it will then take a few years [now] to see the effects of this collapse on the surface, if part of a tunnel collapes [it did] everything over it will also collapse over time, i say that's happening now, i hope i'm wrong but lets see what EH say over the next few years, i think you'll find they'll soon admit to slippage to do with the collapsing tunnel a few years back, a bit of backfilling just isn't enough to sort it out.
Ah, it was on the telly!
Remember - I don't have one.
LOL...well there you are Steve, look what you're missing out on :-)
How can you come out with that when all you watch is repeats of Allo Allo?
?
OK it might be repeats of Dad's Army or One Man and His Dog (if it's still going).
It's Homeland here, Borgen, Wallander, and Inspector Montelbano. But sometimes we have a change as I get to choose...!,
|
VBB
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 16:47
|
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
"World Record Mound Eating Attempt Gets Underway!"
|
nigelswift
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 16:52
|
|
Court forces trespasser to eat own goolies.
|
Harryshill
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 17:01
|
|
Slip sliding away
|
Evergreen Dazed
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 17:04
|
|
"Kingsmill for King Zil"
|
marmite
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 17:28
|
|
Muffin munching man mounts mound?
|
tiompan
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 17:32
|
|
VBB wrote: Sanctuary wrote: VBB wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Steve M wrote: bladup wrote: No you've totally misunderstood, there was a collapsing tunnel, they even showed it on the telly, it will then take a few years [now] to see the effects of this collapse on the surface, if part of a tunnel collapes [it did] everything over it will also collapse over time, i say that's happening now, i hope i'm wrong but lets see what EH say over the next few years, i think you'll find they'll soon admit to slippage to do with the collapsing tunnel a few years back, a bit of backfilling just isn't enough to sort it out.
Ah, it was on the telly!
Remember - I don't have one.
LOL...well there you are Steve, look what you're missing out on :-)
How can you come out with that when all you watch is repeats of Allo Allo?
?
OK it might be repeats of Dad's Army or One Man and His Dog (if it's still going).
It's Homeland here, Borgen, Wallander, and Inspector Montelbano. But sometimes we have a change as I get to choose...!,
Borgen mmmmm.
|
bladup
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 17:46
|
|
Steve M wrote: EH's website:
"All the known voids inside Silbury Hill, and the crater on the summit, were then re-filled with 1,465 tonnes of chalk. The mound has now been restored to as near its original condition as possible. "
It's the "as possible" bit that should worry everyone.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 18:00
|
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: "Kingsmill for King Zil"
Goddess has bun in oven!
|
VBB
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 18:45
|
|
bladup wrote: Steve M wrote: EH's website:
"All the known voids inside Silbury Hill, and the crater on the summit, were then re-filled with 1,465 tonnes of chalk. The mound has now been restored to as near its original condition as possible. "
It's the "as possible" bit that should worry everyone.
Didn't worry me, and I worried about just about everytghing for 8 years. There were engineering and H&S parameters during the final backfill, to complete the job and get everyone out safely after the big scare was an astonishing piece of work. Hats off!
This was all rounded off with another helicopter drop of chalk and some dressing at the front. What with FOAM tidying up the brush the old thing looked in pretty good nick. Was just glad it was all over, it was not unlike a much loved ancient relative having undergone major surgey. I jest not.
|
