I think it depends on if you get a 'qualified' installer to do the work on wether you get the subsidy.If you do it yourself you save loads of money in labour costs but then you have to get someone round to inspect and certify the work to apply for the subsidy. Different counsils have different annual subsidy budgets....once its been applied for, its gone. Personally am not so bothered about the subsidy cos the insulation material is quite cheap - so by the time you've fcked about you can have it done yourself and for less money. I would strongly recommend getting insulation though,its a pain in the arze to do -but its made an enormous difference in my place.

http://www.lockerbietruth.com/

 

Key elements of the Lockerbie case

 

Terrorists who bombed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on 21st December 1988 murdered two hundred and seventy passengers, crew and folk of the quiet Scottish town of Lockerbie. Among the dead was Flora MacDonald Swire, aged twenty four.

 

 

Two Libyan agents - Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi and Khalifa Fhimah - were targeted by the FBI and CIA as the guilty men. In 2000, in a trial held at Kamp Zeist, Holland, Fhimah was released with "no case to answer".  Al-Megrahi was convicted. Much of the world believed that that was where the story ended.  Only after twenty years campaigning by Jim Swire, Professor Bob Black and others did the sensational truth begin to emerge.

 

 

Three key elements in the conviction of Al-Megrahi were:

 

 

1. The identification of Al-Megrahi.  In an extraordinary development in 2005, Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci was exposed at an unreliable witness by the man who in 1991 indicted Al-Megrahi, former Scottish Lord Advocate Peter Fraser. In Fraser's words, Gauci was "an apple short of a picnic".

 

The judges had trusted Gauci's confused evidence, unaware of the existence of several other contradictory statements kept secret by the police.

 

They were also unaware of the existence of a key witness, David Wright, who in 1989 gave a statement to the police which flatly contradicted many aspects of Gauci's evidence. The police quietly filed his statement and concealed the existence of Wright and his evidence from the trial.

 

The police also concealed from the trial US offers of "unlimited monies" if Al-Megrahi was convicted. It is now proven that Gauci was paid $2 million, and his brother Paul $1 million.

 

2. A fragment of printed circuit board found by British forensic scientist Dr Thomas Hayes. Its label had been altered by an unknown person, and Haye's notebook entry concerning the finding remains to this day highly suspicious. 

 

Hayes was formerly head of the Forensics explosives laboratory at the British Royal Armaments Research and Defence Establishment (RARDE). His evidence was central to the prosecution case.

 

And yet he has an uncomfortable history in relation to another major terrorist event, the bombing of Guildford barracks, for which seven members of the Maguire family - The Maguire Seven - were arrested. In that trial Hayes and two of his working colleagues knew of significant evidence consistent with the innocence of the accused, but concealed it from the Guildford bombing trial.

 

It was only through a Parliamentary judicial inquiry by Sir John May, beginning in September 1989 and concluding in July 1990, that the matter was exposed.  The entire Maguire family were freed on appeal.

 

In February 2012 startling new evidence emerged.  Specially commissioned scientific tests by two independent experts proved that the fragment produced in the trial could not have come from a timer board manufactured by Swiss electronics company Thuring.  Thuring supplied electronic circuit boards for a wide range of industries, including Swiss supplier MEBO.

 

In the Lockerbie case former Scottish Lord advocate Peter Fraser indicated suspicions in the minds of some that "key evidence" might have been planted and commented that "the CIA were very subtle" in relation to the case. He has, however, never made clear to what he was referring. We might fairly ask, to what was he referring? Fraser qualified this with the comment: "But four other Lord Advocates have also examined the evidence and they have all concurred with it." It has now been proved that the evidence included a timer fragment that today has been proved to be false.  The judges were totally unaware of this.

 

3. Key evidence concealed from the court by the police and Scottish Crown officers. Only in 2007 did it emerge (in a four-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) that many important statements and facts were concealed by Scottish police and Crown officers.

 

Material kept secret in the personal notebook of the chief police investigator DCI Harry Bell proved that from the earliest stages of the investigation the two key identification witnesses (CIA double agent Majid Giaka and Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci) were offered "unlimited monies" for their cooperation and giving of evidence. 

 

There was too a Dumfries and Galloway police record of the undisclosed witnesss, Mr David Wright, whose statements flatly contradicted many aspects of Gauci's evidence.  All mention of Wright and his statements were concealed from the trial.

 

To re-establish the reputation of Scottish justice it is imperative that an independent inquiry take place into the undisclosed evidence and its effect upon the course of the trial.

For the past 10 or so times I've flown,I've left my phone on. At about 500ft, the phone says 'limited service'. At about 1500ft it says 'no service available'. Mobile phones don't work from planes and they didn't in 2001 either. The 911 phone-calls are either fake or they were not made from planes. So if the phone-calls were fake - what else was ?

I thought the tax on building work had decreased recently to 6%. I think the tax on building materials has also dropped. I wouldn't count too much on getting a subsidy for solar panels - it goes really quickly. Anyhoos the investment in solar panels and insulation is one of the best things you can do with yur money at the moment - with or without the subsidy.

And will put a bit of value on the your property - or at least make a good selling point(rather than a new kitchen or bathroom)

This post was edited by mrfook at May 21, 2012 10:51:03 AM CEST

http://www.bushstole04.com/911/strange_case.htm The strange case of the 9/11 cell phone calls Last month, Qualcomm Corporation issued a press release stating that they had developed a new technology that would finally make it possible to make cellular phone calls from commercial airliners. Using a technology called "Pico Cells", the system will work as a link between the airliner and ground towers. According to the press release, it is currently impossible to connect by cell phone in a plane that is above 4,000 feet. During the Republican National Convention in New York City last month, Deena Burnett, widow of Flight 93 victim Tom Burnett, spoke of the four telephone calls she received from her husband aboard the doomed airliner on September 11th, all of which were received from his cell phone, one of which lasted 13 minutes. With the FAA statement that Flight 93 never went below 29,000 feet until its' sudden fatal plunge, these two stories seem to be mutually exclusive. Either it is possible to make cell phone calls from a commercial jetliner in flight at cruising altitude - or it isn't. If it is already possible to use a cell phone on a plane, why is Qualcomm so excited about their Pico chip? If it is not possible to do so, there's an even bigger problem. Because there are no survivors of any of the 911 planes, the only "eyewitness" testimony we have is the paraphrased transcripts of phone calls made to family members. This is where we get the descriptions of "Arab looking men" with knives and box cutters, talking about "Allah". It is from these calls we hear the immortal and heroic "Let's roll!". I decided to investigate as thoroughly as possible whether or not the phone calls from Flight 93 and other hijacked aircraft were possible. First I looked into whether the calls could have been made using the "air phone" service aboard the planes. Burnett's wife reported the calls came from her husband's cell phone. Two calls by other passengers were made from locked lavatories, which would have been impossible to make by airphone. Jeremy Glick spoke with his wife for 20 minutes from his cell phone, according to the 911 Commission. These calls occurred while the plane was cruising at over 30,000 feet according to news reports and the 911 Commission. Although there were calls made from airphones by Todd Beamer and other passengers, there were also undoubtedly some calls that are claimed to have originated from cell phones. In some cases witnesses said they recognized the family member's number on their caller ID. So the critical question becomes this: Is it possible to make a cell phone call from cruising altitudes in a jetliner? The answer is disturbing, disquieting, and emphatic. Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, said it was "a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations". NSA-trained Electronic Warfare specialist Steve Moser goes further, expressing that he has "severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft (Flight 93)". Moser explains: "When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is your cell phone needs to contact a transponder and complete a digital handshake. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to contact a tower, tell the tower who you are and who your provider is, tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and establish that it is in a roaming area, before it passes out of range. It takes 30-45 seconds to do that. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible." Independent researcher A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments in February and March of 2003, over Toronto, Ontario. Chartering planes from a local airport, Dewdney's team went aloft with different cell phones licensed by all major providers. The pilots were instructed to fly in a grid that covered the overlapping cellular communication towers of five major carriers in metropolitan Toronto. Team members kept records of calls and results from varying altitudes. At 2000 feet, calls could be made about half the time. At 4,000 feet only an average of one in 4 calls was completed. At 6,000 feet, the average was 1 in 12 calls connected. At 8,000 feet and above there was no connection by any of the phones. Dewdney's report concluded "It may be noted in passing that these experiments were conducted in a radio-transparent aircraft with carbon-fibre construction. Failure to make a call from such an aircraft with any particular brand of cellphone spells automatic failure for the same phone from a metal-clad aircraft flying at the same altitude. A metal skin attenuates all cell phone signals to a significant degree. It may safely be concluded that the operational ceiling for cellular phones in aluminum skin aircraft (passenger liners, for example) would be significantly lower than the ones reported here. It may therefore safely be concluded that cell phone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet, and statistically unlikely below that altitude." Skytel Wireless, a leading corporate cellular service provider, assures its' customers: "If you're out of range, on an airplane, for example, the system stores incoming messages for up to 72 hours, automatically delivering them when you return to full service." Finally, I called a friend who works for Jet Blue in New York City as a flight attendant. I asked her if she had ever used her cell phone aboard a flight. "Sure" she said, "but not in the air". I asked her why not. "Well, first of all, it's against the rules. It interferes with the plane's electronics." So I asked her if she turned her phone off to avoid getting calls during flights. "No, we don't have to do that. The phone loses the signal automatically right after we take off. There's no signal, so it won't ring anyway until we land." Last of all I got in a friend's boat equipped with GPS, and headed out into the Gulf on a clear afternoon. Less than 3 miles out from Galveston, there was no longer any signal on my Verizon Wireless phone, and none on his Nextel. That's half the distance of the flight 93 calls, and we weren't traveling at 500 mph either. Ask any local mariner and they can confirm this. So, scientifically and technologically, the cell phone calls of 9-11 were impossible. There were definitely some calls made from airphones, and probably from the WTC planes, which were low enough to connect with a tower for a few minutes before impact. But some of the calls that were reportedly made that day are simply impossible, especially aboard Flight 93. Of course, all of the people who died on that day were heroes who died in an act of war against the American people, no matter what happened. It requires no myth, no propaganda. What is the truth about the cell phone calls of 9-11? The significance of this mystery is something historians may puzzle over for years to come.