Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Main Page     Gallery    Videos   Blogs   Live Chat    Rules    Help / FAQ    Search     Members    Calendar

X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
Upload your own photographs, artwork and paranormal media to our new Member's Gallery
 Forum guidelines

Please respect the opinions of others. The conspiracy forum covers some sensitive and controversial areas and it is important that participants avoid uncivil behaviour. This means no flaming, no trolling, no flamebaiting and no personal attacks against other members.

Please try to keep an open mind, there is little point in posting in this section if you are unwilling to consider any opposing viewpoints. If you are unable to discuss issues without becoming rude and offensive towards anyone who does not share your opinions or beliefs then the conspiracy forum is not for you.

Members are also asked to avoid copying and pasting huge amounts of text from other web sites to support an argument. One or two quoted paragraphs and a source link are more than sufficient, and always include your own opinion to go along with any quoted material you use.

Full forum rules and guidelines can be found - Here.

19 Pages V  « < 16 17 18 19 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> General of all American Intelligence:, 911 was a fraud. video
merril
post Yesterday, 12:59 AM
Post #256


Extraterrestrial Entity
***

Group: Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 16-February 08
Member No.: 69024



Another thing. These video makers make the old man nervous, they confuse him, and never back off.

They mention evidence to put some pressure on poor Mr. England. They hound him with typical falsehoods- namely a bunch of weak eyewitnesses, who offer stale testimony, long after the fact. Of course, they never tell him of the others who might have a different opinion.

Nor do they tell him As-Sahab has already confessed!

Why don't they let him in on that salient fact?

Typically leftwing propagandists who are trying to scam the public, when the evidence is IN!

al-Qaeda did it. Not some fantasy these guys concoct!

Come on! Time to tell the truth! Not propaganda!

Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
merril
post Yesterday, 02:09 AM
Post #257


Extraterrestrial Entity
***

Group: Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 16-February 08
Member No.: 69024



One final note. If I get their gist, and I remember some PFT video that I once saw, someone is suggesting that U.S. military jets attacked the Pentagon (how STUPID!).

No evidence, in nearly a decade, of anything- not one mote. Nothing, but years and years of al-Qaeda.

Anyone who sways from that, in order to exonerate the guilty, has some serious issues.

Leftwing, pro-islamic issues.

Islamic, al-Qaeda radicals have confessed, so move on.


Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Br Cornelius
post Yesterday, 03:11 AM
Post #258


Astral Projection
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 673
Joined: 13-August 08
From: Eire
Member No.: 76787

Stupid Monkeys.

Life Sucks.
Get over it.




QUOTE
That is just so sick. But, hey. Leftwing attack artists don't care.


And rightwing attackers don't either.
Your obvious political bias undermines you as a person.

Br Cornelius

This post has been edited by Br Cornelius: Yesterday, 03:50 AM


--------------------
I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Scott G
post Yesterday, 07:28 AM
Post #259


Ectoplasmic Residue
*

Group: Member
Posts: 147
Joined: 15-July 09
From: Canada
Member No.: 90858

The guy in the glass



Response to Q24's post 254, Part 1

QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 12:59 AM)

The point of yours that I was responding to was also speculative.


As all security footage around the Pentagon was quickly confiscated, the logical conclusion is that certain authorities specifically did not want the aircraft present to be viewed. To make the jump that authorities ‘did not want us to see a flyover’ is considerable speculation.


Look, from where I, P4T and CIT stand, the official flight path was:
(1) impossible (as P4T has made clear) and
(2) unsupported by all reliable witnesses.


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
QUOTE

This appears to be the case, but do you honestly believe that, assuming that he actually did take pictures of the event, that the only picture he took was that pixelated photo that he gave Lloyd? Can you atleast admit that he might in fact be more than just some guy who happened to be passing by at the time of the event? If we were to speculate that the event was indeed staged, do you honestly believe that the people staging it would have allowed him to take pictures of them doing so?


All I hear is - assuming, might, if, speculate.


Then you have to start paying better attention. Yes, I do use the word assuming; I do so because we don't agree on many issues. What I'm asking you to do is to suspend your disbelief for a second in order to see how things might be if P4T and CIT are right.


QUOTE ( @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
Please put the facts before your imagination.


We don't agree on the facts. Given this, I think that it can be beneficial to speculate a bit, in order to explain certain things. It's not like I've given up trying to persuade you of things that I deem to be facts either.


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
First there is the Lloyd England spin


See, unlike me, you want to impose your personal viewpoint as a fact. I do -not- agree that Lloyd England's account was given 'spin'; I do believe that he may well be a person whose conscience is tormented, but that's not something that CIT ruled out.


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
and now because someone dared to show CIT a “pixelated photo” they must be ‘suspect’ too?


Again, I ask you; do you honestly believe that if this guy who produced that pixellated photo had really been taking pictures of the event that that's all he would have to show for it? I mean, what did he use, his cell phone? Secondly, pictures is a plural term. And finally, if you would simply consider the possibility that it was a staged event, there are only 2 possibilities; 1, Lloyd is lying, and for some reason his neighbour is backing him up in his lie (the less likely possibility in my view) or 2, he was telling the truth, and that guy was -part- of the staging of the event. And once again, who was the man who split the dollar with Lloyd? Was this the man? What did the splitting of that dollar mean?


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
Where does this paranoid fantasy of flyover theorists end?


I would argue that it ends a whole lot closer to reality of the event then where you're at right now. There is an old saying that I think is rather humorous, but I believe there is some truth in it, especially for someone who was as close to the event as Lloyd was:
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you".

This post has been edited by Scott G: Yesterday, 07:45 AM
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
merril
post Yesterday, 07:52 AM
Post #260


Extraterrestrial Entity
***

Group: Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 16-February 08
Member No.: 69024



As-Sahab has CONFESSED!

Move on with your USELESS pseudo-counter-terrorism investigations!

Hacks!
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Scott G
post Yesterday, 08:30 AM
Post #261


Ectoplasmic Residue
*

Group: Member
Posts: 147
Joined: 15-July 09
From: Canada
Member No.: 90858

The guy in the glass



Ok Q, Dmole has now compiled a list to rebutt your own that you brought up in post 239, which he brought up in 2 separate posts:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775245

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775246

You (or others) may not want to go over there. Furthermore, it's a lot of information and people may be put off by that. For this reason, I've decided to respond to your claims of the first 2 witnesses on your list for now.

QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 15 2009, 09:17 PM) *
Scott, to keep this simple I’m just going to list all of the eyewitnesses to the official flight path that CIT have contacted and/or interviewed so we know they are aware of: -

[list]
[*]Madelyn Zakhem – executive secretary at the VDOT Smart Traffic Center said, “It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level.” A flight path up Columbia Pike supports the official South flight path.


Dmole:
ORIGINAL SOURCE?? This shows "impact" how??
Madelyn Zackem (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT) Saw a "silver plane":



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 15 2009, 09:17 PM) *
[*]Edward Paik – in his interview and sketches, describes a flight path coming from South of Columbia Pike, along this road and then over the Navy Annex. When the line in his sketch is extended it falls at best over the Citgo station. Overall, this is closer to the official South approach and Craig Ranke even admitted that Paik does not support North of Citgo.


The members of P4T wrote a fair amount against your view on Paik. I can't yet take you on concerning this, but they already have. I myself will be reading the various posts they made to get a better understanding of why you are wrong concerning Paik. My reading list has been given sharp focus; the following post of mine essentially shows what it will be:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775249

This post has been edited by Scott G: Yesterday, 08:37 AM
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Scott G
post Yesterday, 08:36 AM
Post #262


Ectoplasmic Residue
*

Group: Member
Posts: 147
Joined: 15-July 09
From: Canada
Member No.: 90858

The guy in the glass



Q, I just found out that someone in the CIT forum has now also responded to your post 239. Here is their response:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...p;#entry2305243
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Little Fish
post Yesterday, 02:16 PM
Post #263


Alien Embryo
*

Group: Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 23-July 09
Member No.: 91192



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 02:17 AM) *
Scott, to keep this simple I’m just going to list all of the eyewitnesses to the official flight path that CIT have contacted and/or interviewed so we know they are aware of: -

  • ...
  • Sean Boger – “I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building.”
  • ...

That is ten eyewitnesses who expressly corroborate the official approach and have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path.


and yet you say
QUOTE
he places the aircraft North of the Citgo station


you are claiming Boger is an eyewitness to "the official flight path" who "expressly corroborates the official approach"
and you are also claiming the exact opposite with "he places the aircraft North of the Citgo station".

blink.gif
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Yesterday, 03:02 PM
Post #264


Psychic Spy
********

Group: Member
Posts: 1188
Joined: 12-October 06
Member No.: 43781



QUOTE (Little Fish @ Aug 17 2009, 07:16 PM) *
you are claiming Boger is an eyewitness to "the official flight path" who "expressly corroborates the official approach"
and you are also claiming the exact opposite with "he places the aircraft North of the Citgo station".

Sean Boger in his own words, “watched it [the plane] hit the building”.

I have explained why this fact overrides where exactly he placed the aircraft.


--------------------
Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Yesterday, 03:26 PM
Post #265


Psychic Spy
********

Group: Member
Posts: 1188
Joined: 12-October 06
Member No.: 43781



QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 12:28 PM) *
Look, from where I, P4T and CIT stand, the official flight path was:
(1) impossible (as P4T has made clear) and

False. Near everyone appears to agree that there are some problems with the Flight 77 black box data released by the NTSB and I can’t find a serious rebuttal to this anywhere. This does not logically lead to the conclusion that the official flight path was “impossible”. Instrument error, human error or even faked data could be responsible for the black box data problems.

Although clear discrepancies have been pointed out to them, the NTSB refuses to comment and so we are left without a conclusion. I do believe this area can be viewed with cautious suspicion and I’m all for chasing up the NTSB for clarification. Something is wrong here but it is unknown exactly what.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 12:28 PM) *
(2) unsupported by all reliable witnesses.

False. The official flight path is supported by numerous eyewitnesses who are as reliable as any other.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 12:28 PM) *
We don't agree on the facts.

Sure we agree - facts are facts. My interpretations are just more moderate than your own speculations.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 12:28 PM) *
See, unlike me, you want to impose your personal viewpoint as a fact. I do -not- agree that Lloyd England's account was given 'spin'

I never mean to propose that my pure opinion is fact. If ‘The Eye Of The Storm’ presentation contained nothing but Lloyd England’s interview from start to finish, then this would be factual information. Once the presentation has been edited with cut scenes alleging that Lloyd England is a liar and inferring he is an accomplice to the Pentagon attack, then it becomes spin. This is not my opinion; this presenting style is simply the definition of spin: -

“In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure.”
If you still disagree that CIT’s presentations are spin then you would need to take this up with the English language.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 12:28 PM) *
Again, I ask you; do you honestly believe that if this guy who produced that pixellated photo had really been taking pictures of the event that that's all he would have to show for it? I mean, what did he use, his cell phone? Secondly, pictures is a plural term. And finally, if you would simply consider the possibility that it was a staged event, there are only 2 possibilities; 1, Lloyd is lying, and for some reason his neighbour is backing him up in his lie (the less likely possibility in my view) or 2, he was telling the truth, and that guy was -part- of the staging of the event. And once again, who was the man who split the dollar with Lloyd? Was this the man? What did the splitting of that dollar mean?

Yes I believe the picture you are referring to was possibly the only one Mike had available. Yes I believe it would be possible that he used a cell phone to take the picture if you like. As requested, I shall now suspend all logic and consider that the light pole damage was staged and… it still does not follow that Lloyd England as a genuine accomplice would lead anyone to a member of the ‘light pole staging’ team. I do not know who the man was that “split the dollar” with Lloyd England, therefore I’m sure you will speculate he is some masonic baddy who was also involved in the Pentagon attack.

You are reading too much into minor details.

Look at the way Lloyd England was posing for a picture opportunity with the taxi cab sign when he went to revisit the vehicle. This obviously means he was proud of his involvement in the 9/11 plot and no doubt was indicating to the world “Look, I duped you all and flaunt it like this yet there’s not a damn thing anybody can do about it”.

You would agree, I hope, that the above is silly but this is exactly what you are doing with other details.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 01:30 PM) *
Ok Q, Dmole has now compiled a list to rebutt your own that you brought up in post 239, which he brought up in 2 separate posts:

I don’t want a link to a pile of other links. Please could you quote for each eyewitness to the official approach and impact that I supplied in my post #239 and then provide in your own words an explanation below every individual as to why you perceive them to be unreliable. By all means start with dMole’s links but you will only accept the truth by examining and discussing the eyewitness evidence yourself.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 01:30 PM) *
I myself will be reading the various posts they made to get a better understanding of why you are wrong concerning Paik.

It seems you have made up your mind that I am wrong before even reading those various posts – if this is the case then why bother. If you are going to go over this information then do it objectively. I discussed Edward Paik’s account both at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and with Craig Ranke on the CIT forum who stated, “However for the sake of discussion I will concede that Paik's account alone does not PROVE the plane was north of the citgo.” There you have it from the ‘eyewitness expert’. Edward Paik’s account does not prove a North of Citgo flight path and I have demonstrated how his account is inextricably closer to that of the official approach.


QUOTE (Scott G)
He bets, then he knows.. all, within the timespan that it takes to make a sentence. No need for evidence; a hunch and he's off.

You said this of me regarding a comment in my post #218 and I thought I should clarify it. The “bet” was originally the way I was going to play this to draw ‘flyover/no impact’ theorists into making a commitment about how many official flight path and impact eyewitnesses they are aware of and are writing off. Literally in the middle of that sentence I got bored of playing the game and decided to be forthright in that I know there are more eyewitnesses to the official event than there are for the North of Citgo claim. There was no hunch involved – you are making the mistake of assuming I haven’t already been over the evidence.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 01:36 PM) *
Q, I just found out that someone in the CIT forum has now also responded to your post 239. Here is their response:

I can’t access the CIT forum even to view since I was banned. I’m not sure why you would trust someone who banned me rather than dared to debate this sort of thing. Anyway, as I said above, please could you quote for each eyewitness to the official approach and impact that I supplied in my post #239 and then provide in your own words an explanation below every individual as to why you perceive them to be unreliable. You could combine dMole’s information with whatever CIT have provided.


--------------------
Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Little Fish
post Yesterday, 04:38 PM
Post #266


Alien Embryo
*

Group: Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 23-July 09
Member No.: 91192



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 17 2009, 08:02 PM) *
Sean Boger in his own words, “watched it [the plane] hit the building”.
I don't see how "watched it hit the building" equates to being an "eyewitness to the official flight path".

in your post 239 you said this:

Boger was an "eyewitness to the official flight path" who "expressly corroborate the official approach" and "have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path"

this is clearly NOT true.
Boger informed CIT that the aircraft was on the North of Citgo flight path.
he is NOT an "eyewitness to the official flight path".

Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Yesterday, 05:51 PM
Post #267


Psychic Spy
********

Group: Member
Posts: 1188
Joined: 12-October 06
Member No.: 43781



QUOTE (Little Fish @ Aug 17 2009, 09:38 PM) *
I don't see how "watched it hit the building" equates to being an "eyewitness to the official flight path".

If the aircraft hit the Pentagon then this not only confirms the impact event but also the official flight path. The reason for an impact supporting the flight path is that the physical damage, ie light poles, generator and building damage, can only line up with the official approach.


QUOTE (Little Fish @ Aug 17 2009, 09:38 PM) *
in your post 239 you said this:

Boger was an "eyewitness to the official flight path" who "expressly corroborate the official approach" and "have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path"

this is clearly NOT true.

When I wrote, “eyewitnesses who expressly corroborate the official approach and have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path”, I was trying to capture all ten eyewitnesses that I had supplied under one comment. I admit it is not so simple as I put it due to the eyewitnesses confirming the official event in various ways.

The fact remains that Sean Boger claims to have witnessed the impact and this overrules where many years later his memory may have incorrectly placed the approaching aircraft.


--------------------
Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
merril
post Yesterday, 11:34 PM
Post #268


Extraterrestrial Entity
***

Group: Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 16-February 08
Member No.: 69024



QUOTE (Little Fish @ Aug 17 2009, 08:38 PM) *
I don't see how "watched it hit the building" equates to being an "eyewitness to the official flight path".

in your post 239 you said this:

Boger was an "eyewitness to the official flight path" who "expressly corroborate the official approach" and "have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path"

this is clearly NOT true.
Boger informed CIT that the aircraft was on the North of Citgo flight path.
he is NOT an "eyewitness to the official flight path".


None of this adds up to squat. You dance around like someone of concern, but that is belied by the fact you ignore reality.

You can never bring those people back.

They are gone.

Stop pretending you are contributing anything, to any purpose regarding anti-terrorism.

That's where the real men go.

Not pretenders and fakes.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Scott G
post Yesterday, 11:51 PM
Post #269


Ectoplasmic Residue
*

Group: Member
Posts: 147
Joined: 15-July 09
From: Canada
Member No.: 90858

The guy in the glass



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 17 2009, 05:51 PM) *
QUOTE (Little Fish)
I don't see how "watched it hit the building" equates to being an "eyewitness to the official flight path".


If the aircraft hit the Pentagon then this not only confirms the impact event but also the official flight path.


All the solid evidence points towards the North of Citgo flight path. Since the plane could not have caused the damage that was done to the pentagon if it were on a north of the citgo gas station approach, the logical conclusion is that it did not, in fact, hit the pentagon. CIT and P4T have explained in great detail how they could have been fooled into thinking it hit the pentagon; the timing of the explosion had to have been very close to the flyover.


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 17 2009, 05:51 PM) *
The reason for an impact supporting the flight path is that the physical damage, ie light poles, generator and building damage, can only line up with the official approach.


We all agree with that part. Since all the reliable witnesses put it on a north of the citgo gas station approach, however, the conclusion should be clear; the plane did not, in fact, hit the pentagon.


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 17 2009, 05:51 PM) *
QUOTE (Little Fish @ Aug 17 2009, 09:38 PM)

in your post 239 you said this:
Boger was an "eyewitness to the official flight path" who "expressly corroborate the official approach" and "have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path"


this is clearly NOT true.


When I wrote, “eyewitnesses who expressly corroborate the official approach and have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path”, I was trying to capture all ten eyewitnesses that I had supplied under one comment. I admit it is not so simple as I put it due to the eyewitnesses confirming the official event in various ways.


Q, your language is plain misleading. Further down, you essentially admit that Sean Boger does not, in fact, support a North of the Citgo gas station approach. That is not, as you claim, "confirming the official event in various ways", it's flat out contradicting it. You seem to be resting on the fact that he has said that the plane crashed into the building. What you don't seem to understand is it's much easier for him to mistake the plane crashing into the building then it is for him to mistake the plane's approach path. The logical conclusion is that he was mistaken about the plane crashing into the building but -not- mistaken concerning its approach path, not the other way around.
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
+Quote Post
Scott G
post Today, 12:02 AM
Post #270


Ectoplasmic Residue
*

Group: Member
Posts: 147
Joined: 15-July 09
From: Canada
Member No.: 90858

The guy in the glass



Response to Q24's post 254, Part 2

QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 12:59 AM)

Lloyd seems to imply that he didn't want to be involved in the event, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't know more than he's said.


You are confused – it’s innocent until proven guilty.


I'm not confused; we're not a court of law and I don't have to prove anyone guilty of anything. We're voicing our believes concerning what's the more plausible possibility.


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
You must show where you believe Lloyd England allegedly knows more than he said. The fact is there is no evidence of this – just speculative and unreasonable interpretation from a conspiracist mindset.


Clearly we disagree on whether my theory here is reasonable or not. Furthermore, even official story believers are conspiracists. Conspiracies simply involve a group of people conspiring together to do something, generally of a harmful nature. While the official story concerning 9/11 is quite unbelievable if one knows enough, it's still a group of people who conspired to do something. So even if you believe the official story entirely, one could certainly still label you a conspiracist. From what I understand, you actually generally believe the mainstream alternative theories, atleast concerning the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM) *
QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 01:18 AM)

True enough. However, if he was aware of the nature of powerful conspiracies, he may also have been aware of what can frequently happen to those who reveal the truth behind a coverup.


You and me both are aware what may happen to those who reveal the truth of a cover-up. Does this mean we are more likely to be involved in some present or future cover-up? No, of course it does not and this is also the case for Lloyd England.


True enough. However, if one was aware of what might happen if one revealed the truth, perhaps one might decide to go along with the official story for fear of rocking the boat, as it were?
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
 
Edit Post+Quote Post

19 Pages V  « < 16 17 18 19 >
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 1 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: Scott G

 



Rating  
Lo-Fi Version 0.1633 sec    --    13 queries    GZIP Enabled
Time is now: 18th August 2009 - 12:52 AM