| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| How to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy!; 1st draft, please point out errors. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 2 2008, 08:44 AM (2,440 Views) | |
| mike_abcd | Nov 17 2008, 05:28 PM Post #26 |
|
Stundie- You could also include about -Indira Singh -Robert Wright -Sibel Edmonds To me they are pretty strong evidence. |
 |
 
|
| Headspin | Nov 18 2008, 06:28 AM Post #27 |
|
a complex issue, explained clearly here, 1 hour podcast: mp3 download: http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode045_ptech_and_the_911_software.mp3 http://www.corbettreport.com/index.php?ii=88&i=Documentation |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Nov 18 2008, 09:04 AM Post #28 |
|
You should check out this thread Jack D http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/708878/1/ MM |
|
|
|
| hiphopopotamus | Nov 18 2008, 01:37 PM Post #29 |
|
I haven't seen any evidence (or proofs as Citizen Pawn put oh so well) so far of a conspiracy. All I see is a bunch of inferences made from conflicting stories that assume a massive conspiracy. You know what makes a whole lot more sense than assuming conspiracy from the discrepancies in Cheney's arrival time? People were paying more attention to screens showing planes hitting buildings and planes about to hit buildings than the amount of attention they were paying to a clock. Maybe people were too afraid of seeming like they were not doing their job in a crisis, so they're sticking to an obvious flawed story to make themselves not look like a gawker. That seems a bit more plausible (at least in my mind) than deriving a conspiracy. I'm sure you're aware of Occam's razor (all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best), its one of the most popular philosophical ideas in popular culture. It seems to me you're making huge jumps in reasoning, bypassing the simplest solutions to find the one's that fit your ideology the best. Now, I might have missed something, but I see no smoking gun that allows for these jumps in reasoning. Edited by hiphopopotamus, Nov 18 2008, 02:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | Nov 18 2008, 09:33 PM Post #30 |
Patriotic American
|
Yeah, well the simplist solution is a government INSIDE JOB. Then you do not need aircraft defying the laws of physics nor superman Arab hijackers without any commercial aircraft training or experience nor buildings magically defying gravity and throwing huge pieces of themselves up away from the earth and falling at near free fall speeds. Then you do not need to explain so-called hijackers flying unhindered over nuclear power plants and US Air Force bases nor alleged hijackers defeating a multi trillion dollar defense system nor our alleged leaders desperately preventing any and all investigations into 9-11. Then you do not need to explain why millions of Americans believe 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB Attack on America nor why millions of other people across the world believe the same thing. |
|
|
|
| hiphopopotamus | Nov 19 2008, 02:45 AM Post #31 |
|
One of my better friends is an ex-Navy f-18 pilot turned commercial airlines pilot, and he said what they did was totally possible. I think I'm going to take his opinion over those of anonymous faces on message boards. Lets look at this from your point of view for one second. OK, the government has no problems killing 3,000 of its own citizens and staging a massive cover up that would have to include tens of thousands of various government officials, military personnel, and civilian employees. How does a government that couldn't keep the Valerie Plame leak a secret in the highest levels of the executive branch maintain the silence of this magnitude of people? How are you still alive when the government doesn't care about killing people to get their ends? You are making huge leaps of faith with minimal logical support, and than saying it is the simplest solution. Its obviously not. Show me documents/memos/witnesses/testimony proving a government conspiracy. Don't throw vague information and contradictions at me and then tell me your inferences are evidence. Edit: I just saw your signature, and I just wanted to let you know it makes no sense (at least the oil company parts). Prewar estimates of cost showed that any gains in lower gas prices would be vastly outweighed by the cost of the war. The Bush administration knew there was no profit to be made by invading Iraq. Also, the price of oil is set in a market, meaning more gas does not mean more profit. In fact, the opposite is true. A higher supply of gas means a lower median price of gas, meaning those selling will have a tighter margin of profit. Edited by hiphopopotamus, Nov 19 2008, 02:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Stundie | Nov 19 2008, 06:23 AM Post #32 |
|
The conspiracy is someone is lying about Cheney movements on the morning of 9/11. The commission states Cheney arrives at the PEOC at 9:58, perhaps 10:00. Cheney himself states that he is in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack at 9:43am Both of these cannot be correct. Either none of these are correct, or one of them is correct. The proof of the conspiracy is that either the Commission or Cheney have mislead the public about Cheneys movements on the morning of 9/11, and that requires people to conspire to do this. Now before you argue, it could be a simple mistake.....how does Cheney go from going on TV 5 days after the attacks, saying he was in the PEOC when he hears of the Pentagon attack, to the commissions claims that he is in the tunnel when he hears of the Pentagon and doesn't arrive at the PEOC until after 9:58, perhaps 10:00? One of them is lying....The commission even claims that there is conflicting evidence as to what time Cheney arrives in the PEOC, but what all the evidence suggest is that there no solid evidence/proof that Cheney arrives at the PEOC at 9:58, perhaps 10:00. Goto the footnotes of the commission, then try and find the evidence to support it. If you find any, then let me know because I've looked and asked, but there is nothing solid to support this contention. So either the Commission lies for Cheney or as I suspect, Cheney lies to the commission. Either way, there is a conspiracy to mislead the public. I do not assume anything, but of course, I would expect no evidence FROM YOU to support what I am supposedly assuming. I never suggested that anyone should have been watching a clock?  lolWe know what time certain events happened. So if someone says they did this, that and the other then hear of the Pentagon attack, we can work out what they were doing before or around the time of the Pentagon attack. In other words before or around 9:37am. Its is still a conspiracy then, even if it's a conspiracy to cover major fuck ups! lol I'm aware of Occam's razor, although I do not see what a 14th century friar as to do with my claims. If we apply Occams razor and all the evidence suggests that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:37am and even Cheney himself suggest he is in the PEOC before 9:58am, then what does William have to say on this subject? A)That Cheney arrives in the PEOC before 9:37am, B) That Cheney arrives at the PEOC at 9:58am, perhaps 10:00am? (As the commission claims!) It would seem this way to you but for the simple reason you cannot show where or how I am making huge jumps in reasoning, bypassing the simplest solutions to find the one's that fit my ideology the best. It highlights that you are giving me nothing more than your opinions....but they are not based on any reality, just the conclusions you have jumped too because the evidence doesn't support what you personally believe. I think you have missed quite a bit......like highlighting these supposed jumps in reasoning that you claim I making....lol All I can say, is if you wish to continue, then prepare to look silly as it will highlight a simple logical fault and your psuedoskeptical critical thinking, in that you believe in the commission claims which is based on no solid reviewable evidence and requires nothing more or less than pure blind faith. Cheers Stundie  |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Nov 19 2008, 06:49 AM Post #33 |
|
Lets look at this from your point of view to highlight the MAJOR logical fallacy you are committing here. lol According to you and your logic, it would take tens of thousands of various government officials, military and civilians to pull this off..... Yet it only requires 19 Arab Hijackers, Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden!  Surely if 22 on the outside can pull off 9/11, then it would require even less people on the inside to be able to pull this off? lol How did you come to this conclusion that it requires (10,000+) tens of thousands of people working on the inside, but only 22 to commit it from working from the outside. lol You also hilariously conclude/assume that those planning it would tell all these (10,000+) of theirs plans....lol There is so much wrong with this logical fallacy, I could point out all the things wrong with it all day, but I think it is obvious that you can't/won't see the flaw of this argument! Does SPreston get in the way of the government getting their ends? lol What a pathetic and stupid argument...lol SPreston..... I didn't realise you were so important to the government and their plans! If the irony in that post was converted into pain, you would require a morphine drip! lol We will show you that, when you have shown us evidence that OBL planned it. Oh wait a minute, the FBI says they didn't have any hard evidence against him. No doubt, you are sitting on this evidence for your beliefs hey?? lol Edited by Stundie, Nov 19 2008, 06:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
| hiphopopotamus | Nov 19 2008, 12:34 PM Post #34 |
|
You say you're not making any jump in reasoning, but to assume a government conspiracy from a ~20 minute difference in arrival time is the very definition of a jump in reasoning; there is nothing directly supporting or even insinuating a conspiracy about that information. You assume people are lying, when it makes just as much sense that someone is just plain incorrect. Everyone makes mistakes. As for Osama, he is the head of A.Q. The alleged hijackers are members of A.Q. Even if Osama didn't directly plan the attacks, he is still the head of the group that carried them out. As for keeping it a secret, everyone know the fewer people in on a secret the less likely it will be spread. It is much easier for 22 people to keep it a secret than a few thousand. Especially when those people are bound by common threads of religious zealotry and hate, while the thousands of American's would probably be disgusted having taken part in the murder of their fellow citizens. As for it taking fewer on the inside to pull it off, I don't think you're looking at it rationally. I pulled 10,000 out of my ass just to make a point. For a cover-up of this magnitude (doctoring evidence, laying charges in buildings, taking down airplanes, hindering investigations, shutting witnesses up) would take far more than 22 people. And like I pointed out before, this government couldn't keep the Valerie Plame leak secret at the highest levels of the executive branch, so why should we think that they were able to silence such a large group of people over a much more insidious plot? As for the government killing 9/11 truth movement people, it only makes sense. They've already shown they don't care about killing people, and if a group on the internet is close to unraveling their secrets and exposing them to the world, one would think they would try to stop it in order keep their control of our society. Edited by hiphopopotamus, Nov 19 2008, 12:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | Nov 19 2008, 02:58 PM Post #35 |
|
Patriotic American
|
THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS .......ENDLESS WARS FOR ENDLESS PROFITS There is huge profit in endless wars. You have never heard of the military-industrial-complex? All the bodies which fight the wars for them and end up in the body bags for cannnon fodder, cost them nothing (taxpayers pick up the costs). All the endless cost overruns and double and triple billing (witness Halliburton and Blackwater Mercenaries) mean huge profits for the corporate greedy. Concerning the oil, their intentions are to control the supplies. Two of their last victims in their wars of hegemony against the Middle East will be Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and they forcibly take their huge oil fields from them. Of course I believe they will fail in their mad dreams; but not before they cause extreme anguish and suffering among hundreds of millions of people including most Americans. But these are the international corporate greedy; so why should they care? You need to read what one of highest decorated military generals wrote about the profits of war. Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Nov 19 2008, 03:29 PM Post #36 |
|
Patriotic American
|
A literal meaning for al Qaeda is "the Toilet Bowl". The potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda". What kind of terrorist organization would name itself after a toilet? This is an insider joke by our enemies; those who really were responsible for 9-11. They assume most Americans are too stupid and boob-tubed to figure it out. Another literal meaning of Al Qaeda is "the Database". Al Qaeda was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to fight the Soviets. Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset (Tim Osman) and was recruited to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld met with Osama and gave him Stinger missiles to use against Soviet gunships. Osama was a fanatical Wahhabi Islamist. He died in December 2001 of advanced kidney disease. He told the world several times publicly that he had nothing to do with 9-11. The atrocities of 9-11 would be against his very strict Wahhabi beliefs. Then he died and a bunch of videos were produced by the Bush Regime attempting to blame him for 9-11. But it was Bush who desperately prevented investigations into 9-11 wasn't it? Guess whose beliefs would not be bothered much by the atrocities of 9-11? The alleged 19 hijackers did not carry out 9-11. That notion is ridiculous and impossible. Edited by SPreston, Nov 19 2008, 03:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Stundie | Nov 26 2008, 07:44 AM Post #37 |
|
I do not suggest a government conspiracy from a time discrepancy, the evidence suggests it and it's not just from a 20 minute difference either, it is much larger than that if you bothered to look, instead of ignoring and making excuses to deny it. Seeing as this the angle you are working from, show me how I am jumping to conclusions or where I am jumping in reasoning. . Well it depends if the mistakes are accidental or intentional. The evidence would suggest it is intentional for a very good reason. If someone told the commission that Cheney arrived at the PEOC after 9:58am, which is untrue, then the question is why? You could argue that someone was mistaken, but all the evidence suggest that Cheney was at the PEOC before this time. So there was no mistake, just someone misleading them or maybe the commission is misleading the public? So either the commission lied, or someone lied to the commission. Its as simple as that! Either way, people conspired to create this 9:58am timeline! WOW! You have brought the official story hook line and sinker! I could explain and show you that when Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and Ayman al-Zawahiri (AAZ) were trying to create their muslim state, they failed to get the support of the people. They had very little support for their revolutions, not even a serious complex organisation of terrorists and they relied on independent operatives to carry out their new call for jihad. I could explain to you that after the US Embassy bombings in order to prosecute OBL for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, US prosecutors find a former associate of OBL called Jamal al-Fadl and pay him to testify that OBL was the head of a massive terrorist organisation called "al-Qaeda" I could explain to you how many acts of terrorism are blamed on Al-Qaeda even though the reality is, there is no such organisation but a tag to label anyone the states sees as a terrorist. Al-Qaeda is now the new bogeyman name for any terrorist organisation regardless of it's affiliation or goals. But that would be derailing the thread and seeing you have brought the offical story, hook line and sinker....I would just get called a liar, or mistaken! lol Of course it is easier keeping a secret if less people know. Especially those people who are bound by common threads of money, greed and power and you just agreed, that the fewer people knew, the better the secret, so they wouldn't need thousands to take part in murdering Americans, which means it is not just the figure you pulled out of your ass, just your entire argument and point. I'm not looking at it rationally?? lol Yet you somehow still think that 22 people on the outside can do this, yet it would require more people working on the inside to pull this off? I'm not following your logic, but then you and logic are at odds!! As for all the people who you think is needed to doctor the evidence, laying charges, taking down planes, shutting witnesses up! All you need to do is control where the investigation goes, and there is no need to find out who did all this, you can blame whoever you like. Oh dear! What dumb logic! So because we found out a government secret about them leaking Valerie Plame name to the press, THIS MUST MEAN THEY CAN'T KEEP ANY OTHER SECRETS?? And again, you keep falling back on this large group of people....like your 10,000 figure no doubt! lol If I discover a secret about you, that must mean you have no other secrets right?? Why would they kill people on the internet who might reveal their secret? lol I would ask how you came to such a conclusion, but seeing as your post is devoid of any rational logic.....I won't ask why! |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Dec 15 2008, 11:14 AM Post #38 |
|
An update!! Over at the SLC forum, who are not known for there debunking skills. http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1998&view=findpost&p=26264 Tinfoil Tie posted this video from fellow J**F Groupthink Member and Worshipper Boone870, in a new attempt to prove that Mineta and Belger were mistakenly watching UA93 and not AA77. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aKaEtq4EMoY&eurl=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130731 In it Boone uses 4 reference points from Mineta interview. 1)Great Falls 2)National Airport (DCA) 3)Down River Approach (DRA) 4)USA Today Building In a desperate and piss poor attempt at debunking, he hilariously suggest that point 1 is actually Great Falls, in Montana as in this place. http://www.greatfallsmt.net/ Over 2000 miles away! lol What he neglects to mention, realise or what nobody as yet pointed out to him, is that there is a Great Fall Park near Washington and the USA Today buildings! http://www.nps.gov/grfa/planyourvisit/directions.htm Here is the conversation which Boone is referring too. i highlighted it for emphasis...
So when the plane was 30 miles out, according to Boone870, when Mineta asks Belger "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?" Belger tells Mineta "I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls (Montana) and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach." Even though Montana is over 2000 miles away from the National Airport! hahahahahahahahahaha!! Why would Belger tell him a location over 2000 miles away for a plane which is approx 30 miles away?? Debunkers are so devoid of rational logic that if Belger was really talking about Great Falls in Montana which they believe, then he is not talking about the location of a plane 30 miles away then is he! lolHe also forgets that there are literally hundreds of other closer locations that Belger could have used instead of giving Mineta a 2000 miles wide area to locate the plane if it was true. And again when it gets to 10 miles, Belger goes from being 2000 miles away to being specific as he guesses it's between USA today and the National Airport. Of course, it is not true that Belger was talking about Montana!! lol As it as nothing to do with the location both he and Mineta are looking at! lol Hilariously not a single debunker at J**F as pointed this obvious flaw out to him, or mentioned that there is a Great Falls near Washington, in this thread some one congratulates him by suggesting another one bites the dust. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130731 What Boone870 as done is confirmed that Belger was definitely talking to Mineta about AA77, however I'm sure this Boone character will not update his video with the correct location of Great Falls in relation to AA77 flight path. There is no chance of that happening....lol Its a shame that the debunking crowd as resorted to new lows of desperation, in order to avoid facing the uncomfortable fact they are wrong! lol Edited by Stundie, Dec 15 2008, 11:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
| jim76 | Dec 15 2008, 12:05 PM Post #39 |
|
It seems like Boone is referring to Great Falls Park. Where does he say Great Falls, MT? |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Dec 15 2008, 06:36 PM Post #40 |
|
No he is not! The USA Today HQ is only a 5 mile drive from Great Falls, on his map, the location is much further away than Washington DC Airport which is only about 24 miles away from USA Today HQ. Here is Google Maps with all the correct addresses in. 1)Great Falls - Point A on Google Maps - 9200 Old Dominion Dr, McLean, VA 22102. http://www.nps.gov/grfa/planyourvisit/directions.htm 2)National Airport (DCA) - Point B on Google Maps - 1 Aviation Cir, Washington, DC 20001, United States (Metro Washington Airport Auth) http://www.mwaa.com/about_the_authority/contact_us 3)Down River Approach (DRA) Potomac River. 4)USA Today Building - Point C on Google Maps - 7950 Jones Branch Dr McLean, VA 22102, United States http://www.usatoday.com/media_kit/usatoday...act_us_usat.htm Actually it is my mistake, he doesn't mention Great Falls in MT, but I put the location into Google Maps and the only one it came up with was the one in Montana. However, the location that Boone points too is still wrong, even if I thought it was the one in Montana, for the simple reason it is too far away from USA Today HQ and much further than 5 miles away! |
|
|
|
| Boonedoggled | Dec 15 2008, 09:11 PM Post #41 |
|
I'm referring to Great Falls, Virginia as depicted in Google Earth, not Google Maps. I honestly didn't know where Great Falls was located when I read Mineta's account, but you will find that my reference point matches Google Earth's reference point if you enable the Borders and Labels feature.
I'm referring to the old USA Today Building, the Silver Towers in Rosslyn where the USA Today headquarters were located in 2001. |
|
|
| Stundie | Dec 16 2008, 07:10 AM Post #42 |
|
OK Boone, I got it wrong as I wasn't aware of USA Today move, so that explains why I was mistaken with your location of Great Falls on the map. However, what I want to point out something which I feel is important which you are misunderstanding. On your video you quote Mineta but miss out important information. In your video you say this.....
However the full quote as lots of other information which you are missing and is important because Mineta asks Belger for the locations at different times. So here is the full quote... You are equating all 4 locations at the same time, when the reality is he is asking at different times.... Mineta hears the man telling Cheney plane is 30 miles out, so he asks Belger for a location which Belger replies. "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach." Then when the plane gets down to 10 miles out, he asks Belger again for a location which Belger replies " USA Today building and, and National Airport." When we put the whole of Mineta quote back in context, it fits AA77 because when the plane is 30 miles, Belger guesses its between Great Falls and National Airport. Then when the plane is 10 miles out, he guesses it is between the USA Today and National Airport. This describes the rough location of AA77 and there are many other reasons why it can't be the projected path of UA93. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Feb 12 2009, 05:36 AM Post #43 |
|
Just came accross this...cause I've just been on Wikipedia and they say this about Mineta.
But when you click on the article it says this...it actually contradicts what Wikipedia says.
Are debunkers desperately trying to discredit Mineta statement? Are they so stupid, that they suggest the conversation doesn't happen until 9:55 when he never says anything of a sort. Are they too stupid to realise that this conversation then disproves the commission, because Cheney isn't in the PEOC until 9:58. lol What kind of imagination do you have to have to invest and lie about such shit, it's appears to be nothing more than desperation. lol |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jul 17 2009, 12:48 PM Post #44 |
|
Found some great links and am working through them. Cheney changing his story about what he did on the morning of 9/11 in interviews after the Tim Russert Interview. Here he claims he is in the tunnel when he hears of the Pentagon attack. http://www.scribd.com/doc/16869695/NY-B9-Farmer-Misc-WH-1-of-3-Fdr-111901-Newsweek-Interview-of-Cheney-450 http://www.scribd.com/doc/16869792/NY-B9-Farmer-Misc-WH-2-of-3-Fdr-9402-Scott-PelleyCBS-Interview-of-Cheney-466 http://www.scribd.com/doc/16869806/NY-B9-Farmer-Misc-WH-2-of-3-Fdr-9502-John-KingCNN-Interview-of-Cheney-469 http://www.scribd.com/doc/16869814/NY-B9-Farmer-Misc-WH-2-of-3-Fdr-9502-Tony-SnowFox-News-Interview-of-Cheney-470 Shit, so it's game over for my theory?  No!
 Here is an interview with Libby Scooter. http://www.scribd.com/doc/16869893/NY-B10-Farmer-Misc-WH-3-of-3-Fdr-111601-Newsweek-Interview-of-Scooter-Libby-476 In it he says that.... Cheney is taken to the PEOC, but when he heads down there, he is in the corridor talking to the President. That the SS detail with Mrs Cheney move her to the PEOC. That he and Cheney are in the PEOC, when they hear of the Pentagon attack. Here is an interview with Eric S Edelman who was at the White House with Libby. http://www.scribd.com/doc/16942234/NY-B10-Farmer-Misc-WH-3-of-3-Fdr-102501-Evan-ThomasNewsweek-Interview-of-Eric-Edelman-479 And guess what? He claims that Richard Clarke was in the Situation Room as he claims. He claims that Mineta, Cheney and Rice were in the PEOC when they hear of the Pentagon attack. So that is Libby & Edelman who now contradict the official story! Will chime in more when I have time. Stundie |
|
|
|
| T3QuillAMocKINGbird | Jul 17 2009, 05:34 PM Post #45 |
|
Stop posting as Stundie requested only to help clarify Hippo, Occams Razor will not save us just to shave us, please note that there are 2 spellings of Occams Razor & Ockhams Razor and it proves Occams Razor is a paradox that should not be used, unless you use it to prove yourself right being the simplest spelling is correct... I am perplexed too as I shaved with Occams Razor but my beard keeps coming back. It is concerning to me that someone would use Occams Razor to not shave the beard of lies upon the bold face holding the Gillette of Mineta testimony, expecting us to see shaving cream but we know this is only a cover up of the beard of lies caused by foaming at the mouth! It sucks when investigations create complexities that only seem dull to debunkers compared to a sufficiently sharp Ockhams Razor. And you have no Idea what you are talking about Valerie Plame, you should listen to what she had to say personally with her husband about Cheney. And that was coming from a now outed CIA agent. So would you prefer to use as something substantiated? A quote from Valerie or your own opinion about how sharp your Ockhams Razor looks now? Hippo, have you ever heard of Pilots for 911 Truth? Wonder why they think those manuvers were impossible... But I don't think Stundie wants to discuss that here... |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:11 AM Dec 2
