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!
|John Bursi|| - Craig Ranke Debate|
|Tweet Topic Started: Dec 21 2009, 12:17 PM (5,891 Views)|
|911ARTISTS||Dec 21 2009, 12:17 PM Post #1|
Letters from the Front by Roger Morris
Edited by 911ARTISTS, Nov 18 2010, 12:36 AM.
|Michal||Dec 21 2009, 02:22 PM Post #2|
||Craig made a very good job and a lot of effort in the past. Now he takes benefit of it.|
|Craig Ranke CIT||Dec 21 2009, 10:54 PM Post #3|
Thanks to John for being the first of the limited hangout of truthaction/911blogger to have the courage to step up to the plate to discuss this with us directly and for conceding points honorably.
Here are what I would say are his most important concessions:
|Adam Syed||Dec 21 2009, 11:47 PM Post #4|
Great debate. I've posted my own entry about this at blogger.
While Bursill shies away from calling the flyover "proven," it was nice to hear, at the very least, that the flyover is a very valid "working hypothesis."
Unlike SOME people (who shall remain nameless) who insist that it is "fruit loops" and "bonkers" propagated by "liars" "frauds" and "con men."
|John Bursill||Dec 22 2009, 03:49 PM Post #5|
Hello LC Forum, it's a pleasure to be here even though it is under difficult circumstances:)
This is what I sent out as an e-mail yesterday to my list...there was some problem with my login here originally?
Podcast of discussion between Craig Ranke of CIT and John Bursill of Truth Action Australia broaching the disagreement with and attacks against CIT's "fly over" presented in their film "National Security Alert".
This is a debate no one else would have, so once again I get left carrying the bag:) By the way Craig will be viewed the winner (congratulations)....but I hope all are benefited by this sometimes painful process. I do not represent any others in this debate, and strongly defend the work of Michael Wolsey and Jim Hoffman et al as important and valid although I accept it could of been done better.
See and find discussion of the podcast here:
My notes on the discussion:
If you don't have time to listen to this marathon 2 and 1/2 hour discussion I will give you a brief run down of what happened in my opinion.
Craig Ranke called me out for a debate many months ago after I made a comment about him being uneducated and a drummer in a LA reggae band at an online forum, which was inappropriate and which I had already apologised for and not tried to hide. My "excuse" for this was that it was being stated that CIT's evidence had the same weight as the Controlled Demollition of the towers, which CIT maintains is true. Craig is obviously not uneducated but is a drummer in an LA band as stated.
I was originally a supporter of CIT's National Security Alert film but after discussion with long time and successful activists in the states and on gaining and understanding that the "fly over" was a "proven fact" in CIT's opinion; and was also a "not negotiable" part of their theory I began to oppose them as dangerous to the movement.
The danger I saw, and still see is that having this "fly over" presented as a fact would bring us into disrepute and open the high profile members of this movement who had given supportive statements to ridicule. It would be in my view very easy for our adversaries like "the media" to say we were insane conspiracy theorists due to the evidence that a plane did hit the Pentagon and that a "fly over" would of been seen by hundreds of people if it had happened and CIT could only produce one wittiness seeing the "fly over" who is now to scared to talk.
Many prominent members of this movement spoke out against CIT (myself included) to prevent a take up of the "fly over" position by the movement at large, some of us including myself did continue to state that the "fly over" was possible and we supported the "north side approach as good research. Many prominent members of our movement had given support to the "research" but not directly to the "fly over" and I also was pursuing "clarification" from some of these people which we got from a few, primarily Peter Dale Scott and Richard Gage AIA.
Due to CIT's persistence that the "fly over" was a fact the argument became more and more aggressive and CIT has been portrayed as "diss info" wrongly in my opinion now. I did support this portrail at one stage but have never said they were dissinfo personally. I regret being associated with this position with hind site.
The debate or conversation recorded by pod cast by Paul
This long and often repetitive discussion was difficult for me as I had to concede points and apologise for some actions I took and things I had said. Although difficult I think Craig and I have reached an understanding that we disagree on a few key points but agree on many more as follows;
1. The North path of Flt 77 is NOT consistent with the damage field approaching and seen at the pentagon.
2. The North side approach is the most well supported by independent and clear witness testimony.
3. A "fly over" is possible (Craig says proven) as I have always stated from day one.
4. Their is "evidence" of a plane crash and of a 757 at the Pentagon but it is not verifiable and it is possible (Craig it's a fact) that after the fact photo's are staged. Craig's take on this is that there is no verifiable evidence due to it's nature, being supplied by the Government, I agree this is a fair position.
5. The official flight paths that have been supplied are all in error and the most well supported flight path of 77 by independent sources is the North of the Citgo Gas Station approach.
6. We were both happy we have had this discussion and that we are moving this debate forward.
7. Craig came out on top in the debate, which I new would be the case before and so did he.
8. I have acted in an aggressive manner and have discouraged support of CIT's "fly over".
9. I will no longer discourage people from taking CIT's work seriously but will be silent on the matter from now on.
10. Resistance to the CIT evidence is due to a dogma in some cases.
11. CIT will produce a letter/paper for review at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (Craig did wavier on this point)
1. The "Fly Over" is a fact.
2. I have prevented CIT's work from being discussed as I sent it to my list and have posted it on the net.
3. Pilots for 9/11 Truth information is 100% accurate.
4. CIT's research is as important as the Controlled Demolition research.
1. Craig and CIT have taken the wrong approach by being so sure of their information as being proven causing the escalation of this dispute.
2. Jim Hoffman and Michael Wolsey et al had good reasons to speak out against CIT calling them dissinfo/missinfo.
3. Dr Frank Legge's paper "What Hit The Pentagon" is the best position for the movement regarding the Pentagon.
4. Many more witnesses or other evidence is required to make the "fly over" proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in my personal view to get it on the table.
5. CIT and Pilots for Truth need to produce papers for peer review at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" if they wish to have broad serious support by our movement.
Unfortunately Craig did not concede any points (except doing a paper for the Journal (maybe)) at all as he and CIT have been 100% right and perfect in every way? This will continue, I believe (as I have said many times) to CIT's continuing detriment.
Craig displayed good knowledge of the subject and I was out of my depth regarding the conflicting witness testimony demonstrating the "official path" or South of the Citgo path. I have read as many of you have also read there are up to one hundred witnesses supporting this South path Craig says their are zero verifiable witnesses?
Even though it was my understanding that all 13/14 witnesses CIT site believe a plane hit the Pentagon, Craig also now disputes this but would not be drawn on the number, this in my opinion was a weak point of his argument and clearly something he does not want to discuss. He also does not want to discuss how they created the damage at the Pentagon as it he says "is not important", I also disagree with this position.
Kind regards John
See comment below..
This sort of comment is where I think a lot of problems have arisen for CIT....self obsessed and self righteousness? Disregard for others feelings and standing, and a contempt for any with a different view?
From 911oz.com with reference to my request for Ranke's submission to the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" our extremely important site for investigating the events of 9/11!
Quote: John Bursill said under heading "Craig Disagrees"
5. CIT and Pilots for Truth need to produce papers for peer review at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" if they wish to have broad serious support by our movement.
Yes, disagreed. We already have "broad serious support by our movement". It's only the limited hangout of 911blogger and truthaction who are fighting this.
Furthermore the journal has been used as a conduit for spin and opinion in the past when concerning the Pentagon attack issue creating a less than objective scientific environment for this discussion.
Craig, thanks for discrediting our premier scientific medium...again; this is reckless in my opinion:( What would be wrong with actually engaging that medium in the way that it was designed to be engaged? This in my view is "friendly fire", exactly what you continue to accuse the small minority of doing while you ride your high horse from pillar to post sword in hand slashing as you go. Eventually no one will engage with you and all will be silent; then my friend I hope you'll be happy.
I do not know of more than a handful of people that believe the "fly over" is proven....please provide us all a list to back your claim that the vocal minority are the only ones that have this view dear professor Ranke:)
Also lets us all know when you have the new "journal" up so we can go back to doing the work to get us credibility:) to your standard.
As at the 911oz forum these words have brought my comments here to an end on this issue.
Merry Christmas all:)
Kind regards John
9/11 24/7 until justice!
|Lin Kuei||Dec 22 2009, 04:39 PM Post #6|
Greetings John and welcome to the LC Forum - it's great to see you here.
There was no problem with your login, we just have a function on this forum which does not allow newly-joined members to post straight away, and requires manual validation by admin.
The list of to-be-validated members had not been checked or ok'd for about a day probably because I or the other two admin weren't online or hadn't checked it.
This function was initially instituted on the previous incarnation of the LC Forums to protect against multiple users joining simultaneously to spam the forum with offensive pornographic images.
|Adam Syed||Dec 22 2009, 05:22 PM Post #7|
Here is my submission to 911blogger, which I submitted about 20 hours ago and is still not posted yet:
[embed code for player]
A week ago, I was excited to hear that one of CIT's critics accepted Craig's challenge to step up to the plate and engage in live, recorded debate.
John Bursill debated Craig Ranke on 12/19/09 and the entire conversations lasted longer than most full-length motion pictures! Paul Tassopulos of Artists for 9/11 Truth recorded and hosted the debate, although he virtually never stepped in as a moderator.
John has posted his own writeup over at the 911oz forum; maybe he'll submit it here too. While John and Craig still have specific disagreements mostly centering on choice of words and method of approaching people (i.e. whether to call the flyover scenario "proof" or a "working hypothesis"), I was surprised to see him graciously concede the following point:
This is a debate no one else would have, so once again I get left carrying the bag. By the way Craig will be viewed the winner (congratulations)....but I hope all are benefited by this sometimes painful process.
The 2.5 hour debate is intense but makes for stimulating listening. Bursill concedes many points to Craig throughout the interview. One point he makes clear is that he find's CIT's presentations to be "very interesting" and "compelling." He admitted that at one point, he suspected CIT of being "disinfo," largely because of CIT's stridency in promoting their own work. Since previous people in the movement who were promoting actual disinfo did so with much aggressiveness, the same suspicion was extended to CIT. John says he no longer suspects CIT of being disinfo or liars/frauds and that in fact they do present very real legitimate info that should make anyone site up and take note.
As mentioned above, the main points of disagreement hinge upon choice of words and approach. John takes exception to Craig's notion that CIT's work is as definitive and conclusive as the evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC.
Craig explains his line of reasoning and uses one of Richard Gage's lecture points as an analogy. This lecture point concerns statistics and probability. With the controlled demolition proof: There are 10 (or more) characteristics of the 'collapses' that are characteristic to only controlled demolition. Gage makes the point that: Let's just say that ONE of those characteristics MIGHT have a (generous) 1 in 100 chance of occurring in a "natural" collapse without explosives. Well, for TWO of those characteristics to occur without CD would already be a 1 in 10,000 chance, meaning quite low indeed. But for ALL TEN of these features to occur without CD is 1 in 10010 (more correctly spelled 1 x 1020). In other words, zero, for all practical purposes.
Similarly, at the Pentagon we have 13 eyewitnesses who independently corroborate each other in placing the plane on the north side of the gas station. Of these 13, let's say there's a 1/100 chance of one of them being wrong. But the odds of two of them both being wrong about the plane's location w/r to Citgo is 1/10,000, etc. The probably that all 13 witnesses are wrong about the plane being on the north side is, for all practical purposes, zero.
And all people, including CIT detractors, agree on the simple fact that if the plane was north of Citgo, it did not cause the directional damage beginning with the light poles and continuing on to the E, D, and C rings of the Pentagon. And since there is no directional damage in the photographic evidence to suggest a North Approach impact, the logical conclusion is that the plane continued on. Besides, why would the perps stage any of the damage if they planned to actually crash a plane into the building?
This is why Craig is so adamant and forceful about the north side approach being scientific proof of a flyover every bit as much as the nanothermite paper.
Bursill suggested that if Craig and Aldo are so confident that it's scientific proof, they should submit a paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer review. Craig conceded that he will "maybe" do this, but his view is that the independently corroborating eyewitnesses themselves are the peer review. As he said: "We're not asking you to believe us, we're asking you to believe the witnesses." For the record though, I certainly don't think submitting a paper to the Journal is a bad idea.
On his write-up, Bursill says
Their is "evidence" of a plane crash and of a 757 at the Pentagon but it is not verifiable and it is possible (Craig [says] it's a fact) that after the fact photo's are staged. Craig's take on this is that there is no verifiable evidence due to it's nature, being supplied by the Government, I agree this is a fair position.
It is very encouraging to see this acknowledgment. Many people who defend a 757 crash at the Pentagon rather dogmatically point to the photos of unverified plane parts as proof that the "pentagon no planers" are wrong. Of course, most of us suspect Donald Rumsfeld to be among the prime architects of 9/11, and this was literally his back yard. The very people suspected of the crime had control of the crime scene. The photos of the plane parts could have been staged and taken days after 9/11, and they were released by official sources. Compare that to the <i>independent</i> (non govt-released) photos and videos taken immediately after the event.
Though he shies away from the word "proof," John certainly concedes that the "flyover" is a very logical inference and a very valid "working hypothesis."
With regard to the criticism from CIT detractors that "all the north approach witnesses still say/believe the plane hit the building," Craig reminds us how many people at the WTC reported characteristics of controlled demolition but refuse to publicly support that conclusion. Indeed the Loose Change boys were forced to put in a legal disclaimer at the beginning of the "recut" version of 2nd edition, clarifying the fact that the firefighters presented in the film don't support the claims. Likewise, it is a simple non-controvertible fact that the north approach means that the plane did not cause any of the damage to the light poles and building.
I could write a super long essay discussing so many points, but at that point it will be quicker to listen to the debate than read my write-up!
Overall, this was a very important and necessary debate to occur, given how virtually all of CIT's detractors have previously refused to debate, usually with the excuse that there is nothing to debate or that nothing productive would come of it. Both Bursill and Ranke feel this debate was productive and are happy to be moving the Pentagon discussion forward.
John, you've earned LOTS of respect from me for taking on this challenge. Kudos to you, and Merry Christmas down under!
|John Bursill||Dec 22 2009, 05:30 PM Post #8|
Thanks Adam and I like your overview!
I will as said make no further comment except, Merry Christmas to you to:)
|Michal||Dec 22 2009, 06:00 PM Post #9|
You have publicly admitted you were wrong in the past, apologized. This is behavior is reserved for real characters only.
P.S. I hope I will have no problem with it, when the facts would turn against me.
|Adam Syed||Dec 22 2009, 06:07 PM Post #10|
Now it's up.
|Flippy||Dec 23 2009, 05:19 PM Post #11|
So Craig posts the important parts of the debate from his perception. Not once in his post does he make slanderous or negative comments about you. He simply quoted parts of the debate. Then you come here and make a post doing the same exact thing that has caused this whole riff. With smart ass comments like "High Horse" "Professor Rainke" and other CRAP, yet, you feel like you are the bigger man?
IMO you can get right back on your high horse and ride off into the sunset. 911blogger and Truthaction.net ARE the problems with this movement.
|Craig Ranke CIT||Dec 23 2009, 06:43 PM Post #12|
Great point Flippy.
I didn't even see his angry "p.s." the first time around.
John is mad because I have taken issue with his demand for us to submit a paper to the Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies otherwise known as J.O.N.E.S.
He keeps suggesting that somehow the evidence we present will only be validated if we write a paper about it and submit it to J.O.N.E.S.
The problem is, as I stated, that that the journal has been used as a conduit for spin and opinion in the past when concerning the Pentagon attack issue creating a less than objective scientific environment for this discussion.
Legge's paper "What Hit the Pentagon" is not scientific.
It amounts to an opinion piece that turns the scientific method inside out by resting entirely on a negative hypothesis (by demanding others to provide evidence) while he simply ignores and dismisses the evidence that already exists (and proves his negative hypothesis false) without providing a shred of evidence to the contrary.
An argument from incredulity (faulty logic) is not a valid excuse to dismiss the evidence we present as John conceded in this debate.
The timing of the release of Legge's paper only about a month after National Security Alert came out is no coincidence. We knew he was aware of the evidence we present and that his article was likely the RESULT of all the attention National Security Alert has received yet he completely failed to address it.
If he stands by his paper Frank will be the next person I challenge to a debate although it's clear he is not willing to address the evidence we present on paper so I highly doubt he'll be willing to address it with me directly.
Bottom line the evidence we present as proof amounts to video recorded firsthand eyewitness accounts that can not be presented on paper. Given the fact that J.O.N.E.S. has already established a clear precedent that they have no problems publishing non-scientific opinion pieces and spin articles regarding the Pentagon issue there is no legitimate reason that we should be required to throw our hat in that ring.
Presenting this evidence on paper to them only sets them up to continue the spin that they have already started.
People have to VIEW the testimony. You can't spin National Security Alert.
There is only ONE way to debunk the evidence we present and that is by presenting counter-evidence of greater strength (eg: firsthand accounts from witnesses who were on or right near the gas station property who definitively place the plane on the south side as emphatically as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios place it on the north side).
It can't be done because we already have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was on the north side.
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Dec 23 2009, 08:38 PM.
|scott75||Dec 23 2009, 06:51 PM Post #13|
I agree that CIT isn't perfect in every way; I myself was banned from their forum; I certainly think the banning was unjust (no explanation was even given). But although they may be imperfect, I have seen no fault in their logic concerning the witnesses, which is what we should focus on I think. As Craige Ranke says, you don't have to think so much about what he thinks, so much as what the witnesses say. Personally, my pet project has been Lloyd England; when faced with all those north of citgo gas station witnesses, he decided that he wasn't, in fact, on the bridge, but instead in a position to -also- be a north of citgo gas station witness. The only problem is that the photographic evidence makes it clear that he wasn't. Not only that, but even if he was, there's no way that his taxi cab could have been speared by one of the downed light poles as the north path didn't cross any of them.
|Craig Ranke CIT||Dec 23 2009, 09:14 PM Post #14|
Thanks for highlighting this and wording it so succinctly.
I don't feel I was able to get this described as clearly in the debate.
I could tell that John eventually understood what I was getting at but you summed it up very well above.
This is why I called Roosevelt Roberts the "nanothermite" of the flyover theory. That got John so mad that he basically refused to listen to my reasoning.
The analogy is that even without nano-thermite the 2 seconds of free-fall collapse of WTC 7 is PROOF of controlled demo while even without Roosevelt Roberts or any other flyover witnesses the north side evidence is PROOF of a flyover. There simply is no other logical alternative.
I'm going to borrow this for the other threads if you don't mind.
|Adam Syed||Dec 23 2009, 10:18 PM Post #15|
||No prob... knock yourself out.|
|Adam Syed||Dec 23 2009, 10:46 PM Post #16|
LOLz, look at the reaction over at the premiere anti CIT and P4T hangout, truthaction
From Truthmover (posts as "Jules" at blogger though not for awhile):
And Victoria Ashley (victronix01) still insists that CIT are professional disinfo artists:
Here are the words of Erik Larsen, aka "loose nuke" who is a moderator at 911blogger:
Finally, Truthmover chimes in with the following love fest:
Good friggin' God. No wonder they've earned the reputation of "true faction."
I agree, I think Bursill is a genuine, committed activist whose view of CIT was shaped by the sites at which he hangs out, and is now realizing it.
Great job Craig! I bet you were drained after that! Here's to ya! Drink up...
Edited by Adam Syed, Dec 23 2009, 10:50 PM.
|Michal||Dec 24 2009, 04:00 AM Post #17|
||just as a thought - would it be possible to meet together face to face, maybe for now not as an open debate, bring all available evidence and with an open brains + friendly attitude try to add up all the puzzles. This movement needs to unite somehow.|
|Avenger||Dec 25 2009, 02:09 AM Post #18|
Can't unite with people who are not truly part of the movement to begin with. Victoria Ashley loves to talk about the scientific method, but her own paper is anything but scientific. For one thing, she uses some fake topographical analysis she found on a message-board from a blogger named jthomas, who is no friend to 9-11 Truth. If she really cared so much about the scientific process she would have checked the validity of jthomas' "View Shed analysis" and found that it is completely fake. I see no reason why someone who supposedly believes in strict adherence to the scientific method, would just take at face value the claims of someone like jthomas, who is so steadfastly ANTI-truth.
Same thing with the 15 second claim by Arabesque. Had she bothered to check this so-called video evidence, she would have seen that the Anthony Tribby video is actually video evidence of the exact opposite of what Arabesque claims. And she would've discovered what some of us have known for some time. That Arabesque has been perpetrating one of the biggest frauds in the movement. That's assuming that she doesn't already know him to be a liar.
I have my doubts that she is just some naive, misguided truther. The fact that she chooses not to address the eyewitness testimony DIRECTLY is, in my opinion, a sign of ulterior motives.
Edited by Avenger, Dec 25 2009, 02:10 AM.
|scott75||Dec 28 2009, 03:02 PM Post #19|
Doubts are fine. I think the real problem is when people take their doubts and make drastic decisions based on them. There are some people, such as Paul Tassopulos, who are able to reach out to the different sides and get them to talk. Unfortunately, these types of people are rather rare.
Edited by scott75, Dec 28 2009, 03:03 PM.
|911ARTISTS||Dec 28 2009, 04:29 PM Post #20|
Hey, Scott. Thanks, buddy.
By the way, I never said that I was thinking of shutting down 911 Artists Interactive.
In fact, nothing could be further form the truth. It's a new site. It's my baby. It's my favorite of all the sites I'm making.
That's the sun just about to come up, my friend. You watch.
Edited by 911ARTISTS, Dec 28 2009, 04:53 PM.
|scott75||Dec 28 2009, 07:52 PM Post #21|
You're welcome Paul :-).
Anyway, I've relaid your statement that you weren't thinking of shutting it down over at PFT and I certainly hope that the sun is just rising on it. Regardless, you certainly met me here at a time at a time when I think I needed another perspective :-)
|Avenger||Dec 29 2009, 02:13 AM Post #22|
It's not my fault her article is a piece of crap. It's not fault she used a fake topographical analysis concocted by some JREFer. It's not my fault that much of her article relies on the 15 second claim which is a complete fabrication. It's not my fault she has aligned herself with a liar like Arabesque.
People have been talking all along. Talking is one thing, but debating is quite another. It's debating that people like Arabesque, Hoffman, and Ashley are afraid of. Why? Because they've told too many lies. It's easier for them to slander people who are not there to counter their claims. It's easier to beat up on a scarecrow than a real live person.
|scott75||Dec 29 2009, 02:26 AM Post #23|
Is it though? I don't see it that way.
No, it isn't. I suppose you could say it's hers, in the sense that she's misinformed. The real issue is why she relied on them. You stated that you felt that "The fact that she chooses not to address the eyewitness testimony DIRECTLY is, in my opinion, a sign of ulterior motives." I don't see that this has to be true, however.
I've had my fill of people who disagree with each other regarding aspects of 9/11 calling each other liars. I certainly believe that Arabesque is misinformed in regards to their view of CIT's theory, but I have seen no evidence to support the accusation that Arabesque is being deceitful. I firmly believe that it's these types of accusations, which are being hurled by both sides, that is distracting people from the evidence itself.
And insulting each other something else as well, to be sure.
I agree that Arabesque, Hoffman and Ashley have made mistakes. I agree that they've slandered CIT. However, I -also- believe that people like you may well have slandered them, by saying, for instance, that Arabesque is a 'liar', or taking Victoria's approach in her article as a "sign of ulterior motives". Fighting fire with fire is generally a bad approach. Instead, I think we should simply focus on the evidence. I firmly believe that the truth regarding what happened at the Pentagon is on CIT's side; if we focus on the evidence supporting it, I think that'll be much more persuasive to those who are fence sitting or are in the "Hoffmanite" camp, than assuming that the motives of those who disagree with CIT are sinister.
Edited by scott75, Dec 29 2009, 02:41 AM.
|Michal||Dec 29 2009, 02:42 AM Post #24|
the more (constructive) debates we have, the better for us ... especially if people like Mr Roberts is in. The only thing is to stay focused on the very topic and not allow for circling around ...
... well Craig is good in it ... he is not leaving the topic without definitive assertion/confirmation from both sides ...
Edited by Michal, Dec 29 2009, 02:42 AM.
|Avenger||Dec 29 2009, 03:11 AM Post #25|
Misinformed in what way? Did he or did he not claim to have video evidence of Steve O'Brien's C-130 arriving 15 seconds after the attack?
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|Go to Next Page|
|« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »|