Does evidence contradicting the official story....

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
3
4

Does evidence contradicting the official story....; hold more weight?
Topic Started: Jan 17 2008, 06:47 PM (762 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 17 2008, 06:47 PM Post #1
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Yes it absolutely does. All else equal evidence that contradicts the official story holds more weight than evidence that would seem to support it. Particularly since evidence that would seem to support it is virtually always controlled and provided for by the suspect. Dr. David Ray Griffin made this point succinctly in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Quote: "One way to decide which of these conflicting accounts to believe is to use a common principle employed by historians in situations of this type, where some members of an organization or movement say things that support its official line, while other members say things that contradict it. All other things being equal, historians give greater credence to the latter." This is simply one of many reasons to believe the north side claim over the impact claim from the Citgo witnesses. It isn't circular logic. Pseudo-skeptics are attracted to this forum as a place to use deceptive debate tactics as a means to cast doubt on evidence contradicting the official story particularly in regards to the data presented by CIT. But let's put this into context......... 9/11 was demonstrated to be an inside job before CIT ever existed. The massive body of scientific as well as circumstantial evidence demonstrating this is clear not to mention the incredible amount of holes and irreconcilable contradictions with the official story. The burden of proof for the official conspiracy theory is on the government and they have failed miserably to provide enough evidence to support their claim. The impossible alleged random collapse of building 7 alone is plenty enough to cast doubt on the official story So the north side evidence does not stand on it's own. A deliberate deception has been thoroughly demonstrated and the north side claim confirms it with additional hard evidence. Given this fact it is clear that any evidence that further proves the deception holds more weight than claims that would seem to support it. Particularly when considering the nature of this deception that is implicated by the evidence. Consider an investigator who has suspect, has a ton of evidence compiled, and is simply putting off indictment to obtain that last piece of information that will slam dunk his case in court. That's how we liken the north side evidence. We have brought you the straw that can break the camel's back. Frankly wasting time debating this information with individuals who are obsessed with countering us is a waste of time. There will always be defenders of the official lie just as the German population was brainwashed into supporting Hitler. I'm hoping this new forum doesn't become a big debate fest and that we can use it as a place for people who already understand that 9/11 was an inside job to discuss research and evidence that further proves this already proven fact. Hell I even recommend that all posters in the Pentagon or any of the research sections state their opinion on building 7. If they refuse to even accept the obvious controlled demolition of building 7 it's clear to me that they are only here for one purpose.....to waste our time with endless debate and they should stick to the "skeptics" forum. Anyway....just my 2 cents. Peace, Craig CIT
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 17 2008, 09:51 PM Post #2
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	So does this mean you do not have enough evidence to prove [insert theory here] unless you add more weight to your side of the evidence?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 17 2008, 11:18 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 17 2008, 09:51 PM So does this mean you do not have enough evidence to prove [insert theory here] unless you add more weight to your side of the evidence? Nope. Perhaps you didn't read the quote. "All other things being equal, historians give greater credence to the latter. In other words when forced to choose it is logical to choose the evidence that contradicts the official line. Example: north side claim over impact claim. The discussion of the 9/11 crime is not some hypothetical, generalized, or remotely typical situation either. It is unprecedented and has led to the deaths of countless 10's of thousands of innocents so clearly this event demands the greatest level of scrutiny possible. We got no such thing from the media. In fact it was the opposite. The truth movement is not required to prove any "theory"either. The government has miserably failed to meet the burden of proof for their theory and many irreconcilable fatal holes have been discovered proving it false. It is an unprecedented crime and considering the nature of the implications (world wide military psyops) all evidence that allegedly supports this story should be heavily doubted and any evidence that contradicts it heavily considered.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 09:38 AM Post #4
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 17 2008, 11:18 PM nicepants Jan 17 2008, 09:51 PM So does this mean you do not have enough evidence to prove [insert theory here] unless you add more weight to your side of the evidence? Nope. Perhaps you didn't read the quote. "All other things being equal, historians give greater credence to the latter. In other words when forced to choose it is logical to choose the evidence that contradicts the official line. Example: north side claim over impact claim. The discussion of the 9/11 crime is not some hypothetical, generalized, or remotely typical situation either. It is unprecedented and has led to the deaths of countless 10's of thousands of innocents so clearly this event demands the greatest level of scrutiny possible. We got no such thing from the media. In fact it was the opposite. The truth movement is not required to prove any "theory"either. The government has miserably failed to meet the burden of proof for their theory and many irreconcilable fatal holes have been discovered proving it false. It is an unprecedented crime and considering the nature of the implications (world wide military psyops) all evidence that allegedly supports this story should be heavily doubted and any evidence that contradicts it heavily considered. I guess I'm not understanding, then. If you don't need to add more weight to your side in order to prove your theory, why do you even need to add more weight to your side? What difference would it make?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 12:13 PM Post #5
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 09:38 AM If you don't need to add more weight to your side in order to prove your theory, why do you even need to add more weight to your side? What difference would it make? Need? I was simply stating a fact. I am merely re-framing the discussion in context of the crime and investigation since people like you try so hard to argue it out of context. We are investigating a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder as a pretext for permanent global war. Statistical trends and typical crime solving logic goes out the window when considering a deception on this level. All evidence is simply not equal when the suspect has such complete and utter control.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 12:37 PM Post #6
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 12:13 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 09:38 AM If you don't need to add more weight to your side in order to prove your theory, why do you even need to add more weight to your side? What difference would it make? Need? I was simply stating a fact. I am merely re-framing the discussion in context of the crime and investigation since people like you try so hard to argue it out of context. We are investigating a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder as a pretext for permanent global war. Statistical trends and typical crime solving logic goes out the window when considering a deception on this level. All evidence is simply not equal when the suspect has such complete and utter control. First you say: Evidence against the OT holds more weight. I'm asking "why does it need to hold more weight". Can your theory still be proven if the evidence all holds the same weight? If so, why add weight to the evidence at all?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 01:14 PM Post #7
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 12:37 PM I'm asking "why does it need to hold more weight". Can your theory still be proven if the evidence all holds the same weight? If so, why add weight to the evidence at all? You are simply doing exactly what I said.......removing the discussion/evidence from the context of the crime. The context answers the question for you but I will spell it out for you anyway. The fact that evidence uncovers a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder as a pretext for permanent global war means that the implication here is that literally billions of minds have been manipulated primarily via continuous propaganda since the event. Because of this very fact evidence that exposes this deception is quickly denied and automatically dismissed out of hand by nature of the extent of the deception. The default response of the media and general population has been to reject such evidence as merely anomalous and to even ridicule it while simply accepting all evidence that supports the official line out of hand with zero scrutiny or investigation. So in essence the reality is that evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory that has been controlled, vetted, and supplied by the suspect is unjustly given more weight when all logic, reason, and typical precedent set by historians says the opposite should be true.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 01:22 PM Post #8
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 01:14 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 12:37 PM I'm asking "why does it need to hold more weight". Can your theory still be proven if the evidence all holds the same weight? If so, why add weight to the evidence at all? You are simply doing exactly what I said.......removing the discussion/evidence from the context of the crime. The context answers the question for you but I will spell it out for you anyway. The fact that evidence uncovers a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder as a pretext for permanent global war means that the implication here is that literally billions of minds have been manipulated primarily via continuous propaganda since the event. Because of this very fact evidence that exposes this deception is quickly denied and automatically dismissed out of hand by nature of the extent of the deception. The default response of the media and general population has been to reject such evidence as merely anomalous and to even ridicule it while simply accepting all evidence that supports the official line out of hand with zero scrutiny or investigation. So in essence the reality is that evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory that has been controlled, vetted, and supplied by the suspect is unjustly given more weight when all logic, reason, and typical precedent set by historians says the opposite should be true. So, back to my question, if you weigh all of the evidence equally...does it still support your theory? Or is your theory only supported if you weight your evidence more heavily?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 01:44 PM Post #9
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 01:22 PM So, back to my question, if you weigh all of the evidence equally...does it still support your theory? Or is your theory only supported if you weight your evidence more heavily? We do not need to prove any alternative theory. Shifting the burden of proof is yet another deceptive debate tactic. When weighed equally the evidence most certainly proves the official theory a deception. They have failed to provide sufficient evidence for the official conspiracy theory and we have most definitely provided more than enough evidence proving their theory false.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 01:51 PM Post #10
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 01:44 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 01:22 PM So, back to my question, if you weigh all of the evidence equally...does it still support your theory? Or is your theory only supported if you weight your evidence more heavily? We do not need to prove any alternative theory. Shifting the burden of proof is yet another deceptive debate tactic. When weighed equally the evidence most certainly proves the official theory a deception. They have failed to provide sufficient evidence for the official conspiracy theory and we have most definitely provided more than enough evidence proving their theory false. If you don't need to prove your theory, then what's the point (or necessity) of giving "more weight" to your side of the evidence?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 01:56 PM Post #11
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 01:51 PM If you don't need to prove your theory, then what's the point (or necessity) of giving "more weight" to your side of the evidence? Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over after they have been answered? The reality is that evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory that has been controlled, vetted, and supplied by the suspect has been unjustly given more weight when all logic, reason, and typical precedent set by historians says the opposite should be true. The fact that the evidence uncovers a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder as a pretext for permanent global war means that the implication here is that literally billions of minds have been manipulated primarily via continuous propaganda since the event. I am merely using logic and reason in pointing this fact out and to shift the "weight" back to where it should rightly be.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 02:04 PM Post #12
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 01:56 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 01:51 PM If you don't need to prove your theory, then what's the point (or necessity) of giving "more weight" to your side of the evidence? Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over after they have been answered? The reality is that evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory that has been controlled, vetted, and supplied by the suspect has been unjustly given more weight when all logic, reason, and typical precedent set by historians says the opposite should be true. The fact that the evidence uncovers a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder as a pretext for permanent global war means that the implication here is that literally billions of minds have been manipulated primarily via continuous propaganda since the event. I am merely using logic and reason in pointing this fact out and to shift the "weight" back to where it should rightly be. I understand what you are saying, but you still haven't answered my question(s) It also appears that you're using a circular argument: - Because there is evidence of a conspiracy, the evidence in favor of the conspiracy must be given more "weight" - Because the evidence of a conspiracy holds more weight, you conclude that there was a conspiracy. (or is this possible without the additional "weight" given to the conspiracy evidence?) If you were to give ALL of the evidence the same weight, would it support the same conclusion? Edited by nicepants, Jan 18 2008, 02:05 PM.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Jan 18 2008, 02:06 PM Post #13
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over after they have been answered? Mods?
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 02:11 PM Post #14
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 02:04 PM If you were to give ALL of the evidence the same weight, would it support the same conclusion? Absolutely. They have failed to meet their burden of proof and the evidence proves their story false. There is no circular logic involved.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 02:18 PM Post #15
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 02:11 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 02:04 PM If you were to give ALL of the evidence the same weight, would it support the same conclusion? Absolutely. So if giving all evidence the same weight would still support your conclusion, I don't understand why you would need to give evidence for the CT more "weight" than the evidence against it. Especially considering that not all evidence for the OT could have been controlled/modified/manufactured, etc by the conspirators. If you don't need any more "weight" to support your conclusion, why bother? Edited by nicepants, Jan 18 2008, 02:19 PM.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 02:32 PM Post #16
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 02:18 PM If you don't need any more "weight" to support your conclusion, why bother? The reality is that evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory that has been controlled, vetted, and supplied by the suspect has been unjustly given more weight when all logic, reason, and typical precedent set by historians says the opposite should be true. The fact that the evidence uncovers a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder as a pretext for permanent global war means that the implication here is that literally billions of minds have been manipulated primarily via continuous propaganda since the event. I am merely using logic and reason in pointing this fact out and to shift the "weight" back to where it should rightly be. Let me know if you still don't understand in which case I will copy and past it again but the next time I will bold it and underline it for you.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 02:40 PM Post #17
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 02:32 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 02:18 PM If you don't need any more "weight" to support your conclusion, why bother? The reality is that evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory that has been controlled, vetted, and supplied by the suspect has been unjustly given more weight when all logic, reason, and typical precedent set by historians says the opposite should be true. The fact that the evidence uncovers a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder as a pretext for permanent global war means that the implication here is that literally billions of minds have been manipulated primarily via continuous propaganda since the event. I am merely using logic and reason in pointing this fact out and to shift the "weight" back to where it should rightly be. Let me know if you still don't understand in which case I will copy and past it again but the next time I will bold it and underline it for you. I get what you're saying. You're saying that the evidence for the OT is already weighted more "heavily" than the evidence for the CT, right? And that you, by weighting the CT evidence more "heavily" than the OT evidence, are balancing the two out, right? But you also said that even without weighting the CT evidence more heavily, the evidence would still conclude CT, not OT. This being the case, why do the weights need to be changed at all? If the CT is proven even with lesser-weighted evidence, why do any of the weights need to change at all? What benefit is gained by "weighting" the evidence on the CT side, if the CT is already proven without this change?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 03:38 PM Post #18
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 02:40 PM This being the case, why do the weights need to be changed at all? If the CT is proven even with lesser-weighted evidence, why do any of the weights need to change at all? What benefit is gained by "weighting" the evidence on the CT side, if the CT is already proven without this change? Because this is the nature of the implications of this deception. The crime IS a massive psychological operation that manipulates minds to foolishly ignore, dismiss, reject, bury, cover-up, and ridicule evidence that proves it false. But even more importantly the implications are that evidence in support of the official story was planted, fabricated, lied about, paraded, and spun. The suspect has the advantage of unlimited resources, unlimited access to all forms of media, unlimited authority, and the most powerful military on earth for unlimited muscle. Not to mention access to advanced and unknown technology. In other words; the cards are stacked in their favor. So to find ANY evidence that demonstrates their story false DESPITE all of these advantages in their favor, it's clear that this evidence must be given more credence than anything they can provide that allegedly supports their conspiracy theory. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 18 2008, 03:40 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 04:37 PM Post #19
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 03:38 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 02:40 PM This being the case, why do the weights need to be changed at all? If the CT is proven even with lesser-weighted evidence, why do any of the weights need to change at all? What benefit is gained by "weighting" the evidence on the CT side, if the CT is already proven without this change? Because this is the nature of the implications of this deception. The crime IS a massive psychological operation that manipulates minds to foolishly ignore, dismiss, reject, bury, cover-up, and ridicule evidence that proves it false. But even more importantly the implications are that evidence in support of the official story was planted, fabricated, lied about, paraded, and spun. The suspect has the advantage of unlimited resources, unlimited access to all forms of media, unlimited authority, and the most powerful military on earth for unlimited muscle. Not to mention access to advanced and unknown technology. In other words; the cards are stacked in their favor. So to find ANY evidence that demonstrates their story false DESPITE all of these advantages in their favor, it's clear that this evidence must be given more credence than anything they can provide that allegedly supports their conspiracy theory. You're still not answering my question. I understand what you're saying about the cards being stacked against you, therefore any evidence against the OT must be given more weight than anything on the OT side. Ok....I understand what you mean. My question is this: What additional benefit is gained by "re-stacking" the deck the other way? You have also stated that the evidence still proves the CT even when it is weighted in favor of the otThis being the case, what additional benefit is gained by giving the CT evidence more weight?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 05:09 PM Post #20
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 04:37 PM My question is this: What additional benefit is gained by "re-stacking" the deck the other way? We are not attempting to "re-stack" the deck. The implications are that people have been psychologically manipulated and that part of this manipulation was the staging and fabrication of evidence. This must be considered in the context of this investigation which means that if any evidence creeps through that counters their theory DESPITE the necessary elaborate cover-up and manipulation of evidence in this crime by all an all powerful suspect with virtually unlimited control.....clearly it deserves more credence. Starting to get it yet?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 05:16 PM Post #21
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 05:09 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 04:37 PM My question is this: What additional benefit is gained by "re-stacking" the deck the other way? We are not attempting to "re-stack" the deck. The implications are that people have been psychologically manipulated and that part of this manipulation was the staging and fabrication of evidence. This must be considered in the context of this investigation which means that if any evidence creeps through that counters their theory DESPITE the necessary elaborate cover-up and manipulation of evidence in this crime by all an all powerful suspect with virtually unlimited control.....clearly it deserves more credence. Starting to get it yet? I get that you believe your evidence deserves more creedence, but you clearly still do not understand my question: What benefit is gained by giving the CT evidence more creedence?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 05:30 PM Post #22
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 05:16 PM What benefit is gained by giving the CT evidence more creedence? First off you are generalizing the claim again......when forced to choose, all else being equal, more credence should be given to the evidence that counters the official line. The word "benefit" is inappropriate and a more accurate description would be that it simply helps level the unfair advantage inherently given to the suspect. This is not a hypothetical claim on my part as a person who doesn't believe the official story....it is a logical critical thinking process that is employed by historians and is basic common sense given the nature of the crime we are investigating.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 05:38 PM Post #23
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 18 2008, 05:30 PM nicepants Jan 18 2008, 05:16 PM What benefit is gained by giving the CT evidence more creedence? First off you are generalizing the claim again......when forced to choose, all else being equal, more credence should be given to the evidence that counters the official line. The word "benefit" is inappropriate and a more accurate description would be that it simply helps level the unfair advantage inherently given to the suspect. Since you say that the CT would be proven even if it weren't for this additional "help"..how is the outcome at all affected by the additional "help"?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 18 2008, 05:56 PM Post #24
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	nicepants Jan 18 2008, 05:38 PM Since you say that the CT would be proven even if it weren't for this additional "help"..how is the outcome at all affected by the additional "help"? It's not "help". It's deserved credence that has been unjustly denied by the nature of the psychological operation. The mass hysteria combined with consistent propaganda as a result of the event take away all possibility for objectivity. The official story "evidence" has not been scrutinized by the media or authorities. The implications are that the evidence they present (that they have had complete control of) includes fabrications designed to manipulate. Because of this it is clear that any evidence proving their story false that managed to get out despite these unfair obstacles should be given more credence.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


nicepants	Jan 18 2008, 06:01 PM Post #25
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT nicepants Jan 18 2008, 05:38 PM Since you say that the CT would be proven even if it weren't for this additional "help"..how is the outcome at all affected by the additional "help"? It's not "help". This contradicts your previous statement: Craig Ranke CIT The word "benefit" is inappropriate and a more accurate description would be that it simply helps level the unfair advantage inherently given to the suspect. Ok let's re-phrase the question again since you still haven't answered: You're claiming that the CT is true regardless of how the evidence is weighted. If that is true, how is the outcome at all affected by weighting the evidence of the CT more heavily? Edited by nicepants, Jan 18 2008, 06:02 PM.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #59 Joined: 01/15/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4