IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Alleged Aa 77 Debris

scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 08:11 AM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



I took a look in this forum for information on AA 77 debris. But while I found information on specific parts, I found no post that talked of all of it combined. Recently, in response to a post of mine, someone brought up various pieces of debris. I was hoping I could get some help responding to their post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Aug 26 2009, 09:17 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Hi Scott,

I mean this cordially - but why are you always appearing recently asking questions? How much information do you actually need? I managed to work out 9/11 by myself just by reading and thinking .....

KP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rossgs
post Aug 26 2009, 10:05 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 5-January 08
From: San Diego Area
Member No.: 2,630



Actually the debate seems to be specifically about how to identify the aircraft unambiguously. What people want to see are the maintenance records from AA (or UAL for that matter) along with a part whose serial number is shown in those records. There is supposed to be a hangar somewhere with all the parts still in it and the only reason given for not divulging what the government is holding (as I recall) is that it's an ongoing investigation and the FBI wont release them until that's over. People feel that in the chaos of the event at the Pentagon it would have been easy to plant items to make it look like what the OCT says it was.
Rgrds-Ross
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 26 2009, 10:29 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



It is a moot point to analyze photographs of parts when the parts were never positively identified as coming from N644AA (or any of the 4 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11).

(edit to add: rossgs, you "recall" incorrectly. The information is not being 'withheld'. The FOIA's linked below reveal the parts were never positively identified and they have no intention of doing so...)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....=parts+wreckage

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....=parts+wreckage


However,


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....=parts+wreckage

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....=parts+wreckage

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....=parts+wreckage

All of the above found with our search function.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?act=Search

And for good measure...



Scott, please learn to use the search function of this forum, and please stop spamming UM links. You do not need to link to UM every-single-time you have a question which originates from UM. Just ask the question. Your link has been removed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 12:23 PM
Post #5





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (KP50 @ Aug 26 2009, 09:17 AM) *
Hi Scott,

I mean this cordially - but why are you always appearing recently asking questions? How much information do you actually need? I managed to work out 9/11 by myself just by reading and thinking ....


This isn't about persuading me. I was persuaded of the veracity of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT's view that the official story is impossible long ago. I'm doing more research for -others-, who have still not come to this conclusion and believe the alleged evidence pointing towards the plane hitting the pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 12:25 PM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



Thank you rossgs and Rob. I will link your comments over in Unexplained Mysteries.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Aug 26 2009, 04:08 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-May 08
Member No.: 3,364



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 09:29 AM) *
It is a moot point to analyze photographs of parts when the parts were never positively identified as coming from N644AA (or any of the 4 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11).

Sure the parts have not been identified as coming from the alleged Flight 77, though analysis of the general debris is obviously relevant to determining whether an aircraft did impact the Pentagon, especially considering the sizeable membership of this forum who seem to believe there was no impact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 26 2009, 05:12 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 26 2009, 04:08 PM) *
Sure the parts have not been identified as coming from the alleged Flight 77, though analysis of the general debris is obviously relevant to determining whether an aircraft did impact the Pentagon, especially considering the sizeable membership of this forum who seem to believe there was no impact.



Aircraft Accident Investigation procedures are clear. Parts need to be Positively Identified in order to Positively Identify the aircraft from which they came.

Photographs of aircraft parts are proof of only photographs of aircraft parts.

Now, photographs of parts may be good enough to satisfy you, even to the point of arguing with others, but they arent good enough for the growing list of Aircraft Accident Investigators and aviation professionals listed here.....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

.... especially considering the mountain of conflicting information regarding 9/11.

How much experience you have in Aircraft Accident Investigation Q24? Have any investigative experience or training? Ever even spoken to an Aircraft Accident Investigator?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 05:16 PM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



Missed the bottom part of Rob's post in my previous reply...

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 10:29 AM) *
Scott, please learn to use the search function of this forum,


I know how to use the search function. But since I wasn't sure exactly what I was looking for, I actually manually scoured the AA 77 forum to see if I could find a thread that covered all the alleged AA 77 debris. I found only a thread or 2 that covered individual pieces of the debris.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 10:29 AM) *
and please stop spamming UM links.


I'm deeply offended that you consider my linking to the source of my concern to be 'spam'. At the same time, I have noted that some people here have balked when people have not sourced where they're getting their information from.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 10:29 AM) *
You do not need to link to UM every-single-time you have a question which originates from UM. Just ask the question.


I was aware of that. I simply thought that some might like to see the source of the information; I know that people have been upset that Q24 hasn't always sourced his information, for instance. Furthermore, I was asking for help with a post, that included pictures; it's much easier to simply link the post I have concerns about than bring up all the information in it, complete with pictures, over here. Once again, however, it's your forum. You and/or others here can protest when material isn't sourced, and remove the source link when it's offered. I don't think it looks good, but like I said, it's your forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 05:20 PM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 05:12 PM) *
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 26 2009, 04:08 PM)

Sure the parts have not been identified as coming from the alleged Flight 77, though analysis of the general debris is obviously relevant to determining whether an aircraft did impact the Pentagon, especially considering the sizeable membership of this forum who seem to believe there was no impact.


Aircraft Accident Investigation procedures are clear. Parts need to be Positively Identified in order to Positively Identify the aircraft from which they came.

Photographs of aircraft parts are proof of only photographs of aircraft parts.

Now, photographs of parts may be good enough to satisfy you, even to the point of arguing with others, but they aren't good enough for the growing list of Aircraft Accident Investigators and aviation professionals listed here.....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

.... especially considering the mountain of conflicting information regarding 9/11.

How much experience you have in Aircraft Accident Investigation Q24? Have any investigative experience or training? Ever even spoken to an Aircraft Accident Investigator?


Good points. However, there is one particular point from the link you have removed that would seem to disagree with your assertion. Note that the included information doesn't include the link that you removed, but rather information within it:

Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder positively identified as coming from flight 77


This doesn't mean that AA 77 crashed into the pentagon, or even that the flight data recorder was in fact picked up there. But I would definitely be interested in knowing who found it, and where, as well as who identified it as coming from flight 77.

This post has been edited by scott75: Aug 26 2009, 05:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 26 2009, 05:33 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (scott75 @ Aug 26 2009, 05:16 PM) *
I'm deeply offended that you consider my linking to the source of my concern to be 'spam'. At the same time, I have noted that some people here have balked when people have not sourced where they're getting their information from.


Scott, please learn the difference between sourcing a claim and sourcing a question. If you make a claim, most expect it to be sourced. For example, "The parts positively ID N644AA". We would expect this to be sourced. If you have a question which has arisen elsewhere, there is no need to source it every-single-time (bolded this time so you hopefully dont miss the point). For Example "Can you please help me to find discussion here regarding aircraft debris? Others on another forum are discussing the parts and I havent been able to find much here.".

I am deeply offended that every time you box yourself in a corner at UM due to your obvious lack of study habits, that you expect us to say "how high" when you say "Jump".

If we want to debate people at UM, we will go debate people at UM. Dont bring their spin and ignorance here. If you have a question which you are confused, feel free to ask. If you make a claim, please source it.

Are we clear?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 26 2009, 05:35 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (scott75 @ Aug 26 2009, 05:20 PM) *
This doesn't mean that AA 77 crashed into the pentagon, or even that the flight data recorder was in fact picked up there. But I would definitely be interested in knowing who found it, and where, as well as who identified it as coming from flight 77.



Link repeated for Scott since clearly he didnt click it in post 4.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....=parts+wreckage


And to add more links since Scott has terrible study habits.

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

Dont forget to scroll down when clicking the links Scott! You want to be sure to read the whole story...lol

Also, be sure to see the right margin article for part two in the second link above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 06:06 PM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 05:33 PM) *
QUOTE (scott75 @ Aug 26 2009, 05:16 PM)

I'm deeply offended that you consider my linking to the source of my concern to be 'spam'. At the same time, I have noted that some people here have balked when people have not sourced where they're getting their information from.


Scott, please learn the difference between sourcing a claim and sourcing a question. If you make a claim, most expect it to be sourced. For example, "The parts positively ID N644AA". We would expect this to be sourced. If you have a question which has arisen elsewhere, there is no need to source it every-single-time (bolded this time so you hopefully dont miss the point).


If I were sourcing the same post every single time, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. However, this is not the case. I don't think I've even repeated sourcing any particular post.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 05:33 PM) *
For Example "Can you please help me to find discussion here regarding aircraft debris? Others on another forum are discussing the parts and I havent been able to find much here.".


I essentially did this; I simply added the link to the post I was having trouble with; and while you removed the link, I have a suspicion that you may have actually looked at it, because you deal with things that were mentioned in it, such as the black box. This may, ofcourse, have been a coincidence, but it's possible. Secondly, why reinvent the wheel? By simply saying "I don't know how to respond to this" and then providing the link to the post in question, the specifics are all there for anyone to have a look, so long as the link to the post isn't removed. And while -I- may not be making any claims, the post I was linking to certainly did.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 05:33 PM) *
I am deeply offended that every time you box yourself in a corner at UM due to your obvious lack of study habits,


You ask too much too soon. I only started seriously posting here what, a month ago? I've spent many hours analyzing all the data. I've transcribed a fair amount from your videos, Pandora's Black Box: Chapter II, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, as well as CIT's Lloyd England: The Eye of the Storm. You guys know so much. What would take me an age, you guys can generally do easily. How long did it take you to come up with your post 4? I'll warrant that it wasn't that long. Probably less time than it took me to search through the AA 77 forum in search of what I was looking for.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 05:33 PM) *
that you expect us to say "how high" when you say "Jump".


There is a difference between expectation and hope.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 05:33 PM) *
If we want to debate people at UM, we will go debate people at UM.


And someone from here may have even done so; someone with the name of ValkreWings was over there a while and certainly seemed to know a fair amount. But they seem to have concluded that they debunked Q24 and they have since not posted anything more. I agree wholeheartedly that if you guys want to debate people at UM, it's not so difficult for you to register for an account there and do so. I think it's equally clear that most if not all of you aren't interested in doing so. I'm not even asking you to do it. Instead, -I- am doing it. I manage to counter many of their points. But not all. When I get to a post where I feel I simply can't answer, I sometimes think, perhaps P4T or CIT can help. The results haven't always been the best; I've been accused of "spamming" links, or spreading .. I'm not even going to repeat that comment. But I have also gotten a fair amount of information, which is why I haven't given up on this approach.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 05:33 PM) *
Dont bring their spin and ignorance here.


I am so tired of the word "spin". It's used by both sides of many arguments and its primary use seems to be to imply sinister motives of the other side of the debate; and, ofcourse, evidence isn't required. And yes, I know that the people over at UM don't have your level of knowledge regarding the pentagon attack. And yes, that clearly includes myself. There's no need to be insulting about it.

This post has been edited by scott75: Aug 26 2009, 06:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 26 2009, 06:14 PM
Post #14


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (scott75 @ Aug 26 2009, 02:20 PM) *
Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder positively identified as coming from flight 77


QUOTE
<snip>

While it was widely reported in the media that the flight data recorder (FDR) also known as the "black box," for American Airlines Flight 77 (the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11) was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier. In other words, the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.

When Monaghan filed a Request for Correction with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and pointed out this disparity, his request was denied and an explanation offered that the file was created as a routine procedure prior to finding the FDR. However the FDR file indicates three parameters: date created, date modified, and date accessed. The "date created" and "date modified" fields are both listed as 11:45:38 pm on September 13, 2001, indicating that no data was added later, after the FDR was found. The "date accessed" field is blank.

This is, Monaghan says, "sufficient reason to wonder if the information is faked."

Monaghan has also established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from American Airlines Flight # 77 or United Airlines Flight # 93 (which allegedly crashed in Shanksville, PA). This is highly unusual, in fact, according to Monaghan, there is only one other occasion in the past 20 years when the NTSB report for a airplane crash did not contain the part and serial numbers for the FDR. That was, oddly enough, exactly ten years earlier, on September 11, 1991, when a Continental Express flight broke up in mid-air, killing 14 people, when the horizontal stabilizer failed. The accident was blamed on the negligence of Continental's maintenance and inspection crew.

The NTSB's own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.

<snip>

Monaghan sued the FBI to obtain "documentation revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant…as belonging to the said aircraft…" Reply: "…there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated…"

As reported in the April, 2008 Rock Creek Free Press, the aircraft were very much in question, as transponders were turned off and one plane, Flight 77, was even lost to radar over Ohio for a time. NTSB officials are on record stating that they were involved in aircraft parts identification, and bins were set up at all three crash sites labeled "aircraft parts."

<snip>


My emphasis added.

Source, most recent issue of Rock Creek Free Press: http://rockcreekfreepress.com/ Article: "The Deep State Does Not Respond To FOIA Requests; A Profile of 9/11 Researcher Aidan Monaghan," By Sheila Casey / RCFP

See also Aidan Monaghan's blog for full documentation of all FOIA's generated and responses obtained in pursuit of government held information related to 9/11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 26 2009, 06:22 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Scott,

I didnt read your reply as i dont have time to go round and round with you today.

I'll keep this really simple, if you link to arguments at UM because you get boxed in a corner due to your lack of study and preparation for debate, the link will be removed. We are tired of fighting your battles.

Consider this a warning.

Feel free to ask questions if you are confused about certain topics of our work.

This conversation is over. If the next reply is not on topic, this thread will be closed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Aug 26 2009, 09:26 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-May 08
Member No.: 3,364



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 04:12 PM) *
Aircraft Accident Investigation procedures are clear. Parts need to be Positively Identified in order to Positively Identify the aircraft from which they came.

Photographs of aircraft parts are proof of only photographs of aircraft parts.

Now, photographs of parts may be good enough to satisfy you, even to the point of arguing with others, but they arent good enough for the growing list of Aircraft Accident Investigators and aviation professionals listed here.....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

.... especially considering the mountain of conflicting information regarding 9/11.

I know you are aware that there are two separate issues here: -

  1. Did the aircraft impact the Pentagon?
  2. What was the identity of the aircraft?
I believe there is more than enough physical and witness evidence to confirm the first but not the second. Regarding the lack of identification procedure carried out by the NTSB and FBI I absolutely agree with you – not good enough.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 04:12 PM) *
How much experience you have in Aircraft Accident Investigation Q24? Have any investigative experience or training? Ever even spoken to an Aircraft Accident Investigator?

I’m a self-confessed layman to aviation issues… but that doesn’t make me incapable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Aug 26 2009, 09:34 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-May 08
Member No.: 3,364



QUOTE (scott75 @ Aug 26 2009, 04:20 PM) *
Good points. However, there is one particular point from the link you have removed that would seem to disagree with your assertion. Note that the included information doesn't include the link that you removed, but rather information within it:

Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder positively identified as coming from flight 77

I have helped you out with that one over on UM, Scott. Maybe you should ask me first before running over here. When official story followers come up with falsities like this, I can back you up on it. The same goes for issues outside of the Pentagon event too. It’s only these ‘no impact’ theories that I cannot have anything to do with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 10:12 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 06:22 PM) *
Scott,

I didnt read your reply as i dont have time to go round and round with you today.


If you'd read it, you would have realized I'd said something new.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 06:22 PM) *
I'll keep this really simple, if you link to arguments at UM because you get boxed in a corner due to your lack of study and preparation for debate, the link will be removed. We are tired of fighting your battles.


You really believe they're just my battles? In regards to my preparation, I've learned quite a bit in a short period of time. The fact that -you- don't consider it to be enough doesn't mean that I haven't learned much more than most on the subject.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 06:22 PM) *
Consider this a warning.


Noted.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 06:22 PM) *
Feel free to ask questions if you are confused about certain topics of our work.


I didn't know how to respond to some points made over UM, regarding the pentagon debris. You guys know a lot about the crash, and your post demonstrates that. If you'd just spend less time criticizing my knowledge base, which I -am- expanding, albeit not at the rate that you would prefer, I think we'd get along better. If you had some pros arguing on your behalf over at Unexplained Mystery, I'd just watch. And it seemed for a time that one P4T may have been doing just that. But he left, apparently feeling that he had 'defeated' Q24's points. Only a lot of people don't see it that way over there. From what I understood, this place is to educate people concerning what happened with the 9/11 planes, as well as what happened to them. And yet, when people come here to question things that you've said, or even to help resolve things that the person coming has seen others bring up...


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 26 2009, 06:22 PM) *
This conversation is over. If the next reply is not on topic, this thread will be closed.


It's your forum, and you can call whatever you like "off topic". Sooner or later, though, I think you're going to have to deal with the fact that you are frequently rather prickly in nature when it comes to people who don't know as much as you on some things. You're fine with the technical aspects; it's the human relationship aspect that you need work on.

This post has been edited by scott75: Aug 26 2009, 10:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 10:17 PM
Post #19





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 26 2009, 09:34 PM) *
QUOTE (scott75 @ Aug 26 2009, 04:20 PM)

Good points. However, there is one particular point from the link you have removed that would seem to disagree with your assertion. Note that the included information doesn't include the link that you removed, but rather information within it:

Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder positively identified as coming from flight 77


I have helped you out with that one over on UM, Scott. Maybe you should ask me first before running over here.


I'm sorry Q, but I think that that'd at times be a bit like the deaf asking the blind for help ;-). I know you know a bit, but despite my disagreements with the methods of some both here and at CIT, I firmly believe they know a fair amount more than both of us combined regarding the technical aspects of the pentagon attack.


QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 26 2009, 09:34 PM) *
When official story followers come up with falsities like this, I can back you up on it. The same goes for issues outside of the Pentagon event too. It’s only these ‘no impact’ theories that I cannot have anything to do with.


Meanwhile, I'm all for the no impact theory, but apparently I'm too unprepared. Never mind the fact that there doesn't seem to be anyone -more- prepared in UM right now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 26 2009, 10:19 PM
Post #20





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (painter @ Aug 26 2009, 06:14 PM) *
My emphasis added.

Source, most recent issue of Rock Creek Free Press: http://rockcreekfreepress.com/ Article: "The Deep State Does Not Respond To FOIA Requests; A Profile of 9/11 Researcher Aidan Monaghan," By Sheila Casey / RCFP

See also Aidan Monaghan's blog for full documentation of all FOIA's generated and responses obtained in pursuit of government held information related to 9/11.


Thanks painter. I actually saw that link within one of Rob's posts a little later. I'm fine with linking to posts.. I just wish that Rob would have included a bit more text in his post.. that's why I didn't originally read any of the links.. just felt too impersonal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th February 2020 - 09:38 PM