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 )

R. I. P. - No Plane Theory, Jim Fetzer evading questions

onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 10:56 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I'm just going to jump straight in here. Basically Jim Fetzer has been evading these points I raised at "TruthandShadows" blogspot (820 posts later..)

Post 1.


From Simon Shack’s FAQ section:

QUOTE
The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake …” Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing ‘airplane’ images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released – inexplicably – as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight” 


First off, the "lucky shots" description is ludicrous because thousands of New Yorkers were focused on this area after the strike on Tower 1.

According to the NPT accusations, that’s 55 people who allegedly, knowingly allowed their names to be publically used as authors of totally manipulated footage, or altered the footage themselves. 55 people, alleged “sleepers”, who “know” exactly what happened on 9/11 in Manhattan. That the towers were blown up by internal explosives and that a hologram was used to fool on the ground witnesses. 

That’s a lot of loose ends.





Please also check the above collection of still images for debris falling from the impact side of the facade.

I agree that certain footage has been edited, withheld, censored or have had their resolution purposely lessened. The Naudet second tower impact has clearly been edited, one Citgo camera was physically removed, the "gatecam" footage which was capable of reading registrations on vehicles has been purposely reuploaded (at least twice) to make the footage useless etc. 

But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?



So how can people who allege that all footage is a complete fabrication and that it's been in the perps'  hands literally from day one, base any scientific claims on observations made in them??

Even the claim that no aircraft debris was seen falling from the impact side doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pause and play the impact seen in the following video. Slowmo if you can.



Then there's this:



I don't know if there is any footage of the base of that area, but the collapse of the tower also leaves the debris claim open to obfuscation.

We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.

The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft's recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second.

When the 60ft of fuselage appears to penetrate the facade, this could be down to optical illusion. The event was over in one tenth of a second.

Here's a video that's as close as I could find to the collision of a hard steel object (steel sled) against a bulky object such as the fuselage. A car.

Normal speed



Slow motion (pay attention to the actual collision at the beginning of the video)



See how the car appears to "melt" or "disappear"? The actual interaction was over in a fraction of a second.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Tamborine man
post May 11 2012, 10:48 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Agreed, elreb -

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post May 12 2012, 04:32 AM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 12 2012, 12:18 PM) *
Agreed, elreb -

Cheers


Dear 'Tamborine man'

Please forgive me, but needed somewhere to tag this onto.
Just dealing, with the Boeing 757 -first-, that is the Pentagon.

Mr Bob Pugh, had no doubt in his mind, right from the first instant, that it did not appear a large commercial aircraft had come in impact with the Pentagon wall.
He expressed also there was no collatoral damage to support such a notion, in fact reporting the hole he saw in the wall as no more than 16 feet wide, as he expressed it, the size of a 'domestic garage door'.
This can be viewed on you tube --9/11 truth: Pentagon Eye Witness Bob Pugh Tells his story.
http://youtu.be/-xtEJ4zrlPM

On the same video, at 4:41 a Gentleman is handling a piece of debris, which people about comment could be part of the undercarriage of an aircraft, other comment made argued against this, saying it was too small.
Whoever made that comment was on the 'money', there can be little doubt, in fact when carefully considered, the part looks to have come away from another part of an aircraft, which was most definitely not a Boeing 757.
Another video on you tube --9/11 Pentagon Explosion and missing plane wreckage
http://youtu.be/YSGK13Cgg
At 9:41, shows the same gentleman holding the same piece of debris.

Another video on you tube -- Witness D C 9/11
http://youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L
At 10:54 shows a Gentleman handling a piece of debris, with every appearance, of being ripped from some sort of aircraft. A person in the background can be heard to say --that is not from a commercial aircraft-- it is too thin, and comes from a smaller plane--, or words to that effect.
There can be little doubt that the man's opinion was on the 'money'.

It is puzzling to consider, why these instance of hard evidence, are being ignored, and the people involved have not been sought out, for their observations.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 4 2015, 06:07 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ May 12 2012, 06:02 PM) *
Dear 'Tamborine man'

Please forgive me, but needed somewhere to tag this onto.
Just dealing, with the Boeing 757 -first-, that is the Pentagon.

Mr Bob Pugh, had no doubt in his mind, right from the first instant, that it did not appear a large commercial aircraft had come in impact with the Pentagon wall.
He expressed also there was no collatoral damage to support such a notion, in fact reporting the hole he saw in the wall as no more than 16 feet wide, as he expressed it, the size of a 'domestic garage door'.
This can be viewed on you tube --9/11 truth: Pentagon Eye Witness Bob Pugh Tells his story.
http://youtu.be/-xtEJ4zrlPM

On the same video, at 4:41 a Gentleman is handling a piece of debris, which people about comment could be part of the undercarriage of an aircraft, other comment made argued against this, saying it was too small.
Whoever made that comment was on the 'money', there can be little doubt, in fact when carefully considered, the part looks to have come away from another part of an aircraft, which was most definitely not a Boeing 757.
Another video on you tube --9/11 Pentagon Explosion and missing plane wreckage
http://youtu.be/YSGK13Cgg
At 9:41, shows the same gentleman holding the same piece of debris.

Another video on you tube -- Witness D C 9/11
http://youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L
At 10:54 shows a Gentleman handling a piece of debris, with every appearance, of being ripped from some sort of aircraft. A person in the background can be heard to say --that is not from a commercial aircraft-- it is too thin, and comes from a smaller plane--, or words to that effect.
There can be little doubt that the man's opinion was on the 'money'.

It is puzzling to consider, why these instance of hard evidence, are being ignored, and the people involved have not been sought out, for their observations.

Robert S


Dear 'NP1Mike' and 'Tamborine Man'

Please forgive me for this route to bring forward this comment.

(1) In the case above: it is very clear from viewing the video that these were not rehearsed comments.

(2) In the case of Tower two: there were some comments made by people who appear not to have rehearsed their lines.

They clearly and articulately stated that the aircraft they had just seen hit tower two was not a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 767.

It seems these people have become lost in the fog of illusion that no doubt kicked into high gear after both these terrible events.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 6 2015, 02:32 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 4 2015, 07:37 PM) *
Dear 'NP1Mike' and 'Tamborine Man'

Please forgive me for this route to bring forward this comment.

(1) In the case above: it is very clear from viewing the video that these were not rehearsed comments.

(2) In the case of Tower two: there were some comments made by people who appear not to have rehearsed their lines.

They clearly and articulately stated that the aircraft they had just seen hit tower two was not a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 767.

It seems these people have become lost in the fog of illusion that no doubt kicked into high gear after both these terrible events.

Robert S



Continuing the theme above.

There is a video in which a woman in a helicopter is in conversation with another woman back at a TV station.

Her initial account was that she had sighted the aircraft that actually hit Tower Two.

It most certainly did not seem she was talking about a large passenger aircraft.

In fact that conversation was clearly edited and again lost in the fog of illusion.

My personal appraisal of the video is that it is the most realistic of any of the video footage presented and still available to the public.

Not to say it has not been visually edited as well as the audio discussion between the two women: as it most definitely has.

The visual editing is by superimposing a white globe effect over the actual aircraft detail.

The aircraft is not anything like the proportions of a Boeing 767.

Robert S

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 10 2015, 05:30 AM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 6 2015, 04:02 PM) *
Continuing the theme above.

There is a video in which a woman in a helicopter is in conversation with another woman back at a TV station.

Her initial account was that she had sighted the aircraft that actually hit Tower Two.

It most certainly did not seem she was talking about a large passenger aircraft.

In fact that conversation was clearly edited and again lost in the fog of illusion.

My personal appraisal of the video is that it is the most realistic of any of the video footage presented and still available to the public.

Not to say it has not been visually edited as well as the audio discussion between the two women: as it most definitely has.

The visual editing is by superimposing a white globe effect over the actual aircraft detail.

The aircraft is not anything like the proportions of a Boeing 767.

Robert S


More of above

In the first instance, the woman appears to refer to a 737.

She then modifies her comment to a very large aircraft, like a Boeing 747 or a DC9.

A male in the mix of conversation then says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression that it was that 'bigger' plane".

I hope he kept his job: the world needs more honest people like that.

The conversation then fluctuated between: at least a 727 saw it a minute ago: and it was at least a 727, 727 or 737.

Robert S

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 12 2015, 05:27 AM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 10 2015, 07:00 PM) *
More of above

In the first instance, the woman appears to refer to a 737.

She then modifies her comment to a very large aircraft, like a Boeing 747 or a DC9.

A male in the mix of conversation then says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression that it was that 'bigger' plane".

I hope he kept his job: the world needs more honest people like that.

The conversation then fluctuated between: at least a 727 saw it a minute ago: and it was at least a 727, 727 or 737.

Robert S


There are various versions of the video I am referring to.

Like most videos on the internet over the issue of 9/11: quality varies greatly.

One thing is consistent: the aircraft involved is small: compared to the size of a Boeing 767.

Another: the aircraft follows the same flight path.

Perhaps the most significant: when the aircraft becomes visible an interesting thing happens.

Tower Two becomes wider on the side nearest Tower one.

To really appreciate this it is necessary to view all the videos labelled "chopper 4": and others showing the same event that are not so labelled.

If and when you view these videos: please ask yourself: how could Tower Two become wider (wider than Tower one): and WHY.

Robert S


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 14 2015, 07:41 AM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 12 2015, 06:57 PM) *
There are various versions of the video I am referring to.

Like most videos on the internet over the issue of 9/11: quality varies greatly.

One thing is consistent: the aircraft involved is small: compared to the size of a Boeing 767.

Another: the aircraft follows the same flight path.

Perhaps the most significant: when the aircraft becomes visible an interesting thing happens.

Tower Two becomes wider on the side nearest Tower one.

To really appreciate this it is necessary to view all the videos labelled "chopper 4": and others showing the same event that are not so labelled.

If and when you view these videos: please ask yourself: how could Tower Two become wider (wider than Tower one): and WHY.

Robert S


If you are still with this series of posts.

There is one video on youtube that is very worth viewing.

The Google address: NIST FIOA WTC2 Plane Impact WTC1 Smoke Ejections, 9 03am (NBC4 News Broadcast)(1)

I suggest you type the address in full, as provided: it may be case-sensitive.

You should find the quality of this video as being very good.

The aircraft that appears from the top right corner of the screen is relatively 'well defined'.

The aircraft is not very large: but the wings are visible: as is the horizontal stabiliser on the port side of the aircraft.

The altitude of the aircraft is discernable: the distance from the towers is a little more difficult to determine: but to trained pilots: probably not that
difficult.

As the aircraft progresses closer to the Towers: it becomes obvious that it is not a very large aircraft.

In this instance, the white effect evident about the starboard wing does not appear to be as a result of image editing: as clearly the white
globe effect is: in other versions of this video.

I am not saying by this: that video has not been edited: as I am suspicious that it has.

But if you pause the video just before the aircraft goes out of view behind Tower one: at the top right corner of Tower one: it is
evident that the aircraft is at that point, over the water: and compared to the size of the Towers: not all that large.

With the video paused: Tower two appears to be wider than Tower one.

If you use a piece of paper and pencil and mark off the width of Tower two and compare it with the width of Tower one: you should
be left with no doubt at all that Tower two for some reason is wider than Tower one.

My suspicion is that this is the result of image editing.

Why? to not reveal the size of the aircraft as it becomes (or should become) visible between the two towers.

You should also notice that at this very time in 'this video' there is a 'cut in', showing Tower one, with evidence of an explosion at the bottom left.

A female commentator breaks in with: "another one just hit".

If you remember the commentators in other versions of the same video said they did not notice the aircraft circling the towers: being
generous the 'cut in' may have been a genuine one: but it is interesting to note: that the explosion is nonetheless still recorded in the main video!!!

The audio of a woman though, then saying: "something just hit, a very large plane, a 747 or a DC9 just flew past my window"!!!

I ask you: did it look like a very large plane to you??

It is well worth listening to the remainder of the audio.

They then 'cut in' another piece of video: which the male commentator says: "is another piece of tape".

I ask you: does that aircraft look like a Boeing 767??

The male commentator is the same one who previously says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression it was that bigger plane".

Please watch the rest of the video, and listen carefully to the audio.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jun 14 2015, 07:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 19 2015, 11:51 AM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 14 2015, 09:11 PM) *
If you are still with this series of posts.

There is one video on youtube that is very worth viewing.

The Google address: NIST FIOA WTC2 Plane Impact WTC1 Smoke Ejections, 9 03am (NBC4 News Broadcast)(1)

I suggest you type the address in full, as provided: it may be case-sensitive.

You should find the quality of this video as being very good.

The aircraft that appears from the top right corner of the screen is relatively 'well defined'.

The aircraft is not very large: but the wings are visible: as is the horizontal stabiliser on the port side of the aircraft.

The altitude of the aircraft is discernable: the distance from the towers is a little more difficult to determine: but to trained pilots: probably not that
difficult.

As the aircraft progresses closer to the Towers: it becomes obvious that it is not a very large aircraft.

In this instance, the white effect evident about the starboard wing does not appear to be as a result of image editing: as clearly the white
globe effect is: in other versions of this video.

I am not saying by this: that video has not been edited: as I am suspicious that it has.

But if you pause the video just before the aircraft goes out of view behind Tower one: at the top right corner of Tower one: it is
evident that the aircraft is at that point, over the water: and compared to the size of the Towers: not all that large.

With the video paused: Tower two appears to be wider than Tower one.

If you use a piece of paper and pencil and mark off the width of Tower two and compare it with the width of Tower one: you should
be left with no doubt at all that Tower two for some reason is wider than Tower one.

My suspicion is that this is the result of image editing.

Why? to not reveal the size of the aircraft as it becomes (or should become) visible between the two towers.

You should also notice that at this very time in 'this video' there is a 'cut in', showing Tower one, with evidence of an explosion at the bottom left.

A female commentator breaks in with: "another one just hit".

If you remember the commentators in other versions of the same video said they did not notice the aircraft circling the towers: being
generous the 'cut in' may have been a genuine one: but it is interesting to note: that the explosion is nonetheless still recorded in the main video!!!

The audio of a woman though, then saying: "something just hit, a very large plane, a 747 or a DC9 just flew past my window"!!!

I ask you: did it look like a very large plane to you??

It is well worth listening to the remainder of the audio.

They then 'cut in' another piece of video: which the male commentator says: "is another piece of tape".

I ask you: does that aircraft look like a Boeing 767??

The male commentator is the same one who previously says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression it was that bigger plane".

Please watch the rest of the video, and listen carefully to the audio.

Robert S


Continuing: but diverging a little.

A Mr Richard Hall from the UK has prepared a number of interesting videos.

I am not promoting that all he has had to say is correct.

Work that he carried out relating to the flight path visible in twenty-six different videos showing an "image of an aircraft" that appears to collide with Tower two, compared to a plot of the flight path created by using
information collected from civilian radar is interesting.

From 3D modelling created by Mr Hall from the above data: it is apparent that the flight path in the videos aligns with the radar plot.

Each of the videos though: seems to have a different shaped aircraft.

The aircraft in each video just seem to pass through the wall of the tower unhindered.

Yet then in later photographs (many extracted from video taken) there appears to be significant damage caused to the wall of the tower at the point of entry of the aircraft.

As extensive as the damage appears, it is still not large enough to accommodate the free passage of a Boeing767: yet the aircraft in the videos give every appearance of passing through the wall as a complete unit.

Those of the videos that are taken from the side of the aircraft are such that they do not allow any consideration of the penetration hole at the moment of impact.

Those of the videos that are taken from behind or below the aircraft: all have had one thing in common.

The appearance of the wall, before and when the aircraft passes through, have obviously been digitally image edited.

There is no doubt about this: when the lack of detail of the wall is considered.

But then after the explosion and smoke have subsided "lo and behold" there is a gaping hole in the wall, with all detail showing.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jun 19 2015, 09:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 19 2015, 05:11 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 19 2015, 10:51 AM) *
The appearance of the wall, before and when the aircraft passes through, have obviously been digitally image edited.

There is no doubt about this: when the lack of detail of the wall is considered.

But then after the explosion and smoke have subsided "lo and behold" there is a gaping hole in the wall, with all detail showing.

Robert S


As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- onesliceshort   R. I. P. - No Plane Theory   May 2 2012, 10:56 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 2. The impact hole http://img114.imageshack...   May 2 2012, 10:57 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 3. The claim that the tower didn't budge (an...   May 2 2012, 10:58 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 4. The claim that modification of the witnes...   May 2 2012, 11:01 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 5. (please read thoroughly) The claim that h...   May 2 2012, 11:04 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 6. Miscellaneous: "Fade to black...   May 2 2012, 11:06 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 7. My own 2cents on other technology to aid ...   May 2 2012, 11:08 PM
- - amazed!   Terrific work OSS! I especially liked the foo...   May 3 2012, 03:04 PM
- - rob balsamo   Good work OSS... I've never actually before s...   May 3 2012, 05:24 PM
|- - onesliceshort   QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 3 2012, 10:24 PM...   May 3 2012, 09:36 PM
- - Tamborine man   Hey, hold on just a minute or two here, dear OSS a...   May 4 2012, 11:54 AM
- - rob balsamo   QUOTE Every person in the whole 'wide' wor...   May 4 2012, 12:31 PM
- - onesliceshort   TM, I think the insinuation about Snowcrash and th...   May 4 2012, 10:19 PM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2012, 01:19 ...   May 5 2012, 04:54 AM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2012, 01:19 ...   May 7 2012, 02:04 AM
- - onesliceshort   QUOTE (tm)My worry is this: By declaring NPT for ...   May 7 2012, 09:02 AM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 5 2012, 12:02 ...   May 7 2012, 11:11 PM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 7 2012, 11:11 ...   May 7 2012, 11:43 PM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 6 2012, 02:43 AM...   May 8 2012, 08:35 AM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 8 2012, 08:35 ...   May 8 2012, 09:01 AM
|- - bpete1969   QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 8 2012, 09:01 AM...   May 15 2012, 09:58 PM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (bpete1969 @ May 15 2012, 09:58 PM)...   May 15 2012, 11:37 PM
- - amazed!   Famous line from Cool Hand Luke--what we have here...   May 8 2012, 08:44 AM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (amazed! @ May 6 2012, 11:44 AM...   May 8 2012, 09:04 AM
- - onesliceshort   QUOTE Nevertheless, i'll continue to defend th...   May 8 2012, 03:19 PM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 6 2012, 06:19 ...   May 9 2012, 01:52 AM
|- - elreb   QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 8 2012, 07:52 ...   May 10 2012, 06:44 PM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (elreb @ May 11 2012, 08:14 AM) I f...   May 11 2012, 07:22 AM
- - amazed!   Agreed, Elreb!   May 11 2012, 02:56 PM
- - Tamborine man   Agreed, elreb - Cheers   May 11 2012, 10:48 PM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 12 2012, 12:18...   May 12 2012, 04:32 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ May 12 2012, 06:0...   Jun 4 2015, 06:07 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 4 2015, 07:37...   Jun 6 2015, 02:32 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 6 2015, 04:02...   Jun 10 2015, 05:30 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 10 2015, 07:0...   Jun 12 2015, 05:27 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 12 2015, 06:5...   Jun 14 2015, 07:41 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 14 2015, 09:1...   Jun 19 2015, 11:51 AM
|- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 19 2015, 10:5...   Jun 19 2015, 05:11 PM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) A...   Jun 20 2015, 01:03 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) A...   Jun 20 2015, 01:03 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) A...   Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) A...   Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 20 2015, 02:3...   Jun 24 2015, 05:04 AM
- - amazed!   Robert For me, all 3 of those YouTubes were ...   May 12 2012, 11:34 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (amazed! @ May 13 2012, 01:04 A...   May 12 2012, 08:21 PM
- - onesliceshort   Bump   Feb 20 2014, 06:23 AM
- - onesliceshort   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 11:23...   Feb 24 2014, 08:38 PM
- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2014, 07:38...   Feb 24 2014, 09:40 PM
- - Alpha66   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 24 2014, 09:40 PM) I...   Jun 3 2015, 08:44 AM
- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (Alpha66 @ Jun 3 2015, 07:44 AM) PL...   Jun 3 2015, 06:47 PM


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: 18th November 2019 - 07:02 AM