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 )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Establishing Facts Leading To Logical Conclusions, A proposed end to the 'NPT' connundrum

painter
post Aug 31 2007, 06:27 PM
Post #1


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


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



Preface:

I've written elsewhere in this forum that the 9/11 event is very complex set of events and, consequently, one of the problems discussing it is too many things get discussed simultaneously. Even in one thread the evidence/argument counter-argument/counter-counter-argument format can very quickly become overly confusing as more information and increasingly tangential information comes forward. For this reason I would like to suggest a simple way to deal with this problem, especially as it relates to the so called "No Plane Theory," (which, as has been noted elsewhere may be a misnomer).

Establishing Fact to Draw Logical Conclusions:

First, we must agree that in the world we live in some things are possible but not everything is possible. If we agree that material objects behave in ways that correspond to established laws of physics and these material objects are shown behaving in ways that defy these fundamental laws, then we have to conclude that what we are being shown and the explanation given for it must be placed in question.

For example, I believe it can be safely said that most people in this forum agree that it is physically impossible for the upper 10 to 20% of a building such as the WTC towers to 'collapse' in upon the lower 90 to 80% of the structure, crushing it at a rate even remotely close to free fall speed. That we were shown this and given an explanation which defied the laws of both physics and common sense caused many of us to entertain other hypotheses -- such as controlled demolition -- as a more reasonable explanation.

However, we also have to acknowledge that if it is an established fact that the WTC towers cold not have 'collapsed' as we've been led to believe then we are faced with a much broader conspiracy than is commonly believed. In other words, the establishment of this as fact necessarily leads to a logical conclusion -- even without a full grasp of the exact means by which the WTC towers were demolished. If these three buildings can not fall at the rates recorded due to structural failure alone (whatever its initiation may have been), then it must be concluded that some other, as yet unknown, cause was at work and, therefore, conclude the official explanation of the events of 9/11 are false.

Of course, when it is concluded that the official explanation is false, this, logically, leads to many other disturbing questions -- the many levels of who, what, how and why that surround the mystery. These questions can be very interesting and fruitful lines of inquiry. However, they can also, in a way, lead us away from the bare-bones significance of the established conclusion: The official account of what happened on 9/11 is logically and demonstrably false. The point being, we know this as a reasonably and rationally established fact even if we do not know any of the answers to "the many levels of who, what, how and why."

Applying this principal to the so called 'NPT':

That the official explanation for the events of 9/11 can not be true has been established as conclusive -- at least among those of us who have taken the time to study the evidence. We may disagree about the 'means', but the established conclusion holds.

The so called 'NPT' represents a hypothesis concerning one aspect of the 'how' question. Whether the overall 'NPT' is true or false does not change the already established conclusion regarding the official narrative. Nevertheless, this particular question has a bearing of considerable significant consequence because, if it can be demonstrated that the 'NPT' is true (and, therefore, that the assumed 'Real Plane Theory' ['RPT'] is false), then this established fact would substantially impact every aspect of the 9/11 conundrum. If there were no planes, then there were no flights, no hijackers, no passengers, no phone calls, no possible intercepts, no impacts, no resulting fires -- in short, every aspect of the official presentation of 9/11 would be rendered a complete and utter hoax.

The proposition is very simple and precisely the same as was discussed in regards to the way the towers 'collapsed.' If it can be demonstrated that the planes are shown behaving in ways that defy the laws of physics (and are therefore impossible), then it must necessarily be concluded that the planes shown were fake. Again, as before, to establish this conclusively it isn't necessary to show how or even to what extent they were faked. It is simply necessary to establish that what was shown was a physical impossibility.

In another thread, forum member Sure (Jeff) posted a link to a 19min30sec 3.5mb mp3 of a recorded conversation between himself and aerospace engineer Joseph Keith.

Beginning at 14:59 through 16:50, Mr. Keith is recorded as saying the following:

QUOTE (Joseph Keith)
Well anyway, I also contacted friends of mine that were still working at Boeing and, because I know that those planes can't fly very fast at sea level. And if you count the frames that it takes in that video -- any of those videos, it is all the same -- it takes six or seven frames. If it takes seven frames to fly its own length which is 159 feet, that means the plane was averaging 465 miles per hour. If it took six frames, that meant the plane averaged 543 miles per hour. Well, according to the Boeing experts or Boeing uh the Boeing people themselves, the engineering department, the plane maxes out -- the specs on the plane -- the power plant will max out at 700 feet altitude at 330 miles per hour. In other words, it can't fly that fast. And, the plane will begin to shake itself apart at about 220 miles per hour at that altitude. So, if the plane were flying that fast at that altitude it would've shook itself apart before it hit the building. You see the engine with the cowlings around them are something like 12 feet in diameter on the 767 and they are built to fly at over 30,000 feet and when you're at 700 feet altitude the air is so thick that when the engine -- you max the rotation of the turbine -- the air, they can't suck the air in and those things start acting as a brake.


Now, what we have here is an expert in the field stating that what was shown to us is physically impossible. Not being anywhere near an expert myself, I have no way of evaluating the credibility of Mr. Keith's contention (although it does certainly sound plausible to my non-expert opinion). I would think that it would be a fairly easy matter to either confirm or contradict Mr. Keith's contention. We need to ascertain the altitude (easy enough), we need to ascertain the air-speed (calculated by distance covered in frame-rate is one possibility -- but to do that the exact frame rate would have to be known or at least a spread of estimates for various possible video frame rates derived). Finally it would need to be verified by several credible experts that a 767 could not fly at that/those rate(s) at that altitude.

If this can be conclusively shown then all the other questions regarding fakery of the video, how it was faked, who faked it and so forth, even the damage seen at the alleged point of impact, becomes secondary. If we were shown something that is physically impossible, then what we were shown is a deception. If it can be established as a conclusive fact that the material object being observed could not have been flying at that rate at that altitude, then the 'NPT', regardless of all the other questions remaining unanswered, is substantially validated.

Conclusion:

Establishing facts that are conclusive is the most sound, logical and rational method for moving forward -- regardless of the overall implications of the facts established. What matters is the soundness of the established facts.

I invite everyone, but especially pilot and air industry professionals, to comment on this contention by Mr. Keith. I ask that everyone stay on-topic and keep it simple, to the point. Either investigation will uphold Mr. Keith's contention or contradict it. If he is right then 'NPT' is valid, however 'unbelievable' or 'inconvenient' the conclusion may be.

A personal note: I am very busy and absolutely must keep my participation on this forum to a bare minimum. I request that everyone stay on topic, keep it simple, and do not bring any more into the discussion than is necessary to either confirm or refute Mr. Keith's contention.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Aug 31 2007, 06:49 PM
Post #2


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Great post Painter. I'll be around to a fair extent. We'll try to keep everything civil and on topic. Thanks pal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 31 2007, 07:09 PM
Post #3


∞* 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 (Cary @ Aug 31 2007, 02:49 PM)
Great post Painter. I'll be around to a fair extent. We'll try to keep everything civil and on topic. Thanks pal.

Thank YOU, Cary thumbsup.gif cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 31 2007, 07:56 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



These are the exact numbers we are also trying to get from Boeing in terms of wind tunnel tests. I agree with what he is saying... dont know if the numbers are accurate though.

Jeff... if you speak to Joe again, please give him my contact info... i would love to have a chat with him..i havent had a chance to listen to the interview yet...

Painter... its "cowlings" or Engine Cowl. Can also be called nacelle. Its the structure that surrounds and holds the actual engine.

Think of it as a hood, like on your car.

smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 31 2007, 07:59 PM
Post #5


∞* 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 (rob balsamo @ Aug 31 2007, 03:56 PM)
<s>
Painter... its "cowlings" or Engine Cowl. Can also be called nacelle. Its the structure that surrounds and holds the actual engine.
<s>

Thanks, I'll make the change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post Aug 31 2007, 08:01 PM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



That would be great Rob, I'll send him an email right away wink.gif

I would also like to thank all you guys for being "REAL" and taking all evidence into consideration. This forum should be an example for others to follow !!!

cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 31 2007, 08:02 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



Also let me add in regards to this post..


QUOTE
then the 'NPT', regardless of all the other questions remaining unanswered, is substantially validated



This is not necessarily true. The numbers Joe refers to are for a stock 767 as reported by the govt.

The planes could have been aerodynamically and/or powerplant modified. The possibilities are endless and certainly does not validate NPT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM
Post #8


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 31 2007, 05:02 PM)
Also let me add in regards to this post..


QUOTE
then the 'NPT', regardless of all the other questions remaining unanswered, is substantially validated



This is not necessarily true. The numbers Joe refers to are for a stock 767 as reported by the govt.

The planes could have been aerodynamically and/or powerplant modified. The possibilities are endless and certainly does not validate NPT.

That's what I thought too. I personally think the towers were hit by planes, but not by the reported airliners. I think they were specially equipped.

At air shows we see jets practically scraping the ground at very high speeds. A 'Boeing' that was specially modified by the military could probably do that as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Aug 31 2007, 08:51 PM
Post #9





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 31 2007, 08:02 PM)
This is not necessarily true. The numbers Joe refers to are for a stock 767 as reported by the govt.

Even though i don't totally agree with the numbers, this "aerospace engineer" 's numbers were also assuming this aircraft was taking off from the ground and trying to go full throttle at 700ft. Maybe the numbers would be correct in that instance, but an aircraft coming in from a high altitude wouldn't need very much thrust from it's engines as it has gravity to make it go faster. As far as the aircraft "shaking apart", there's no evidence of this anywhere that i'm aware of and i believe it is a baseless assumption.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Aug 31 2007, 08:58 PM
Post #10





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 31 2007, 07:56 PM)
dont know if the numbers are accurate though.

I'm not a pilot, but i've flown alot in flight sims and i don't even agree with those numbers. Something smells a little fishy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 31 2007, 09:16 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



speed limits are speed limits, whether taking off from the ground or diving in from the air.

There are 4 forces acting on an aircraft at all times... thrust, weight, lift and drag.

Once you have a thorough understanding of those 4 forces and how they act on an aircraft, you will understand what Joe is saying.

As for "shaking apart", his concerns are very valid. Google such words as control surface flutter, airframe flutter, high speed buffet, mach tuck, coffin corner...

just some to get you started... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 31 2007, 09:26 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

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



Here is a link i found with a quick search... i just skimmed through it, but it seems to give a good understanding of flying an aircraft above design speed...

http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/flutter.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Aug 31 2007, 09:46 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



It is possible to find something about speed and limit and more here

TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET A1NM
This data sheet, which is part of Type Certificate No. A1NM, prescribes conditions and limitations under which the product for which the type certificate was issued meets the airworthiness requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

For example B 767 200:
Airspeed Limits: VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

But what some people simply say is: Yes, but this is just the official number... in fact they are much higher... etc etc etc...

One can see a talk about it here
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 31 2007, 10:09 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 (rob balsamo @ Aug 31 2007, 04:02 PM)
Also let me add in regards to this post..
QUOTE
then the 'NPT', regardless of all the other questions remaining unanswered, is substantially validated

This is not necessarily true. The numbers Joe refers to are for a stock 767 as reported by the govt.

The planes could have been aerodynamically and/or powerplant modified. The possibilities are endless and certainly does not validate NPT.

Fair enough but lets answer the first question first. It's like pinning down ONE THING that people can agree on as factual.

What would be the top speed Flight 175 could have been flying at that altitude?

Once that is determined, other questions can be asked. If we can proceed factually, step by step, this 'NPT' question can be answered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 1 2007, 10:53 AM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Good points all.

I don't know about Boeings, but most airplanes will not get close to Vne in level flight. Vmo and Mmo vary with altitude I think. The thicker the air the slower it can go, will go.

But we're rather back to the same old thing: how many people saw and/or photographed the airplane? Quite a few. Unless they were all seeing holograms or hallucinating, the airplane existed and struck the building.

It would be no surprise for the official version to contain many errors, including airspeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 1 2007, 11:01 AM
Post #16





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



Great Post Painter.

Of course any discussion of why the 911 plane impacts are impossible on the physical limitations alone, should take into account Penetration Mechanics and what is termed Crash Physics as well as impossible speed and altitude issues. Mr. Keith weighs in on this issue as the primary reason as to why the impacts couldn't have happened as depicted. Here's an excerpt from an interview Keith granted Morgan Reynolds:

Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?

A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.

Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.

Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.

A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.

Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.

Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?

A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.

Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. What else?

A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.

Q: So there’s no deceleration?

A: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:

1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.

2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.

3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.

A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.

Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.

A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).

(END EXCERPT)

This is in line with everything I understand about penetration mechanics and affirms the position I've been laying out on the Alt. Theory forum.

This is real science, people.

Now I would add that if you back that up with impossible flight speeds you are looking at very persuasive evidence indeed (conclusive IMO).

People here are theorizing about specially fitted planes which suggests the need for special criteria when ascribing possibility, i.e. if the planes were special then it's feasible they could behave in special ways.

In this regard I would have to bring in the other solid evidence issue: that of flight data.

The WB 11 live shot depicts the "plane" on a trajectory totally at odds with the flight data. Again an impossibility, but this time, one even a "special plane" can't reconcile.

A further look into the business of approach angles will show inconsistency across the board in regards to (1) certain videos compared to flight data and just as importantly (2) comparison between the various videos, one to another, i.e. they don't correspond to each other. (Jim Keith points out this issue too: "two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t."

Applying logic here: If it is impossible for an aluminum based plane to penetrate the towers in the fashion depicted (and Jim Keith, an Expert, says categorically that it is) and furthermore that it is impossible for a plane to fly at the speeds depicted (again JK declares it is) and furthermore there is evidence of video manipulation because of approach angles that are in certain instances inconsistent with flight data and in other instances inconsistent one video example to another:

Then it can safely be concluded that the videos were manipulated to include false images of planes impacting the buildings and in reality there were none: regular, special equipped or otherwise.

Any conclusion must be derived from, and in reconciliation of, all the relevant data. In other words: selective use of evidence can lead to false conclusions. We should avoid this tendency.

I propose we "triangulate" the evidentiary proof so to speak and consider three basic and important aspects: (1) the impossibility of planes performing in the manner depicted, (2) the impossibility of planes penetrating in the manner depicted and (3) the impossibility of planes approaching in the manner depicted.

My 2 cents, Ffg.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 1 2007, 11:07 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 1 2007, 11:24 AM
Post #17


∞* 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 (behind @ Aug 31 2007, 05:46 PM)
It is possible to find something about speed and limit and more here

TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET A1NM
This data sheet, which is part of Type Certificate No. A1NM, prescribes conditions and limitations under which the product for which the type certificate was issued meets the airworthiness requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

For example B 767 200:
Airspeed Limits: VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

But what some people simply say is: Yes, but this is just the official number... in fact they are much higher... etc etc etc...

One can see a talk about it here

I just want to be clear -- being anything but an aviation professional -- are you saying that we do not know and can not establish a top figure for how fast flight 175 (not a modified Boeing) could have been flying at 700 feet altitude?

All I want is a number, ONE number that can be agreed upon. Top speed for flight 175 at 700 feet.

Anyone? dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 1 2007, 11:29 AM
Post #18


∞* 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 (Factfinder General @ Sep 1 2007, 07:01 AM)
<s>
I propose we "triangulate" the evidentiary proof so to speak and consider three basic and important aspects: (1) the impossibility of planes performing in the manner depicted, (2) the impossibility of planes penetrating in the manner depicted and (3) the impossibility of planes approaching in the manner depicted.
<s>

Keep it simple. Possible/impossible -- the debate could go on endlessly. I don't have that long. I just want to know if we can establish facts, one at a time. Let's not "presume" the "impossibility" of anything. Keep it simple stupid should be the rule because most people are.

Step one, establish the top air speed of flight 175 @ 700'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 1 2007, 11:47 AM
Post #19





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (painter @ Sep 1 2007, 10:29 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 1 2007, 07:01 AM)
<s>
I propose we "triangulate" the evidentiary proof so to speak and consider three basic and important aspects: (1) the impossibility of planes performing in the manner depicted, (2) the impossibility of planes penetrating in the manner depicted and (3) the impossibility of planes approaching in the manner depicted.
<s>

Keep it simple. Possible/impossible -- the debate could go on endlessly. I don't have that long. I just want to know if we can establish facts, one at a time. Let's not "presume" the "impossibility" of anything. Keep it simple stupid should be the rule because most people are.

Step one, establish the top air speed of flight 175 @ 700'.

I agree about keeping it simple. Thinking about what you have just written: what I propose is a further stage for later (i.e. once the fact has been established as to the top speeds, we can establish the fact of what happens to the particular metals involved in impact conditions, then establish the fact of how the flight paths compare and then reach a conclusion after considering all these results.)

For now you are right: Keith says planes can't perform the way the 911 planes performed and lists some specific technical details to support this. Is he generally correct?

(I personally am persuaded by his expert opinion)

This forum should be able to clearly establish the accuracy of Keith's assessment.

Let's all follow Painter's logical plan here.

Thank you once again Painter for these guidelines. They genuinely could lead to us getting somewhere. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 1 2007, 11:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 1 2007, 12:31 PM
Post #20





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 1 2007, 11:47 AM)
This forum should be able to clearly establish the accuracy of Keith's assessment.

Or inaccuracy. I know you love no-planes so much, but facts are facts whether it proves someone accurate or inaccurate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 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: 20th October 2019 - 08:17 PM