IPB




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

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

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Ua93 Another Posibility., In search of a discussion.

fransan
post Jun 27 2008, 11:20 PM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



KT. Now you are asking me to elaborate on a theory that I couldnīt possibly start to approach without having actual access to the site, the evidence and the debris. (After going through a long course on crash investigation first).
I think I would need lots of more knowledge also on things that I ignore. I donīt know how an airliner would start to come appart from a missile strike. The type of missile also would matter I guess. And too many things could come out in different ways, for example, at what altitude and in what attitude was the aircraft hit? Too many unknowns.
All that we can do is hypothesize on a lot of stuff. But I think you got my drift. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Jun 27 2008, 11:25 PM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



QUOTE (painter @ Jun 27 2008, 09:58 PM) *
QUOTE (fransan @ Jun 27 2008, 04:21 PM) *
QUOTE
In all honesty, I think you are an idiot. rolleyes.gif


thumbdown.gif

I see no point in the insult.
What do you think personaly about UA93 Painter? What is your theory?
I would just like to see some opinions on the issue.
About KT, I respect his views but I donīt believe him to be correct in all of them.


You asked what I thought. If you don't want to know, don't ask.

OPINIONS are a dime a dozen. What matters is evidence. I see no evidence that 93 crashed at SV.


Painter, I didnīt ask you what you think of me. I asked what you think about UA93.
You see no evidence that UA93 crashed at SV. Very good. What about the pax. and crew?
What do you believe happened to them? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post Jun 27 2008, 11:34 PM
Post #23





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



QUOTE (fransan @ Jun 28 2008, 12:20 AM) *
KT. Now you are asking me to elaborate on a theory that I couldnīt possibly start to approach without having actual access to the site, the evidence and the debris. (After going through a long course on crash investigation first).
I think I would need lots of more knowledge also on things that I ignore. I donīt know how an airliner would start to come appart from a missile strike. The type of missile also would matter I guess. And too many things could come out in different ways, for example, at what altitude and in what attitude was the aircraft hit? Too many unknowns.
All that we can do is hypothesize on a lot of stuff. But I think you got my drift. thumbsup.gif

You think 93 was shot down, yes? What makes you think it was shot down?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Jun 27 2008, 11:48 PM
Post #24





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



There are some clues that have been shown to that effect, on this site and others that Iīve seen.
The inconsistences of the crash site. How small the crater was, and how little debris was present.
The scattering of the debris. The Rumsfeld slip up. The fact that there were fighters in the air trying to catch the hijacked airliners. (With the mission to shoot them down of course.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post Jun 28 2008, 03:27 AM
Post #25





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



QUOTE (fransan @ Jun 28 2008, 12:48 AM) *
1. The inconsistences of the crash site. How small the crater was, and how little debris was present.
2. The scattering of the debris.
3. The Rumsfeld slip up. The fact that there were fighters in the air trying to catch the hijacked airliners. (With the mission to shoot them down of course.)

1. How does the crater being small support the shot down theory when it has alleged wing and tail section scars?

2. Do you believe the reported debris found 8 miles away were from 93 being shot before most of it crashed at caused that crater?

3. Shoot down rumors covers for no plane crashing.

4. If 93 was shot in midair, do you think it produced an explosion in midair?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jun 28 2008, 04:22 AM
Post #26


∞* 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 (fransan @ Jun 27 2008, 09:25 PM) *
Painter, I didnīt ask you what you think of me. I asked what you think about UA93.

You really don't get it, do you? You go blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif, presenting a mixed up bundle of muddle headed BS and then ask me what I think. And I answered.

QUOTE
You see no evidence that UA93 crashed at SV. Very good. What about the pax. and crew?

What about them?

QUOTE
What do you believe happened to them? Do you have any thoughts on that?

What I believe is irrelevant. What I know is just about every piece of information I have about them comes from sources known to lie about everything: Media, government and military spokesmen (and women). The truth is, most everything we're supposed to "think" we know about 9/11 IS A LIE. This has been proven conclusively over and over again. There are still many things that we do not know and things that people argue over ad nauseum.

Your mistake is to assume that because I do not know with a certainty what DID happen then I must have some theory, some "opinion" or "belief" to fill the void of my not knowing. I don't. We know far less than we think we do about everything. Intelligent people get used to that and accept it as a simple fact. One can speculate endlessly but in the absence of verifiable evidence all you have is just that, speculation, and nothing more. It can be useful up to a point but beyond that, who needs it? Who cares? I don't. I'm sick of it.

We know the WTC was demolished by some form of explosives. Exactly what, who and how isn't so clear, but so what? That the WTC did not "collapse" due to planes and fire is proof that the whole 9/11 scenario we've been given to believe is a lie. Period. We know the NTSB's own evidence does not corroborate their fairy tale of FLT 77 and we know the same regarding FLT 93. We also know that the "plane wreckage" was not positively identified -- or, if it was, we know the identification is so classified that they will not even acknowledge that such identification exists, much less make it public. There are many other things we know, too, but that is more than sufficient to show that the "official story" is nothing but a deception that has been sustained by government, media, and military alike -- and has been used to wantonly murder over a million people so far. Some of them tortured to death.

Yes, there are many details we do not know. So what? Who cares? What the f*ck difference does it make? It isn't like any detail is going to suddenly throw the whole deception into question. 9/11 represents one of the biggest LIES perpetrated upon the American people and the people of the world in all of history. The fact of this deception throws into glaring light the absurdity of the 'world view' that we are given to believe day-in and day-out by talking heads with titles and pedigrees all dressed in suits with nationalistic, religious or corporate logos spinning around them like glitter. The naked truth of 9/11 is a fracture in their matrix through which we glimpse the ugly, ugly, truth of just how ruthless, arrogant and inhuman they actually are. They kill us with their every smile. What we need to know can not come through the "official channels" because those channels are implicated in the crime at every level of organization, implementation, and cover-up after the fact. Most of what we need to know could only possibly come from an investigation with a prosecutor with access to classified information and the power of subpoena, putting persons of interest under oath, where they can be examined and cross examined and confronted with evidence.

We may never know a whole lot more about 9/11 than what we do right now without that kind of inquiry. And make no mistake, I know full well that for any of the above to happen, it would take the equivalent of a "revolution" in this country. By that I mean the arising of an educated, conscious, vocal and active citizenry, aware that they are being hood-winked at every turn by a system that is designed to keep them asleep, ignorant and enslaved. You are sorry proof of that!

I suppose we all are, to one degree and another. Not many of us have fully "GROCKED" it yet that this isn't some kind of game we are playing. This is a matter of life and death. Yours. Mine. Everyone else we know. These motherfuckers are playing for keeps and they aren't going to give up and go away just because we do not like them. They are going to keep on screwing us, harder and harder, until we break. That is their game. This situation isn't going to change until the American people change it -- and that isn't going to happen at all if they can help it. Why do you think they reserve the right to accumulate vast databases ON US, without our awareness or consent or without any oversight what so ever, while we're treated like mushrooms and fed mind-numbing bull sh*t by them? Knowledge, information, intelligence: These things are power. They know it. And they intend to keep it.

I feel the earth move under my feet, I feel the sky tumbling down, ah tumbling down.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Jun 28 2008, 09:29 AM
Post #27


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (fransan)
What do you believe happened to them? Do you have any thoughts on that?
QUOTE (painter)
We know the WTC was demolished by some form of explosives. Exactly what, who and how isn't so clear, but so what? That the WTC did not "collapse" due to planes and fire is proof that the whole 9/11 scenario we've been given to believe is a lie. Period. We know the NTSB's own evidence does not corroborate their fairy tale of FLT 77 and we know the same regarding FLT 93. We also know that the "plane wreckage" was not positively identified -- or, if it was, we know the identification is so classified that they will not even acknowledge that such identification exists, much less make it public. There are many other things we know, too, but that is more than sufficient to show that the "official story" is nothing but a deception that has been sustained by government, media, and military alike -- and has been used to wantonly murder over a million people so far. Some of them tortured to death.

That one single paragraph is filled with enough proven fact that the American people should be up in arms demanding an investigation and the punishment of somebody within our corrupt government. There is no denying anything which painter stated. If the American people majority were not so mesmerized by their boob tubes and computer games and sporting events, and sound asleep not giving a damn, then justice would have been served long ago. Our prostitute mainstream news media is against us and should be treated accordingly. They have sold themselves and their journalistic ethics to the highest bidder. Our Department of Defense blatantly lied to our Congress repeatedly and nothing was done about it. Our own pResident and vice-pResident lie to us repeatedly and openly mock us. We are a laughing stock to the world because we Americans are so helpless.

We know that this was a top-down explosive demolition and not some collapse caused by fire and an aircraft crash.


We know that this was a top-down explosive demolition and not some collapse caused by fire and an aircraft crash.


We know that this was a controlled demolition and that no steel frame skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire damage.


We know that this never happened and that Flight 77 was nowhere near the Pentagon.
This aircraft position is totally IMPOSSIBLE from over the Navy Annex


We know that this never happened and that Flight 77 could not have flown with an engine underground.
This aircraft position is totally IMPOSSIBLE from over the Navy Annex


We know that this alleged Flt 93 crash site was a lie.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 28 2008, 09:56 AM
Post #28





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,940
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Fransan

Painter's post above is a pretty concise statement of where I'm at, but I will answer your question about the pax and offer my THEORY, my SPECULATION, on all the pax.

Perhaps you know that there was some controversy in Boston as to which gate either 11 or 175 actually departed from. That controversy and confusion starts the day. It is entirely possible that in that confusion, no passengers at all were boarded, or they were boarded onto another airplane and taxied over to the other side of the field. Who knows? I don't.

Those 2 Boston flights apparently crossed paths over the old Stewart AFB in Newburgh. If the radar data can be believed. What if those aircraft were recovered there, and the pax were taken to some old Air Force hangar and taken off? We know 2 flights were off loaded in Cleveland at locations OTHER than the terminal building.

What if drone Boeings were launched at some point to assume the track of 11 and 175?

I know a guy, airline pilot, who was flying out of Newark that morning, and he reports that on that morning, at the concourse he reported to, there was NOBODY at the security checkpoints. He walked on through and boarded his aircraft. 93 departed from Newark.

Witness Protection Program is run by the federal government. On a daily basis, it provides new identities for people, usually cooperating witnesses and such for the JustUs Department. My theory is that it could easily absorb another 200 cooperating witnesses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Jun 28 2008, 10:55 AM
Post #29





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



QUOTE (Killtown @ Jun 28 2008, 02:27 AM) *
1. How does the crater being small support the shot down theory when it has alleged wing and tail section scars?

2. Do you believe the reported debris found 8 miles away were from 93 being shot before most of it crashed at caused that crater?

3. Shoot down rumors covers for no plane crashing.

4. If 93 was shot in midair, do you think it produced an explosion in midair?


1.- I donīt know, but I guess, part of each wing, and part of the tail fin crashed there with a portion of the hull.

2.- Yes.

3.- I donīt understand. How? As I said, I think it could be "fractions" of UA93 that fell there. Maybe the biggest
chunk.

4.- I donīt know. I guess it could have produced an explosion, but I think it also could have been shot down without an explosion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Jun 28 2008, 11:09 AM
Post #30





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 28 2008, 08:56 AM) *
Witness Protection Program is run by the federal government. On a daily basis, it provides new identities for people, usually cooperating witnesses and such for the JustUs Department. My theory is that it could easily absorb another 200 cooperating witnesses.


Thank you amazed. At last someone gives me a theory on the whereabouts of PAX and CREW.
Very interesting, and may I say I would agree with that belief. thumbsup.gif

blink.gif The part that I have not been convinced of is the demolition of the buildings. Iīve seen a lot of information on the collapse from both sides of the spectrum, the collapse as a result of the damage sustained by the structure from the impact and explosion, and uncontrolled fires, then falling on the remaining untouched part of the building which isnīt strong enough to support the weight and is destroyed. And so far Iīm convinced by this. (Sorry Painter.)
And the info. that speaks of demolition with the use of explosives. I have read that in controlled demolition there is no such thing as "from the top down", specially on high rise buildings.
We have to be aware that never has such a tall building been demolished using explosives, and never has a steel structure building been hit by an airplane full of fuel at high speed, causing great damage, and what the result of this would be. (We only have 9/11 on that kind of event.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 28 2008, 12:16 PM
Post #31





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



I have always included Fransan's theory in my list of theories about what happened to Flight 93 alone.

Whether that theory is inconsistent with the core of the core of facts that I think have been established requires critical thought. Painter nicely summarized those facts as follows:

QUOTE
We know the WTC was demolished by some form of explosives. Exactly what, who and how isn't so clear, but so what? That the WTC did not "collapse" due to planes and fire is proof that the whole 9/11 scenario we've been given to believe is a lie. Period. We know the NTSB's own evidence does not corroborate their fairy tale of FLT 77 and we know the same regarding FLT 93. We also know that the "plane wreckage" was not positively identified -- or, if it was, we know the identification is so classified that they will not even acknowledge that such identification exists, much less make it public.


At this point, I don't see how Fransan's theory is necessarily inconsistent with those facts. That is the real question.

Fransan's theory would fit in with those facts under a LIHOP theory. Given that under LIHOP the perps would already know all of the facts at the time when they decided to overlay the "hero" story and cover up a shootdown, it might not be very hard to nimbly switch the story on the fly of events. They would know pretty well how they could fit the new story into the existing factual matrix.

I also don't think that Fransan's theory is necessarily inconsistent with the anomalies pointed out in the Flight 93 video. Those anomalies might have arisen from covering up or switching facts showing a shootdown to fit the "Hero" story. This is another issue that requires critical thought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jun 28 2008, 12:43 PM
Post #32


∞* 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 (fransan @ Jun 28 2008, 09:09 AM) *
. . .
The part that I have not been convinced of is the demolition of the buildings.
. . .


That is either because a) you haven't done the research or b) are incapable of comprehending the evidence, thus corroborating what I "think".

One Example:

[img]http://www.youtube.com/v/SZ11b1Lykb0&hl=en[/img]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jun 28 2008, 03:29 PM
Post #33





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Though many people cite the document known as "Operation Northwoods" how many here have actually read the document? Contained in it they posit that they would"hold funerals for the "mock" victims", "start rumors", "jettison fake debris." "Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause of a helpful wave of national indignation." I think that they have accomplished all of this and then some. Read Operation Northwoods and replace Cubans for Al Qaida, and Cuba for Islam. The overlay blueprint is tangible. I do not think there ever was a UA93.

[EDIT by d to add Operations Northwoods links below]

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010501operationnorthwoods

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Northwoods PDF
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Jun 28 2008, 05:30 PM
Post #34





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



QUOTE (painter @ Jun 28 2008, 11:43 AM) *
That is either because a) you haven't done the research or B) are incapable of comprehending the evidence, thus corroborating what I "think".


Iīve done some research, which Iīm sure is very little compared to yours. However, one of the things that Iīm positive about, is that the time it took for the buildings to collapse in nowhere near +/- 10 sec. B) B)
If you just look at the very same Richard Gage interview, part 2, you can see that after 14 seconds that the collapse is going on, the image goes back to the interview and the collapse wasnīt complete. ohmy.gif
Actually itīs at 04 min. 55 sec. of the tape, that the image of the starting collapse is shown, after 10 sec. I think it would be fair to say that about half of the buildingīs hight has collapsed. And the end of it canīt be timed because of reduced visibility in the videos that show it all. sleep.gif
So one of the things wrong with the demolition theories is the time of the collapses. (Evidence mind you.) rolleyes.gif
Also worth discussing, but Iīm thinking we should probably be in some other thread for all this, is the Core structure.
In an explosive demolition you would want to take out the inside core structure first, so that the rest of the building comes down easier.
In the video of the collapse mentioned above, when followed through, you can also see part of the inner core structure still standing as the rest of the outer structure has collapsed, which to me indicates very clearly that the inside core structure wasnīt taken out first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jun 28 2008, 10:05 PM
Post #35


∞* 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 (fransan @ Jun 28 2008, 03:30 PM) *
. . .
Iīve done some research, which Iīm sure is very little compared to yours. However, one of the things that Iīm positive about, is that the time it took for the buildings to collapse in nowhere near +/- 10 sec.
. . .


blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif

Well, I guess you'd better tell NIST, then, because according to their FAQ, "the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y." adding, "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation (in other words, 5 to 15 seconds longer) before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence . . . are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely." Moreover, "The 9/11 Commission Report" (p. 322) states: "the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".

All of the above, however, is total disinformation non-the-less because the towers did not "collapse" (due solely to gravity) at all. They were demolished -- most everything not steel reduced to a very fine powder evident within the first fractions of a second as it was expelled outward from the initiation zone.

fransan: one of the things that Iīm positive about, is that the time it took for the buildings to collapse in nowhere near +/- 10 sec.

rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Jun 29 2008, 03:10 AM
Post #36





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



Well, I feel that we are starting to go around in circles here. But let me try to get something clear. You mention the time it took for the first exterior panels to reach the ground.
Thatīs one thing, and another completely different thing is the time it took the whole building to collapse!
Just watch the tape Painter and time it yourself. You will see that after 10 or 12 seconds thereīs plenty of structure that hasnīt collapsed yet.

And my point here is that lots of people say it is evidence that the buildings collapsed in about 10 sec.
Itīs not evidence of anything if the times are actually something like +/-22 and +/-16 sec. respectively.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 29 2008, 10:26 AM
Post #37





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,940
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Fransan

You're on very weak ground, claiming the rate of collapse is something different.

All sources, including the government, have the time of collapse around 10 seconds, which is within 10% of the value of free-fall from that heighth.

That, and the audio and video evidence of explosions, not to mention the symmetrical debris field radiating out around 500 feet, are what prove that explosions were happening. Many witnesses reported explosions, and the analysis of the pulverized concrete dust covering Manhattan prove that thermite was used.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The artful dodge...
post Jun 29 2008, 10:31 AM
Post #38





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 68
Joined: 27-April 08
From: UK
Member No.: 3,237



QUOTE (fransan @ Jun 29 2008, 04:10 AM) *
Well, I feel that we are starting to go around in circles here. But let me try to get something clear. You mention the time it took for the first exterior panels to reach the ground.
Thatīs one thing, and another completely different thing is the time it took the whole building to collapse!
Just watch the tape Painter and time it yourself. You will see that after 10 or 12 seconds thereīs plenty of structure that hasnīt collapsed yet.

And my point here is that lots of people say it is evidence that the buildings collapsed in about 10 sec.
Itīs not evidence of anything if the times are actually something like +/-22 and +/-16 sec. respectively.


Fransan are you sure you're in the right place here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
forthetrees
post Jun 29 2008, 11:03 AM
Post #39





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,869





Keep in mind that the NIST report for WTC 1 & 2 says nothing at all about the collapse itself. It only deals with the "initiation" of the collapse.

Even with that very limited scope of inquiry, NIST found it necessary to significantly tweak the parameters of their computer model
in order to get the model to the point of the initiation of the collapse. Since WTC 1&2 did indeed collapse, NIST assumed the rest. They made no attempt to understand or explain how the top block of floors could fall through the rest of the structure at nearly unrestricted, unopposed free fall speed. Their view was, "It happened, so it must have been possible."

Not totally unlike assuming Flight 77 was in the Pentagon without bothering to check any parts for verifying serial numbers.

In the graphic above, the NIST report stops when the upper block drops the first inch, after that it's all assumption. As for the NIST report on WTC 7....we're still waiting....

This post has been edited by forthetrees: Jun 29 2008, 12:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jun 29 2008, 01:09 PM
Post #40


∞* 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 (fransan @ Jun 29 2008, 01:10 AM) *
. . .
And my point here is that lots of people say it is evidence that the buildings collapsed in about 10 sec.
Itīs not evidence of anything if the times are actually something like +/-22 and +/-16 sec. respectively.


So far as I can tell, fransan, your participation thus far has contributed ZERO to this forum either in the way of intelligent questions or new information. Therefore, I insist you take the time to read the links found in the first post of this thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13214

and then answer honestly ALL of the questions asked. Take your time. Do it thoroughly.

Failure to do so will result in the suspension of your posting privileges on this forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: 22nd November 2014 - 11:35 PM