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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Rusty Aimer Interviewed By 3rd Party

rob balsamo
post Jul 20 2010, 01:56 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,660
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I have been getting a few emails informing me that a 3rd party who makes excuses for the govt story has interviewed Capt Rusy Aimer. So instead of repeating the same thing to each email, I'll just address it here so I can just send a link.... and this is available for others should they run across the same interview.

I have listened to the interview, and it's actually pretty good.

Rusty basically confirms what he said in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"

"To me, it's impossible, you know, any pilot that has been in a commercial jet would probably laugh if you said 510 knots."
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18314
(scroll forward to 23:20)

The 3rd party interviewer tried as hard as he could to get Rusty to change his words or contradict what is in our film, in order to drive a wedge (tired tactic from those who support the govt story), but he could not succeed.

Apparently, the 3rd party interviewer doesn't even realize Rusty is interviewed in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" as he kept asking Rusty if he knew he was credited on the presentation. The interview I did with Rusty is a fraction of the time I spent consulting with Rusty for the presentation. I spent many hours consulting with Rusty as well as many hours in extensive consultation with numerous other 757/767 pilots, and now Dwain Deets is also speaking out as you all have seen.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178

This is what Rusty had to say after viewing "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" online.


Rob,

Great job,

Everybody especially you and Ralph should be proud of your work.

I would like to have a copy for myself reminding me of drooling while talking! -smile.gif


Thanks,
Rusty

Source - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777164



I then sent Rusty the DVD, which is the same presentation he saw online. Rusty says in the 3rd party interview he hasn't seen the DVD yet, but it's the same presentation.

These 3rd party interviewers think the work/analysis is all done by me and me alone and that I just arbitrarily credit other core members of our organization as I see fit. Clearly they are not too bright nor have ever viewed any of our presentations. From what I understand, the 3rd party interviewer is the same person who claims Microsoft Flight Simulator can be used for proper aerodynamics analysis, and is also the same person who cannot do basic trig in which lead to this analysis of a North Approach Impact.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approac...t-Analysis.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
787PIC
post Jul 20 2010, 11:24 AM
Post #2





Group: Core Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 25-January 09
From: San Clemente, CA
Member No.: 4,089



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 19 2010, 09:56 PM) *
I have been getting a few emails informing me that a 3rd party who makes excuses for the govt story has interviewed Capt Rusy Aimer. So instead of repeating the same thing to each email, I'll just address it here so I can just send a link.... and this is available for others should they run across the same interview.

I have listened to the interview, and it's actually pretty good.

Rusty basically confirms what he said in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"

"To me, it's impossible, you know, any pilot that has been in a commercial jet would probably laugh if you said 510 knots."
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18314
(scroll forward to 23:20)

The 3rd party interviewer tried as hard as he could to get Rusty to change his words or contradict what is in our film, in order to drive a wedge (tired tactic from those who support the govt story), but he could not succeed.

Apparently, the 3rd party interviewer doesn't even realize Rusty is interviewed in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" as he kept asking Rusty if he knew he was credited on the presentation. The interview I did with Rusty is a fraction of the time I spent consulting with Rusty for the presentation. I spent many hours consulting with Rusty as well as many hours in extensive consultation with numerous other 757/767 pilots, and now Dwain Deets is also speaking out as you all have seen.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178

This is what Rusty had to say after viewing "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" online.


Rob,

Great job,

Everybody especially you and Ralph should be proud of your work.

I would like to have a copy for myself reminding me of drooling while talking! -smile.gif


Thanks,
Rusty

Source - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777164



I then sent Rusty the DVD, which is the same presentation he saw online. Rusty says in the 3rd party interview he hasn't seen the DVD yet, but it's the same presentation.

These 3rd party interviewers think the work/analysis is all done by me and me alone and that I just arbitrarily credit other core members of our organization as I see fit. Clearly they are not too bright nor have ever viewed any of our presentations. From what I understand, the 3rd party interviewer is the same person who claims Microsoft Flight Simulator can be used for proper aerodynamics analysis, and is also the same person who cannot do basic trig in which lead to this analysis of a North Approach Impact.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approac...t-Analysis.html



Rob,

I wouldn't get too bent around the yaw axis every time somebody with an obvious agenda tries to twist our words.
My mistake was to discuss a complicated technical subject with someone who apparently has no practical expertise on the issue.
I'm still learning and like most other real pilots (not the Microsoft Flight Simulator kind) have a lot of questions.
Keep up the good work and don't get distracted by brain washed and simple minded minority.

Best,

Captain Ross "Rusty" Aimer (UAL Ret.)
CEO
Aviation Experts, LLC
San Clemente, CA
ATP B-777/767/757/747/737/727/737/720/ DC-10/-9/-8/ EMB-500
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 20 2010, 12:08 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,660
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (787PIC @ Jul 20 2010, 11:24 AM) *
Keep up the good work and don't get distracted by brain washed and simple minded minority.


I hear ya Rusty.

It seems every time I announce a new project, the detractors come out of the woodwork. Par for the course doing what we do.

Good to see ya...

Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadeets
post Jul 20 2010, 04:23 PM
Post #4





Group: Core Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 6-July 08
From: Encinitas, California
Member No.: 3,674



I apparently have been set up on one of these "interviews."

Jeffrey Hill called me, and we talked. He didn't ask to record the call, yet it was recorded. It is now up on the net without my permission. This, to say the very least, is unethical.

Now I will have to listen to the call carefully, to see if my words are something other than what I would have said, had I known I was being recorded.

If I find anything glaringly inconsistent between what I said, and what I would have said had I known it was going to be made public, I will post that later.

Dwain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 20 2010, 05:15 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,660
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dadeets @ Jul 20 2010, 04:23 PM) *
Now I will have to listen to the call carefully, to see if my words are something other than what I would have said, had I known I was being recorded.


I listened to the call. I don't think there is anything in there that you wouldn't have said publicly, although I think you would have qualified your statements had you known Jeff Hill would be posting your call all over the net. If experience is any indication, Jeff Hill will no doubt spin your words.


For example, you say the speeds are "possible". Jeff will spin that to 90-99% possibility.

What Jeff doesn't know, is that you place a 30% probability based on aircraft speed.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10787558


Jeff is very deceptive. When he records the unknowing, he fabricates claims of others to suit his bias, in order to put the interviewee on the spot. He leads and coaches those he interviews.


Another example, he claims he spoke to an "Aeronautical Engineer" who claimed the speeds were possible if in a dive (Dwain correctly pointed out that it doesn't matter if in a dive... design limits are design limits)

Jeff's claimed "Aeronautical Engineer" is not an Aeronautical Engineer. He doesn't even have a 4 year degree.

This is just a sample of some of the tactics used by Jeff Hill and his ilk.

To get a good idea of Jeff Hill and his behavior, and the reasons I wanted nothing to do with him shortly after he made the NTSB call for us, please click play.
(Those offended by profanity, don't click play)



To Jeff (and your minions), the speeds are impossible --as reported-- based on data collected from EA990 which suffered structural failure at 425 KEAS in a dive, hijacker "skill" reported, and the collective statements made by those with extensive expertise. Whether you want to continue to discredit yourself by attacking me and trying to drive a wedge in our organization, is up to you. You will not succeed in your deceptive and unauthorized harassment of our core members. Truth is truth. You do not have the knowledge, nor the credentials, to understand.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 21 2010, 10:43 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Just thought you guys should know that the reason Jeff Hill has had so much success reaching many of the people he is recording is that he is actively harrassing them with repeated calls and e mails.

One of the latest was the wife of Roosevelt Roberts, a Pentagon witness who reported seeing a "second plane" in the South Parking Lot after the alleged impact.

His testimony was recorded by the Library of Congress in 2001 and he was independently interviewed by CIT when he repeated the same story but with more detail.

QUOTE
HILL: Mrs Roberts, like, when he told them that he saw a plane by the south parking lot...

MRS ROBERTS: mmhmm.

HILL: Like I was just...

HILL: Well you don't know if he said that, and [b]I don't know if he said that, and you know if the people said that he said that, I mean it's just like anything else we could go back and forth all day long.[/b]


QUOTE
MRS ROBERTS: He has no control over what someone else wants to say what he said, and that's the same thing with you, he could say something to you and then you could go back and say whatever you want to say. I mean you have no control over what people are going to say. But I know that's something that he's not going to go back and revisit, because I guess whatever statement he gave, and I know that he gave a true statement, and if they want to turn around -- then that's totally up to them, but I know that that's something he is not going to revisit. So we would appreciate it, because right now we have a lot of things going on with our family, and we would appreciate it if the phone calls would just stop.


Sorry to go off topic but this is just a minor example of the guys scruples.

Thanks Rob, Rusty and Dadeets for your honesty and perseverence in the face of these idiots.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Jul 26 2010, 08:05 PM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 19 2010, 01:43 PM) *
Thanks Rob, Rusty and Dadeets for your honesty and perseverence in the face of these idiots.


thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif


agreed.


clearly jeff hill has an agenda and is lacking in the intelligence and integrity departments as those who are more familiar with him are well aware.

cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadeets
post Jul 28 2010, 02:17 PM
Post #8





Group: Core Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 6-July 08
From: Encinitas, California
Member No.: 3,674



QUOTE (dadeets @ Jul 20 2010, 04:23 PM) *
If I find anything glaringly inconsistent between what I said, and what I would have said had I known it was going to be made public, I will post that later.

Dwain


Well, this thing of having oneís conversation recorded without oneís knowledge has become quite aggravating. Itís like having a conversation around the water cooler, and later find out it was both recorded and the recording distributed to others.

Many of the questions put to me were, in retrospect, leading me to agree with things I wouldnít necessarily agree with. On several of the questions, I was thinking to myself at the time, why was that question being asked? On a good share of these questions, I indicated agreement mostly to get on with the conversation. Just taking the path of least resistance. Iím not going to take the time to go through each one now to decide if I disagree or not.

I did get into a couple of areas I should have stayed away from. One of them is ground effect. You might say I was speculating it would have played a larger role in discrediting the official story than I should have said. This after talking with Rob as he brought out aspects I hadnít thought about. However, I stick to my desire for some applicable flight data to either rule it out as a problem, or possibly show some phenomenon that hasnít been fully appreciated.

The other area was speculating on the need to make changes to the flight control / flight management system software. I let myself drift off into the world of fly-by-wire. Not applicable here. But, then again, I was in a frame of mind of ďtalking around the water cooler.Ē Itís the case of being a little lazy again. When 80% of my direct experience is with fly-by-wire airplanes, I have to force myself to think differently about airplanes with more conventional controls.

Dwain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 28 2010, 03:54 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,660
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Dwain,

Since you were recorded with a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (ie. you never gave expressed permission to record the call) and the fact you live in a "two-party consent" state, your State has the responsibility to protect your rights under your state law from anyone within state, or outside your state.


I'm surprised Jeff Hill hasn't been prosecuted yet with the amount of harassing phone calls he has made and distributed around the web. Jeff claims that since he lives in Canada, he is ok to record anyone in the world since Canada has a "one party consent" law. Well, no, he is wrong. Canada Law applies to those recorded in Canada only.

CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA: PART VI: INVASION OF PRIVACY:

Section 183: "private communication" means any oral communication, or
any telecommunication, that is made by an originator who is in Canada
or is intended by the originator to be received by a person who is in
Canada"
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.183.html


Jeff Hill broke the law in your state and in Canada.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 28 2010, 07:53 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



i'm not sure about the letter of the law,
but the spirit of the law is generally understood, by the average Canadian
that one individual, directly involved in a conversation with anyone, or group
can record that conversation.

i don't know about the ethicallity of this,
but as a means of self protection,
it is good to have an audio record of exactly what,
was said, when, by whom.

Why not have a tape recorder going 24/7,
with you, everywhere you go?
I certainly do.
(Though, it may not be on all the time.)

But like a gun,
this, could be abused,
and used unethically.

However, it seems to me,
to be very impolite, and un-Canadian,
to not tell the other party, that you are calling, that you, are recording them,
especially, for a possible future public broadcast.

And it really is putting someone on the spot,
to ask them, after secretly recording your conversation with them, for a while,
if your private conversation can be made public.

And if that, is not even done,
unethicallity looms its' ugly head.

But just because a recording could be used for offensive purposes,
doesn't mean it should be banned for defensive means.

If it wasn't for peoples' ability to record any event,
there would only be the P.C. reflected light, in Platos' Cave.
...and most of us wouldn't have even seen our way,
to here, this far out of it.

It's the ethical use of the recording,
not the recording, that is the question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 28 2010, 08:30 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,660
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 28 2010, 07:53 PM) *
i'm not sure about the letter of the law,
but the spirit of the law is generally understood, by the average Canadian
that one individual, directly involved in a conversation with anyone, or group
can record that conversation.

i don't know about the ethicallity of this,
but as a means of self protection,
it is good to have an audio record of exactly what,
was said, when, by whom.


Lunk, it doesn't matter where you come from, it matters who you harm and the laws of that society. AZ is going through this right now.

This is why states/countries have laws made by an elected leadership, to protect their citizens. This is America, not Canada.

Dwain correctly points out that he agreed to many points in the conversation based on what he was told, simply to keep the conversation going. Would he have done the same if on Fox News? Hell no.

For example, Jeff Hill lied in his questions to Dwain Deets, in order for Dwain Deets to avoid confrontation on the matter.

Jeff said several times in his leading questions that an "Aeronautical Engineer" confirmed the aircraft could achieve such speeds in a dive.

Although Dwain initially pointed out it doesn't matter if in a dive, Jeff pounded that point and lied further that others said the same. Jeff did this because he has a personal vendetta against me which is readily apparent in the illegally recorded call. Mostly because I removed him as a friend from Facebook when he was harrassing me with his "No Plane Theory" bullshit... lol

Jeff Hills' claimed "Aeronautical Engineer" doesn't even have a 4 year degree. He is a CAD Tech, which is given design parameters by real engineers from everything regarding toys, to diapers, to aircraft. He has no clue regarding aerodynamics.

All Jeff had to do is tell Dwain he is being recorded in the beginning of the call, as I did. Jeff elected not to do this, because Jeff wanted to lead Dwain and have Dwain think he was in a private conversation. This is what we have become to expect from a person like Jeff Hill. Jeff has absolutely zero integrity. Which... again, is one of the reasons I wanted nothing to do with him shortly after the call he made for us to the NTSB.

This is why Dwain Deets has an excellent case to bring to the DA if he wants to prosecute Jeff Hill, if he wishes. Jeff Hill certainly does not have the resources to fight a retired NASA Engineer with a pension.

Bottom line, Jeff Hill fucked with the wrong people. It's about time he be shown a lesson.



QUOTE
However, it seems to me,
to be very impolite, and un-Canadian,


This is a good point. I've been to Canada many times. Montreal, Toronto, Lower Ontario, Edmonton... Everyone I met was extremely polite and "ethical". They were willing to go out of their way to make you feel comfortable. Very hospitable. But from what I've heard and know of Jeff Hill, even those he knows in Canada, don't like him.

QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 28 2010, 07:53 PM) *
It's the ethical use of the recording,
not the recording, that is the question.



Well, Jeff clearly violated the rights of the people in a state with "two-party consent" law.

What's next, those countries who allow citizens to shoot rockets into other countries cannot expect retaliation?

If Jeff Hill was to record Arnold without consent, do you not think that he would be on the next plane to CA to face justice? Do you really think Canada would protect Jeff Hill?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 28 2010, 11:47 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



i think, that instigating and covertly recording,
a thought-to-be, private conversation, with others,
for the purpose of public broadcast,
without prior consent, of the other parties involved,
is ethically wrong.

it's a tricky subject,
because all the public are really "armed" with, in Canada,
is the ability to record and document events, and these "rights"
are being eroded away with every excuse, it seems.

in a way, someones right, to the privacy of a conversation, has been violated.

...if the worlds' governance agenda, is to rid the world of individual privacy?

QUOTE
Do you really think Canada would protect Jeff Hill?


That, becomes an easy question to answer.
Shure.

But, either way, this, would likely, just be used,
as another excuse, to erode other Canadians'
ability to document events, further.

this is purely my opinion,
and shouldn't be taken in any other way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 29 2010, 12:28 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,660
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



lunk, i'll put this in perspective.

When i get called on the phone, I have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" as I live in a "one party consent" state and therefore can be recorded at any time by the party calling, without my consent... and it is legal. I know this, so i am careful with my words when talking on the phone.

Dwain however has a reasonable expectation of privacy, therefore he can "humor" anyone he wants, even flat out lie to them, to get them off the phone quicker, while attempting to be polite, and he shouldn't have to worry his words will be posted all over the net. He lives in a "two party consent state"

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" are the keywords here.

I have recorded the FBI and NTSB without their consent, because they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and I was well within my rights to do so.

What Jeff Hill did was analogous to recording a phone sex episode and posting it all over the web to gain attention, while the party he recorded expected the conversation to be private, and has laws which protect his privacy within his state. There is no ambiguity. The people of this state don't care where you reside. If you break their laws, they will prosecute you. If a state District Attorney calls up the local authorities in Canada and tells them they hold a fugitive from justice, Canada will extradite him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 29 2010, 01:00 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 28 2010, 09:28 PM) *
lunk, i'll put this in perspective.

When i get called on the phone, I have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" as I live in a "one party consent" state and therefore can be recorded at any time by the party calling, without my consent... and it is legal. I know this, so i am careful with my words when talking on the phone.

Dwain however has a reasonable expectation of privacy, therefore he can "humor" anyone he wants, even flat out lie to them, to get them off the phone quicker, while attempting to be polite, and he shouldn't have to worry his words will be posted all over the net. He lives in a "two party consent state"

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" are the keywords here.

I have recorded the FBI and NTSB without their consent, because they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and I was well within my rights to do so.

What Jeff Hill did was analogous to recording a phone sex episode and posting it all over the web to gain attention, while the party he recorded expected the conversation to be private, and has laws which protect his privacy within his state. There is no ambiguity. The people of this state don't care where you reside. If you break their laws, they will prosecute you. If a state District Attorney calls up the local authorities in Canada and tells them they hold a fugitive from justice, Canada will extradite him.


Yes, i realize the implications of the actions of what he has done.

i think that what he did was wrong,
but i don't think, that the best solution to this,
would be served through the legal system.

Perhaps, another remedy could be suggested instead,
if possible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 29 2010, 01:05 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,660
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 29 2010, 01:00 AM) *
Yes, i realize the implications of the actions of what he has done.

i think that what he did was wrong,
but i don't think, that the best solution to this,
would be served through the legal system.

Perhaps, another remedy could be suggested instead,
if possible.



It's up to Dwain and the District Attorney of his city/state on how they want to proceed. A law has been broken.. period.

What do you suggest for someone who breaks the law?

The evidence is clear. He needs to stand trial. He should be on the next Air Canada flight out of YYZ in cuffs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 29 2010, 01:59 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 28 2010, 10:05 PM) *
It's up to Dwain and the District Attorney of his city/state on how they want to proceed.


Yes.
His balls, are in their court.
And he, stupidly, (i still think) surfed them there, himself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rmontez
post Jul 29 2010, 09:32 PM
Post #17





Group: Guest
Posts: 12
Joined: 29-January 10
Member No.: 4,874



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 29 2010, 01:05 AM) *
It's up to Dwain and the District Attorney of his city/state on how they want to proceed. A law has been broken.. period.

What do you suggest for someone who breaks the law?

The evidence is clear. He needs to stand trial. He should be on the next Air Canada flight out of YYZ in cuffs.


I ask what should be done about an individual or group misrepresenting themselves as experts in a specific field and are subsequently proven to lack the required expertise or acumen in that field? I am not certain there is a legal statute that encompasses this, but it should be looked into.

Thank you,

rmontez
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 11 2010, 10:13 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,660
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rmontez @ Jul 29 2010, 09:32 PM) *
I ask what should be done about an individual or group misrepresenting themselves as experts in a specific field and are subsequently proven to lack the required expertise or acumen in that field? I am not certain there is a legal statute that encompasses this, but it should be looked into.

Thank you,

rmontez



lol... I don't think Jeff Hill can be prosecuted for lacking expertise in aviation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Aug 12 2010, 12:43 PM
Post #19


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



rmontez=Pinch
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 16 2010, 10:18 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 12 2010, 06:43 PM) *
rmontez=Pinch


Aaah, he's been skulking over at the CIT forums too.
Nice catch Aldo thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 29th July 2014 - 08:56 PM