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 )

16 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted

jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 09:46 AM
Post #61





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Since there are four parts to NPT--that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville, that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that no Boeing 767 hit the North Tower, and that no Boeing 767 hit the South Tower--if he believes that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, then he supports at least that part of NPT. And if he has studied the evidence for the rest of NPT, then he SHOULD also support all of it--which is also true for you, Rob, and the rest of Pilots. If you actually study the evidence, you will understand why you SHOULD.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 04:13 AM) *
Since Jim felt the need to share with others what Dennis allegedly "informed" him, I will share mine.

Dennis does not endorse the NPT.

He can come here and elaborate if he wishes.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 09:48 AM
Post #62



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Thank you for your apology Jim... accepted.

As for the reason we do not endorse NPT as an organization (or any other theory for that matter), it is explained in our mission statement on the top of our home page. It has been there since the organization was founded in Aug 2006.

We have many differing opinions within our organization, but where we stand united is under our mission statement.

And to be clear, when i reference NPT, i reference NPT at the WTC considering the amount of video and witness statements, some of which who i know personally and watched aircraft hit the WTC while sitting on the taxiways at JFK and EWR waiting to depart. One of such witnesses is listed as a core member of P4T.

I am not an expert to examine "Video fakery", however it has been discussed at length in this section of our forum. I am not convinced, nor do I feel the need to spend more of my time researching a topic in which i do not have the expertise.... a topic which is more controversial than the topics I do have expertise.

In short, I'm not going to waste my time when my time is better spent researching topics I understand, can debate, and can be called as an Expert Witness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 09:57 AM
Post #63





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, if no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that supports the part of NPT that asserts "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". Some of Pilots discoveries, such as that the plane seen in the South Tower video was traveling at an impossible speed for a standard 767 and that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air but far removed from their alleged "crash sites" obviously also support parts of NPT.

Here's a sample of my high regard for Pilots(in response to a criticism posted by one Trowbridge Ford about "Planes/No Planes":

Jim Fetzer
February 24, 2012 - 8:10 am(Edit)
Trowbridge, as usual, does not know what he is talking about. On the Pentagon, for example, see “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/wh...t-pentagon.html On the “black box data”, see “Pandora’s Black Box”, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db5_1251546799, another in a series of brilliant studies by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This guy may be the world’s most gullible person, outstanding of its kind.

I am simply integrating evidence that Pilots has established into the broader matrix of evidence that supports no planes theory. That, of course, is perfectly appropriate. I have no desire to impose my views upon anyone, much less Pilots, but it does seem to me that if you and others were to ACTUALLY STUDY THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PRESENTED, you just might change your minds.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 18 2012, 12:34 PM) *
From your link Jim.









Subtle as a breezeblock. Interweaving Pilotsfor911Truth fact and evidence into NPT.
And you think that this "Hollywood op" would be "easier" than flying an aircraft into the towers? Nice disconnect from the possibility that the aircraft was modified to penetrate and explode.

Speculation, I know, but NPT has way too many loose ends.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 10:00 AM
Post #64



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 10:57 AM) *
Well, if no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that supports the part of NPT that asserts "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon".



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/article_corrections.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:06 AM
Post #65





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, thanks. But your post displays a misunderstanding of the theory of video fakery, which encompasses any use of video to convey a false or misleading impression of (in this case) what happened on 9/11. That could include altering the videos as they were being broadcast or having used something that looked like a plane but was not a real plane. If you were to read what I have published, you would see that, in the case of the North and the South Tower hits, we appear to be dealing with simulations.

See "Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity" or "9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'", which makes this entirely clear. I think you have prejudged the issue, just as I did before I began to seriously study it. We have witnesses, such as those whom you cite, who saw something they took to be a plane. But while it LOOKED LIKE A PLANE, it was performing feats that NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. We have to deal with something that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane. That's the deal.

I think this is a nice example of drawing a premature conclusion and then refusing to consider the evidence. This is why I asked you what you take NPT to come to. Obviously, I was right to suspect that you did not understand what we are up against. I am of course in complete agreement that, given the witness reports, we are dealing with something they reported as "a plane". But the evidence demonstrates--conclusively, in my opinion--that IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE BUT WAS A SIMULATION.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 09:48 AM) *
Thank you for your apology Jim... accepted.

As for the reason we do not endorse NPT as an organization (or any other theory for that matter), it is explained in our mission statement on the top of our home page. It has been there since the organization was founded in Aug 2006.

We have many differing opinions within our organization, but where we stand united is under our mission statement.

And to be clear, when i reference NPT, i reference NPT at the WTC considering the amount of video and witness statements, some of which who i know personally and watched aircraft hit the WTC while sitting on the taxiways at JFK and EWR. One of such witnesses is a core member of P4T.

I am not an expert to examine "Video fakery", however it has been discussed at length in this section of our forum. I am not convinced, nor do I feel the need to spend more of my time researching a topic in which i do not have the expertise.... a topic which is more controversial than the topics I do have expertise.

In short, I'm not going to waste my time when my time is better spent researching topics I understand, can debate, and can be called as an Expert Witness.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 10:11 AM
Post #66



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 11:06 AM) *
But your post displays a misunderstanding of the theory of video fakery, which encompasses any use of video to convey a false or misleading impression of (in this case) what happened on 9/11. That could include altering the videos as they were being broadcast or having used something that looked like a plane but was not a real plane. If you were to read what I have published, you would see that, in the case of the North and the South Tower hits, we appear to be dealing with simulations.,



As i said Jim, Video Fakery was discussed at length in this section of the forum. If you would search and read those exchanges, and perhaps provide your rebuttals, i may find some time to review it.. .especially if i can find more than 24 hours in a day in which I am researching and debating topics in which I am an expert.


Again, I am not convinced by Video Fakery, but as an amateur Film producer myself, i do know how easy it is to manipulate video, especially with alpha channels and chroma-keying. Of course, this is not done live on multiple stations and multiple private cameras.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:13 AM
Post #67





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Another nice example of misunderstanding NPT. It has nothing to do with video fakery per se, which would be any use of videos to convey false or misleading impressions of the events of 9/11. It has to do with the plane. NPT holds that no Boeings crashed at any of the alleged sites--not in Shanksville, not at the Pentagon, not into the North Tower and, most surprisingly, not into the South Tower. So the absence of videos in Shaniksville and at the Pentagon--which exist, of course, but have not been released (except for three that show no more than that single frame originally labeled "plane"--but where video fakery was used in New York, where evidence shows that simulations of planes (four UAVs in the case of the North Tower, what appears to have been a sophisticated hologram in the case of the South) were taken by witnesses to be real planes, even though they were performing feats that no real planes could perform. I recommend you go back and reconsider my studies, which you have not understood.

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 21 2012, 01:01 AM) *
I framed my questions exactly how I intended to ask them, Mr Fetzer.

I don’t need to be intimately familiar with your prior research to be curious as to whether or not Dennis agrees with your prior research. Of course, it is my suspicion at this point that he does not necessarily share your opinions regarding faked planes or video. As I explained, there is a vast chasm between (i) questioning the physical evidence relating to the planes and (ii) questioning the physical existence of the planes.

As for video fakery, this can hardly be treated as a pivotal issue, when there isn’t any video evidence of AA77 available to discuss or evaluate.

I stand correctable on any of the above, but until Dennis chooses to step forward with a definitive statement, I think I’m within my rights to raise questions about your involvement in Cimino’s article...before, during and after it appeared at Veterans Today. The way you’ve chosen to participate in the discussion - both pre- and post-publication - just seems to benefit your agenda a little too conveniently.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:19 AM
Post #68





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



No, Rob. I am talking about FAKE PLANES, not FAKE VIDEO. Give me a break. I have explained this many times now. What witnesses reported seeing hit the South Tower CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. It was traveling at an impossible speed (for a standard 767), but it also entered the building in violation of Newton's laws (which no real plane could do) and passes through its own length into this massive steel-and-concrete building the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air (which is also physically impossible). What we have here is the sophisticated simulation of a plane, not a real plane. I think you need to recalibrate your reasoning about NPT.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:11 AM) *
As i said Jim, Video Fakery was discussed at length in this section of the forum. If you would search and read those exchanges, and perhaps provide your rebuttals, i may find some time to review it.. .especially if i can find more than 24 hours in a day in which I am researching and debating topics in which I am an expert.

Again, I am not convinced by Video Fakery, but as an amateur Film producer myself, i do know how easy it is to manipulate video, especially with alpha channels and chroma-keying. Of course, this is not done live on multiple stations and multiple private cameras.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 10:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 10:24 AM
Post #69





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, maybe Pilots still thinks its possible, but I do not believe Dennis is of that opinion. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:00 AM) *

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 10:24 AM
Post #70



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 11:19 AM) *
No, Rob. I am talking about FAKE PLANES, not FAKE VIDEO. Give me a break. I have explained this many times now. What witnesses reported seeing hit the South Tower CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM.


No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and read the quote I replied to...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in answering your questions.


And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 10:26 AM
Post #71



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 11:24 AM) *
Well, maybe Pilots still thinks its possible, but I do not believe Dennis is of that opinion. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.



Again Jim, we have many differing opinions within our organization. Where we stand united is under our Mission Statement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 11:25 AM
Post #72





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Rob,

What you have explained is that you know some of the witnesses who reported seeing "a plane" and that you believe them. What you have not explained is how "a plane" could be a real plane and perform feats that no real plane could perform. That is what I have been pursuing. And you seem obtuse to my definition of "video fakery", which is any use of videos to convey a false impression of the events of 9/11, in this case, including the hits on the North Tower and the South.

I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that you have misunderstood me and presumed--simply took for granted--that "video fakery" mean altering the videos and did not include faking the planes. I understand that you might have committed a misunderstanding like that, but now that I have explained in--many times, right here on this forum--surely you can broaden your understanding to encompass the argument I am making rather than an interpretation you have imposed upon me.

And it should come as no surprise that someone who's mind is made up--even though it is based upon a gross misunderstanding about the relationship between "the plane", video fakery, and NPT--should discount and disregard studies by someone like me, whom you have apparently taken to be at least mildly demented. Since no real plane could have performed the feats shown in the videos of the South Tower hit, those who fall into that category would appear to be instead those who ignore the evidence.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:24 AM) *
No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and read the quote I replied to...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in answering your questions.


And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 11:29 AM
Post #73





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



The use of CAPS was for emphasis. Change the to bold. But you are being unusually coy about not responding to my arguments but instead looking for passages you can criticize. So what? I have explained NPT here many times now. There is no excuse for you to continue to misrepresent it. If I am wrong, then explain what I have said, why I have said it, and what I have wrong.

The evidence supporting NPT is abundant and compelling. I would have thought that you, as the head of Pilots, would at least attempt to study and understand positions involving aircraft before you reject them. That is not only anti-intellectual but, if I may say so, blatantly irresponsible and unprofessional for you as the leader of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. We should be working together.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:24 AM) *
No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and read the quote I replied to...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in answering your questions.

And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 11:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #74



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:25 PM) *
Rob,

What you have explained is that you know some of the witnesses who reported seeing "a plane" and that you believe them.


"Believe them"? No... do I find them credible in the fact they can be called into a court of law as not only a witness, but an Expert Witness? Yes.

QUOTE
What you have not explained is how "a plane" could be a real plane and perform feats that no real plane could perform.


The "feats" can be performed by a real aircraft, especially one which is modified. Again, this was already explained to you in my answers to your questions.

The "feats" cannot be performed by a standard 767, N612UA. Again, I explained this to you in my answers to your questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #75





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Yes, but your answers, which I shall quote here, support two key aspects of NPT, even though you don't admit it, namely: that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville and that, in New York, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, did not effortlessly enter the South Tower:

(1) Pilots has established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time that
it purportedly crashed in Shanksville. Is it Pilots' position that Flight 93 was
BOTH over Urbana, IL, AND crashed in Shanksville, PA, AT THE SAME TIME?

Absolutely not. There isn't any evidence which has been provided by govt agencies that proves UAL93 crashed in Shanksville. In fact, all data and information provided by govt agencies conflicts with their story. We want to know why, others are free to speculate.

(2) PIlots has established that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time
it purportedly hit the South Tower. Is it Pilots' position that Flight 175 was
BOTH over Pittsburgh, PA, AND hit the South Tower AT THE SAME TIME?

According to ACARS data and statements made by UAL Dispatchers, UAL175 was in the vicinity between MDT and PIT, PA during the events taking place in NYC at the South Tower. Since the aircraft observed to hit the South tower was flying at a speed impossible for a standard 767, combined with the numerous targets converging and then diverging from the alleged UA175 target prior to the impact, the govt has not proven that UA175, N612UA, caused the damage to the south tower. I[n] fact, the data provided conflicts with the govt story. For clarity, this does not mean that some other aircraft may [not] have caused the damage considering the aircraft observed to cause the damage has never been positively identified (nor any of the other 3 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11). When we say "Impossible speed", this does not mean the speeds are impossible for all aircraft.The speeds are impossible for a standard 767-200. The speeds reported are not impossible if the aircraft were modified. This is covered thoroughly in our presentation "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 10:24 AM) *
No Jim, you were talking about Video Fakery. Go up and read the quote I replied to...

However, I disagree with "CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM"... and I have explained this to you in answering your questions.

And please calm down Jim. There is no need to shout.

Thanks.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 11:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 11:41 AM
Post #76





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



So it is the position of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a real plane can not only travel faster than a standard Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' foot altitude but that it could have entered a massive, 500,000-ton building in violation of Newton's laws and passed its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air, which of course implies no deceleration (since d = r x t), when in fact it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, luggage, seats and passengers fallen to the ground, and its velocity dropped to zero, none of which happened? And you, Rob Balsamo, actually believe that?

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 11:35 AM) *
"Believe them"? No... do I find them credible in the fact they can be called into a court of law as not only a witness, but an Expert Witness? Yes.

The "feats" can be performed by a real aircraft, especially one which is modified. Again, this was already explained to you in my answers to your questions.

The "feats" cannot be performed by a standard 767, N612UA. Again, I explained this to you in my answers to your questions.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 21 2012, 11:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 11:42 AM
Post #77



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:36 PM) *
Yes, but your answers, which I shall quote here, support two key aspects of NPT, even though you don't admit it,


What do I need to admit when I have data provided by govt agencies which conflict with their own story, and multiple witnesses which conflict with govt data and the govt story?

Can you say the same for the WTC impacts?

For example... Do you have FDR data which shows too high to hit the WTC?

If so, provide it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Mar 21 2012, 11:46 AM
Post #78





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Why can't you deal with my actual arguments, which are rooted in principles of classic physics, namely, Newton's laws? Why are you evading the issue by citing evidence from the Pentagon case which is not available about the alleged Flight 175 in New York? This is more of the kind of unprofessional and anti-intellectual mode of argumentation of which you are making your practice.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 21 2012, 11:42 AM) *
What do I need to admit when I have data provided by govt agencies which conflict with their own story, and multiple witnesses which conflict with govt data and the govt story?

Can you sday the same for the WTC impacts?

Do you have FDR data which shows too high to hit the WTC?

If so, provide it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 11:50 AM
Post #79



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:41 PM) *
So it is the position of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a real plane can not only travel faster than a standard Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' foot altitude


Absolutely. Here's one of them.



This does not mean I think an F-14 hit the south tower, but that looks like a real plane to me. How about you Jim?


QUOTE
but that it could have entered a massive, 500,000-ton building in violation of Newton's laws and passed its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air, which of course implies no deceleration (since d = r x t), when in fact it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, luggage, seats and passengers fallen to the ground, and its velocity dropped to zero, none of which happened? And you, Rob Balsamo, actually believe that?



Jim, you're a scientist, right?. Do me a favor. Shoot a filled can of Coke at 590 mph at 1/4 inch steel, let me know what happens.

After you get done with that, increase the density of the aluminum surrounding the a filled coke can and try it again with thicker steel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 21 2012, 11:57 AM
Post #80



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Mar 21 2012, 12:46 PM) *
Why can't you deal with my actual arguments, which are rooted in principles of classic physics, namely, Newton's laws? Why are you evading the issue by citing evidence from the Pentagon case which is not available about the alleged Flight 175 in New York? This is more of the kind of unprofessional and anti-intellectual mode of argumentation of which you are making your practice.


If i had FDR data from the WTC which shows too high to hit the WTC, I would have petitioned the NTSB as to why as well, as i did with the Pentagon.

The fact of the matter is Jim, that ample amount of evidence exists to determine actual aircraft hit the WTC, yet does not prove such aircraft were the ones reported, while there is hardly any evidence to support the govt story with respect to the Shanksville and Pentagon events. In fact, the data they have provided, including witness, conflicts with their story.

Jim, are you saying that the evidence gathered for the WTC events is similar and can be compared to the evidence gathered for the Shanksville and Pentagon events?

If so, great! Please provide as many videos of the Shanksville and Pentagon events for starters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 28th November 2014 - 10:36 AM