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
The Dakota Report - New Document Claims Classified 9/11 Attack Information?

rob balsamo
post Jun 28 2012, 03:28 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



The following is making its rounds via email, so I decided to post it publicly for those who wish to read, research, and discuss before someone takes it at face value and runs with it.

Please keep in mind this document was sent anonymously and Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for it's authenticity, nor do we endorse any of the claims made, which is why I am posting it here to the forum and not on our front page.

I have only briefly skimmed the document, but will look through it more thoroughly when I have more time.



The Dakota Report - 30 page report.

Edit: complete document with extra 10 pages.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/...ort_disinfo.pdf



Document in it's original form as sent to me.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Jul 2 2012, 11:28 AM
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Dakota_Report.pdf ( 23.4MB ) Number of downloads: 296
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Jun 28 2012, 03:46 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



I got this document by e-mail earlier today and had a chance to quickly review the intro and Pentagon section. It's ridiculous, sloppy, anonymously-written disinfo that does not jive with the evidence. I will write a post ASAP explaining some of the contradictions and absurdities. Stay tuned. In the meantime I urge people to exercise caution and not present this as legit, because it isn't. I wouldn't be surprised to find that an article touting this junk is being prepared by a certain alleged "truther" or two. We'll see if that materializes in the near future.

This post has been edited by Ligon: Jun 28 2012, 03:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jun 28 2012, 06:47 PM
Post #3





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



Timing...
A co-ordinated attack with military precision would not use A.M. /P.M. they would use the 24 hour clock.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 28 2012, 07:11 PM
Post #4





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Jun 28 2012, 11:47 PM) *
Timing...
A co-ordinated attack with military precision would not use A.M. /P.M. they would use the 24 hour clock.


Good catch. I noticed they referred to Reagan Airport as "Reagan Int'l Airport". But it's not an international airport. It's Reagan National Airport which is commonly referred to as just "National Airport". The average local is well aware that Dulles is the international airport, not Reagan. Not the type of error you'd find in a military document.

This is one of the sloppiest and most pathetic hoaxes I've ever seen. Note how they aren't trying to make it seem like these were the original plans for the operation like the Northwoods Doc was to the Cuban Missile crisis. They are trying to make it seem like it's an after action report regarding what actually happened.

Ridiculous.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jun 28 2012, 11:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Jun 28 2012, 11:16 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358





It only takes a few seconds of perusing this to see that it's bogus. In addition to the points about the 24 hour clock and the correct name of Reagan National Airport, look at the timeline: flyover occurs a full 26 seconds before the explosion. Also, the flyover and the explosion occurred on the west wall, not the south.

H-O-A-X

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Jun 28 2012, 11:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Jun 29 2012, 03:50 AM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



Okay, I had some time to work on this, so here we go. I'll finish the rest later but this gives you the idea of how bad this thing is. ***Note for Guests. If you cannot see the embedded images, go here.

Let's establish a few things up front:

1. The document is not just a "Northwoods"-type plan/proposal for the future. It is basically written along the lines of an after action review, supposedly summarizing in retrospect exactly what happened on 9/11 and where things supposedly deviated from the original plan. For instance, they claim that a plane involved with the Shanksville event experienced "premature engine decoupling", and that the flyover plane at the Pentagon (decoy for Flight 77) took off later than planned and did not take the intended fly-away route. The anonymous author(s) of the document assure us that it is COMPLETELY devoid of "opinion, conjecture, or theory". "The entirety of this report, from beginning to end, is crammed with absolute facts" about 9/11, they tell us.

2. The anonymous author(s) claim to be "individuals of sufficient rank and position to have firsthand knowledge of Sept. 11th 2001 and/or access to the classified files regarding it" who need to "protect [their] identities".

Okay, so let's get right into the "absolute facts" about what happened at the Pentagon that these shadowy top rankin' people want us to know about. "The most important set of classified information in recent history", they call it.

Here is the relevant part of their timeline. "Plane C" is suposed to be AA77's "aerial decoy aircraft" -- the one that executed the flyover.

QUOTE
9:37:15 (A5) Plane C decreases speed to 377 mph and alters heading to 77
9:37:35 (A6) Plane C flies 11'2" directly above the Pentagon's south wall
9:38:01 A stationary explosion occurs at the Pentagon's south face. Plane C is at A7.
9:41:01 Plane C lands at Reagan Int'l Airport

Problems: Yes
Plane C takes off several minutes behind intended schedule. Plane C was scheduled to arrive at A6 at 9:35:30 and immediately land at Reagan Int'l Airport following the (XR1) route.


Here's the relevant portion of their diagram:

QUOTE


Okay, let's start listing the blatant problems:

1. The diagram has the plane flying over the northern end of the Defense Information Systems Agency, or DISA (which is denoted by an "R" on the "Dakota Report" diagram), and completely north of the Navy Annex. By necessity this would also mean the plane flew north of the Sheraton hotel. This flight path is totally at odds with the corroborated eyewitness accounts from further back on the flight path obtained by CIT. Watch "Flight 77": The White Plane to see these witnesses lucidly describing what they saw. Most notable is Jamal, who saw the plane fly directly over the driving range where he was located at just above treetop level.



Then of course there is Edward Paik, who saw the plane on a trajectory that would place it directly OVER the Navy Annex after passing SOUTH of the Sheraton, coming from the SOUTH side of Columbia Pike, exactly where the other witnesses further back on the flight path placed it.

Terry Morin said the plane flew directly over him and the Navy Annex, where he was located (see him plotted on image above). He wouldn't have seen the plane at all if it were on the "Dakota" path, let alone seen the belly, as he reports. (Click here to view an animated GIF of what he describes.)

And let's not forget the ANC workers outside of the maintence buildings, who watched the plane approach and fly directly over the Navy Annex.

2. The diagram has the plane flying totally straight during its final approach and not banking at all. This is contradicted by countless witnesses who report a significant bank, including witnesses in the best positions to see if the plane banked, such as Boger, Prather, Middleton, and Stafford.







3. The diagram has the plane flying over the northern end of the Pentagon. This is way north of the explosion/damaged area and not what the witnesses report.

4. Meanwhile, the actual text of the document says that the plane flew "directly above the Pentagon's south wall". That's the total opposite of what they depict in their diagram, so they can't even get their own bogus flight path straight. It's also still not where the explosion/damaged area was located.

5. The "Dakota Report" claims that the explosion took place "at the Pentagon's south face". The damage and explosion occurred on the WEST face, not the south face, as anyone who has studied the topic or even looked at aftermath photos knows.



Can this get any dumber? Yes...

6. The "Dakota Report" says that the plane reached the Pentagon at precisely 9:37:35, and that the explosion took place at 9:38:01, a full 26 SECONDS later! According to the document, the plane was flying 377 mph on its final approach. At that speed, it would take approximately 2 seconds for the plane to pass over the Pentagon (which is about 0.2 miles wide at the designated point). So, the plane flies toward the Pentagon at 377 miles per hour, passes 11 feet over top of the northern end of the building, NOTHING HAPPENS, it clears the building in approximately two seconds and continues flying for 24 MORE SECONDS, THEN an explosion occurs, way south of where the plane passed earlier. Absolutely asinine and not even remotely what the witnesses describe. The explosion took place at the moment that plane reached the building according to ALL known witnesses.

It gets worse...

7. The plane's purported speed of 377 mph is totally inconsistent with where the diagram plots the plane at the time of the explosion. Apparently the guys writing this junk don't even know how to do simple math to at least try to make their disinfo coherent.

Here is an image translating "A6" and "A7" from the "Dakota Report" onto an actual overhead image from Google Earth.



All we have to do is measure the distance from A6 to A7 to find out what speed the plane would have to be flying to travel that distance in 26 seconds. They show the plane doing a little right-hand turn turn on a dime about three quarters of the way between A6 and A7, so let's break the path into two segments. The first is about 0.43 miles. The second is about 0.15 miles.

So, the plane would have traveled approximately 0.58 miles in the 26 seconds it was flying from A6 to A7, waiting for the explosion to go off. Do the math. That's about 80 mph. Not only is that ridiculously slow, it's also almost 300 miles per hour slower than the 377 mph they claim the plane was going. Again, to the authors of the "Dakota Report": go back to 8th grade math class before you write your next disinfo piece.

Note: Some witnesses also describe the plane ACCELERATING after the Navy Annex.

(Going to bed... to be continued... I will add the rest here as soon as I get a chance to finish...)

This post has been edited by Ligon: Jun 30 2012, 12:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Jun 29 2012, 03:50 AM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



(Reserved for Part 2)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 29 2012, 05:22 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



One of the major problems with the above document is that it comes from an anonymous source, not to mention the inaccuracies within.

The major reason (and perhaps the only reason) i posted this publicly is that the document has been making it's rounds via email for the past few days, perhaps weeks, and it was only a matter of time before someone get's their hands on it and attempts to portray it as authentic in a large article.

This may still happen as there is no way to tell how far and wide the document has been circulated via email prior to this thread.

There have been some concerns that some people may spread this document citing that P4T endorse or support the contents. If you run across any such claims, please be sure to give them a link to this thread. If you find someone attempting to portray the article as authentic, again, feel free to drop this link. CIT have been working on debunking, and as shown above, will be located on this thread.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Jun 30 2012, 04:20 PM
Post #9


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20




This is clearly disinformation. The described plane swap maneuvers didn't happen like that, there is enough evidence against - NORAD tapes, ACARS are only the most obvious.

My conclusion is that as more and more evidence is emerging for plane swap maneuvers, disinformation has to be created to make people believe in fictitious plane swaps which can easily be disproven and thus discrediting plane swaps in general.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 1 2012, 01:17 PM
Post #10





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



I just found out yesterday that they killed Saddam two times, first one being a few bombs coming off a B1 piloted by Chris Wachter.

It's impressive how skilled they are at telling a story, no matter how outrageous. They have taken it to the level of Art Form, how they manipulate the public perception.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Jul 1 2012, 05:48 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Observations:

1. Page 20 details about subway connection tunnels do not make sense. These tunnels were constructed when? 1969? They could have brought everything in through the truck ramp under WTC7.

2. Bottom page 8-- Emergency personal (personnel).

3. Page 9---5cm (~2") steel rods? Slippery. Hard to connect to flat core columns. Brought in through subway tunnels? Come on!

4. Page 9---WTC2 impact zone fails to cooperate with the requirement that "Planes must impact the widest side of each core..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atomicbomb
post Jul 2 2012, 06:35 AM
Post #12





Group: Newbie
Posts: 64
Joined: 28-January 10
Member No.: 4,870



Ok granted there are some big errors in the report that directly conflict with what we know to be true (I.E. The pentagon flight path diagram and wrong facade face listed as being damaged).

If the Dakota report were what it purports to be however I see a possible issue with tossing it out as disinformation quite so fast. If it is what it claims then we are dealing with a document compiled by several "operatives" who were directly involved with 9/11. Several "operative" authors who may be putting together some of this from memory which could lead to errors such as the flight path diagram for example. These "operatives" may have varying degrees of knowledge about some aspects of the overall plan which again could lead to basic errors. Conflicting memory among the "operatives" could cause some muddling of the report as well just because of disagreements among themselves. What I am driving at is that there are plausible reasons for errors to be in the report such as spelling errors for example or diagrams being somewhat off.

This does not purport to be a report prepared at CIA headquarters which has been vetted by numerous analysts and edited by professional writters. It purports to be created by a few "operatives" who cobbled this together in secret under stressful conditions. The fact that errors exist in the report does not mean we can say with 100% certainty that it is disinformation. In my view it should be looked upon right now as probable disinformation which contains obvious errors of fact. More investigation is required however before I am comfortable saying with 100% certainty that it is disinformation. Put me at the 95% sure it is disinformation level right now.

The main issue that makes me lean towards it being disinformation is that none of the "proofs" they claim to have at the end (video, audio, photographic) have been released along with the report. The anonymity of the authors makes sense to me because if they were really involved in 9/11 they MUST remain anonymous. Asking for immunity before they will release the "proofs" is BS though. We can't grant immunity, only the suspects (government) could do that. That excuse for not releasing the proofs is highly suspicious to me. Highly suspicious. I suggest that the "operatives" who prepared this report (I assume they are reading this blog) release some or all of the proofs they claim to have if they want us to take it seriously. Nothing less then that will achieve the goal of the Dakota report which, according to the authors, is the thwarting of various false flags yet to come culminating in operation "Black Star". If that is the goal then they need to get those proofs out mucho pronto.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jul 2 2012, 10:39 AM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (Atomicbomb @ Jul 2 2012, 11:35 AM) *
This does not purport to be a report prepared at CIA headquarters which has been vetted by numerous analysts and edited by professional writters. It purports to be created by a few "operatives" who cobbled this together in secret under stressful conditions. The fact that errors exist in the report does not mean we can say with 100% certainty that it is disinformation. In my view it should be looked upon right now as probable disinformation which contains obvious errors of fact. More investigation is required however before I am comfortable saying with 100% certainty that it is disinformation. Put me at the 95% sure it is disinformation level right now.


Are you kidding me? Cobbled together??

Did you even read it? Did you even read Ligon's debunk that proves it?

It is far from cobbled together. It has extreme detail and very specific information right down to exact speeds of the planes etc. This was not "cobbled" and for you to even suggest it indicates to me that you still haven't bothered to read it at all.

This is 100% disinformation to the EXTREME and very sloppy at that.

To give it ANY credence AT ALL including 5% is reckless beyond belief.

The document that is in the original post is incomplete. Here is a new version with the last ten pages included and a warning added at the top that I highly recommend everyone download instead:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/...ort_disinfo.pdf

Their disintegrating light pole claim takes the cake and further demonstrates how this is a steaming pile of crap beyond belief. Debunk on that here.

Everyone should delete the other version and ONLY link people to this version with the warning please.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jul 2 2012, 10:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jul 2 2012, 01:23 PM
Post #14


Citizen Investigator


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



Adam,

Perhaps you need to just research the Pentagon attack more before you publicly theorize out loud about what may or may not be, or what you know or don't know

If you are deferring to those with more knowledge or experience with the pentagon attack, then we are telling you it is disinformation. We know this. It's been proven.

It's difficult to watch you label it "probable" disinformation instead of "proven" disinformation, based on the fact that you unfortunately have not thoroughly researched the pentagon attack or the details of our findings.

So let me ask you, Adam. Did we get something wrong? What exactly about this report is coherent or even similar to anything we know about the Pentagon attack?

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jul 2 2012, 02:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atomicbomb
post Jul 2 2012, 05:32 PM
Post #15





Group: Newbie
Posts: 64
Joined: 28-January 10
Member No.: 4,870



Craig and Aldo,

I think perhaps that you both need to hold on for a few moments here. First of all I am not giving the Dakota report credence at all and if you look at my post objectively I think you will see that I am adding my own reasons for suspecting it to be a fraud. I have my own thoughts and reasons for making the decisions I make and it is possible that you both might have missed something. No one is all knowing. No man is an island.

My post basically says the following in summary: The Dokota report looks like disinformation to me, there are obvious errors in it as were pointed out by Ligon. I am nearly ready to say with 100% certainty that it is disinformation however I see a remote possibility that the errors in the report might be the result of lapses on the part of the authors for various reasons. I said REMOTE possibility. So because of that remote possibility I want to take a little more time to evaluate it from a different angle then you before I make my final judgement.

My post was not in any way giving credence to the report.

I do defer to your judgement regarding the pentagon and I defer to the pilots judgement regarding the aeronautical issues with all the flights. I am however VERY knowledgeable about 9/11 and I have done research and discovered things that you guys have not. We all have our contributions to make and every seasoned truther can say that they know things about 9/11 that others don't. As a group we are unbeatable and our knowledge of the crime is unmatched but as individuals we miss things. We are human and it does happen that we make mistakes.

So I do reserve my final judgement on the Dakota report until I have followed up on some items in it myself. I will almost certainly discover a number of other reasons to conclude that it is a fraud.

I just think it is a shame to be treating each other this way. I don't like being condescended to or told that I must comply with someone elses judgements. I will make my final decision in my own time as I have with CIT and P4T. For the record my final judgement about CIT's work and P4T's work is that it is THE most difinitive evidence of an inside job that the truth movement has, bar none. I make that statement regardless of you all as individuals because personality issues are not relevant. Sometimes however these personality issues rub me the wrong way especially when others are treated poorly.

The pentagon is your expertise and I do agree with Ligon's debunk of the Dakota report however my area of expertise just happens to involve the cover-up and how psyops and disinformation techniques are used against us. How language itself is used to frame us into corners. I will be glad to share what I know with all of you and I assure you that your eyes will be opened to things you never knew just as you have opened my eyes regarding the pentagon. Some mutual respect is in order I think.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jul 2 2012, 06:38 PM
Post #16





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



I agree with the notion that this is just a sloppy job. One must remember it was the elite CIA that tried to pass off fake nuclear secrets (trigger schematics) to Iran with the real blueprints altered to be unusable but not realizing that the defecting Russian scientist corrected the flaw. This was a trap set to show Iran was persuing a nuclear weapon. It blew up (so to speak) in the face of the CIA and USG. Going back to WW2 and the dead floating spy with "top secret plans" handcuffed to him so Germany would find him. By deception, my fellow researchers. Look with a jaded eye at all.
R.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 4 2012, 01:00 AM
Post #17



Group Icon

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



Let me be clear...


I cannot definitively say, with 100% certainty, that this report is confirmed disinformation.... such as I have determined in the past with so-called "papers" from people like Frank Legge, where in fact his garbage has been determined to be intentional disinformation.

The main reason I cannot say definitively that this report is "disinformation" (nor authentic) is because we have no idea where it came from, nor is it well sourced... and as such, I really have no desire to even waste my time to read through it thoroughly to determine whether or not it is disinformation. In other words, I have no respect for the report to say either way.

If I had respect for the report, if it was sourced with names and some footnotes, I would study it thoroughly, and then determined if it was 100% "disinformation". I would then be sending out mass emails and posting it to our front page as "Confirmed Disinformation" if other people were attempting to tout it as authentic. Same goes if I felt it was authentic and it had some type of names and sources, yet others were touting it as disinformation.

On my brief review, yes, there are many inaccuracies. But this report will never get legs among any academics, scientists, pilots, or anyone who has any influence.

Anyone who feels threatened by such a report in it's current form might want to look inward, than outward.

Anyone who attempts to portray the above report as authentic should be ready to lose credibility if they are unable to provide names and detailed sources.

I have forwarded this link to some of my Military contacts, including P4T Core members listed, and those who are not listed. Bottom line, no one is really interested to even read it until it is sourced or a credible journalist willing to cover for such authors/sources. I don't blame them.

Finally, the only source I have for this report is Richard Gage. He sent it to me. He says it was sent to him anonymously.

That is all...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jul 4 2012, 02:34 AM
Post #18


Citizen Investigator


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



"The main reason I cannot say definitively that this report is "disinformation" (nor authentic) is because we have no idea where it came from, nor is it well sourced..."

But if it's intention is to mislead people - which we confirmed it is - whether it comes from a the govt loyalist site-er doing it for shits and giggles or a govt operative doing it for an operation, it still fits the definition of disinformation. Right?

What would the intention of this document be?

It's either true or it's a disinformation hoax.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 4 2012, 02:49 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jul 4 2012, 02:34 AM) *
"The main reason I cannot say definitively that this report is "disinformation" (nor authentic) is because we have no idea where it came from, nor is it well sourced..."

But if it's intention is to mislead people - which we confirmed it is - whether it comes from a the govt loyalist site-er doing it for shits and giggles or a govt operative doing it for an operation, it still fits the definition of disinformation. Right?

What would the intention of this document be?

It's either true or it's a disinformation hoax.



Aldo,

Have you walked up to every person who held a sign on a street corner that said "The End Is Near".. and wasted your whole day screaming "Disinformation!?"?

Of course not...

The only people with such small minds and nothing better to do than to spend their days and nights attacking others are the JREF..

Don't stoop to their level.

The "document" referenced doesn't even deserve the respect of calling it disinformation, nor your time to even read it It's a joke bro.

I just checked and not even the idiot JREF losers want to gossip about it. They are all wasting their days bashing Gage and Blogger...lol

If it gains legs, we'll deal with it when it comes (or better yet, let the losers at JREF deal with it, they spend every waking minute behind their keyboards after all). For now, my reasons for posting it here are clear.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jul 4 2012, 10:31 AM
Post #20


Citizen Investigator


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



How do you know it hasn't "grown legs"?

To me it is obvious that it was put out to undermine the actual evidence collected and to add another layer of confusion.

For all we know, people are scratching their heads not knowing what to believe.

I'm sorry, but it is definitively disinformation and I am going to continue to refer to it as such.
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: 21st October 2019 - 07:23 PM