FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

woman waving where the plane hit ..TV fakery again
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Err... no, I don't think I'll bother.

I've played this game with you before, Ally. Y'know, Go-Fetch™.

You want to prove a point, you get the evidence.

As far as the David Copperfield did it theories go, I kept my mind open long enough to see that every bit of evidence presented is flawed by a poverty of analysis. For me the case is closed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fairynuff, but you know I keep rabbiting on about the nose of the plane emerging from the WTC intact on several shots, when you look at the South Tower exit wound there seems no evidence that's what happened which leads me to writing of those clips as fake.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/index.htm < compare that to >



STexitwound.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  22.18 KB
 Viewed:  26 Time(s)

STexitwound.jpg



_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But, Ally, I don't find it at all surprising that remnants of the fuselage passed through the building, obviously between floors, and were then blown apart by the pursuing fireball. The close up in the video shows the 'exit' is to the left of the building's corner. The photo you uploaded does not, in my view, show enough detail to the left of the corner to disprove that remnants of the fuselage had 'exited' there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flight attendants remains found at Ground Zero 5 years on.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flamesong wrote:
But, Ally, I don't find it at all surprising that remnants of the fuselage passed through the building, obviously between floors, and were then blown apart by the pursuing fireball. The close up in the video shows the 'exit' is to the left of the building's corner. The photo you uploaded does not, in my view, show enough detail to the left of the corner to disprove that remnants of the fuselage had 'exited' there.


The nosecone of the aircraft in question is relatively quite flimsy. Having passed through the building, the image of 'it' emerging apparently unscathed and in a recognisable shape out through the opposite side stretches the bounds of what is acceptable.

This hardly constitutes a 'remnant' as it is clearly what appears to be the front of the aircraft, seemingly in pristine condition and not just a photocopier that happened to be forcibly ejected.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see evidence for much more than blurred remnants in frames 100 to 103 of this much enlarged close-up. If you want to debate about what may be little more than a lump of wreckage, go ahead.

Incidentally, is it not likely that the nose cone was made of carbon fibre? A substance which, prior to kevlar, was used in bullet proof vests.

I was also reliably informed in a meeting with Dr. Piotr Bein , Ph.D., M.A.Sc., P.Eng, that depleted uranium has been used as ballast in many commercial planes - especially by Boeing. It was phased out in the 1980's but the 767-200 was launched in 1978. As depleted uranium is used to tip 'bunker busting' missiles, I don't think I need extrapolate on its credentials.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sure you've seen the damage a bird can do to an aircraft -



Yet the inside WTC was plated with this -



you think the plane could penetrate multilayers of that steel case?

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, what do you think should have happened if a plane hit the WTC, then?

Would it have bounced off and landed in a big shìtty heap on the ground?

Or stuck out like a paper dart sticking out of an air vent?

You make it sound like I am claiming the plane virtually flew through the building and out of the other side - that it patently not the case. But I believe that it is possible that a huge lump of it may have done - probably composed of bits which passed between the uprights and floors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ally wrote;

Quote:
I'm sure you've seen the damage a bird can do to an aircraft.


The bird in question was Roseanne Barr though.

Anyway, to the emerging nosecone.

The body of a 767 is 4.7 m in height, but the distance between floors of the WTC was only 3.7m - it is physically impossible for the light aluminium nose of the aircraft to travel through and out the other side as a recognisable shape, given the width clearance available even on floors with completely clear floor space.

It would have been torn to pieces immediately upon entry.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
Ally wrote;

Quote:
I'm sure you've seen the damage a bird can do to an aircraft.


The bird in question was Roseanne Barr though.

Anyway, to the emerging nosecone.

The body of a 767 is 4.7 m in height, but the distance between floors of the WTC was only 3.7m - it is physically impossible for the light aluminium nose of the aircraft to travel through and out the other side as a recognisable shape, given the width clearance available even on floors with completely clear floor space.

It would have been torn to pieces immediately upon entry.


It's the 'recognisable shape' bit I have a problem with, for the reasons you state.
Suggestive shape possibly, but something about it - the brightness gain for one looks wrong.
I'd want to see the original video before taking a stab at what it might be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
flamesong wrote:

You make it sound like aircraft fuel spontaneously explodes on contact with air! This is nonsense!


I disagree - as that's not what I was saying. I feel my simple analysis is valid. The plane was supposedly travelling fast and "vaporised" on impact (according to some people). This amount of heat from the impact, in my view, would ignite the fuel in the wings and fuselage rather quicker than seen on the video (see below).

Can I prove this? No. Is it the single most important piece of evidence? No.

Did you actually load and watch the video?

This is quite morbid, and only partly a valid comparison (let the insults fly if you wish - water off duck's back to me...) because of it being a different plane and somewhat different circumstances.


Link


If you watch this a couple of times, you will see the fire starts when the plane's left wing tip hits the ground, then the rest of the planes explodes as it hits.

Compare this with here:


Link


The fire starts after the plane has gone in to the building.

So people can squabble about holograms and shills if they wish. I try to look at the evidence myself and come to an informed opinion.

Do I count the above as proof? No. Am I an authority on plane crashes? No. Is it easy for us to re-run a plane crashing into a building to check this idea out? Of course not (as if I need to say it).

It's fine for people to ridicule or slag me off - I am quite used to it - but I am always suspicious when people do this, rather than, for example, finding a video or description which shows a plane behaving like the WTC impact one.


I think Andrew has a point here...there is more to this video fakery than meets the eye
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is one point you all appear to have overlooked

Ghost planes are very fuel efficient - there would be no explosion of jetfuel upon impact.

Therefore the fact there was no explosion of jet fuel on the impact side of WTC is consistent with a ghost plane

Simple Innit stating the Bl eeding obvious
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Ally about the exit wound being far too small to contain the large 'sausage' which shoots out of the south-east corner in several videos.

The problem is that the videos are remarkably consistent , which makes the idea of them having been faked seem less likely. It's weird.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't we simply get a side view of the 'sausage', hence no guarantee it is circular or accurate dimensions.

In addition, there was the aircraft/jet engine that came down in Murray St - was this simply dropped off the back of a lorry in the confusion, or kicked out from underneath a hotdog stall, or taken up the WTC in pieces, reassembled and then fired out of the windows via a rocket propelled sled?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The engine part was photographed underneath some scaffolding . It may well have been moved from its landing site by forensic experts , or alternatively it could have been planted there when the streets were relatively quiet in the early morning/night. I know Killtown believes it was planted.

This site has a fair bit about it:

http://www.911foreknowledge.com

as does this one:

http://www.maebrussell.com/9-11/Dear%20World%20Watcher.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As many will have seen from the earlier part of this thread, great focus was made of the comparison drawn between the bomber crashing and the WTC collision/s.

Having gone back and looked at the bomber crash, you will see from the attached image that the bomber's wing actually 'explodes' PRIOR to hitting the ground/runway. It very much seems to hit what appears to be possibly cabling raised above the ground - this could easily be high voltage cabling and tends to negate any direct comparisons drawn.

Until this aspect is disproved, I stand firmly by my belief that the WTC fireball appeared quite rightly only after the aircraft had entered the building.



notdeck.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  16.85 KB
 Viewed:  25 Time(s)

notdeck.jpg



_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC


Last edited by telecasterisation on Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:34 pm    Post subject: Fuel Reply with quote

I suppose nobody noticed 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in barrels sitting around in the office that morning?
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Fuel Reply with quote

Snowygrouch wrote:
I suppose nobody noticed 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in barrels sitting around in the office that morning?


Didn't William Rodriguez mention some 'vending machine guy' in the North Tower that day Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Fuel Reply with quote

chek wrote:
Snowygrouch wrote:
I suppose nobody noticed 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in barrels sitting around in the office that morning?


Didn't William Rodriguez mention some 'vending machine guy' in the North Tower that day Smile


Yeah chek but they were Coke cans! Laughing

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
Having gone back and looked at the bomber crash, you will see from the attached image that the bomber's wing actually 'explodes' PRIOR to hitting the ground/runway. It very much seems to hit what appears to be possibly cabling raised above the ground - this could easily be high voltage cabling and tends to negate any direct comparisons drawn.


I am glad you're paying attention. What would have caused it to explode without hitting anything? (and why would the WTC NOT explode when it clearly HAD hit somethig?)

It is quite difficult to tell from the "bomber crash" video, but looking at the structures to the left of your ring, I'd say they were pylons. I therefore deduce that the explosion was caused by the plane wing clipping either the pylon or the power cable.

Other's can go with TC's explanation if they feel it is more legitimate.....

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!


Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:20 pm    Post subject: Coke Reply with quote

Ah thats it!!!

Secretly the CIA had coca cola make a batch of 200,000 cans filled with kerosene, cunningly installed 2000 vending machines filled with said cans on the correct floors and positions and the rest is history!

Or..........................................not. Wink

Come on guys! Very Happy

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Coke Reply with quote

Snowygrouch wrote:
Ah thats it!!!

Secretly the CIA had coca cola make a batch of 200,000 cans filled with kerosene, cunningly installed 2000 vending machines filled with said cans on the correct floors and positions and the rest is history!

Or..........................................not. Wink

Come on guys! Very Happy


And when the truth comes out ( Laughing ) they will discover the Coke was mysteriously sent to 7 WTC!

Well those CIA types like their drugs don't they? Wink

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Coke Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:
Snowygrouch wrote:
Ah thats it!!!

Secretly the CIA had coca cola make a batch of 200,000 cans filled with kerosene, cunningly installed 2000 vending machines filled with said cans on the correct floors and positions and the rest is history!

Or..........................................not. Wink

Come on guys! Very Happy


And when the truth comes out ( Laughing ) they will discover the Coke was mysteriously sent to 7 WTC!

Well those CIA types like their drugs don't they? Wink


Y'see? All it takes is some 'critical thinking' and it all comes together!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote;

Quote:
I am glad you're paying attention. What would have caused it to explode without hitting anything? (and why would the WTC NOT explode when it clearly HAD hit somethig?)

You've lost me with this question, I clearly stated and you quoted me;

Quote:
It very much seems to hit what appears to be possibly cabling raised above the ground...


So I clearly already stated that it looks to have hit the cables. Did you simply not read it or were you being rhetorical? I have no idea what would cause it to explode without hitting anything, electrical fault, a bomb, why does any aircraft ever catch fire or explode independent of a collision?

However, I never said it didn't anything, I said it looks to have hit something before it hit the ground.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To me the B52 looks like it fell on to its fuel in the wing and then BANG!

Peace and love

DK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TC - sorry - I didn't read all your post on this one. Apologies.

Electrical cabling - well - yes - we concur on that then. I don't think it makes the comparison any worse than I originally suggested in my 1st post with the video - but I still think it is a fair comparison - the "delayed fireball" is extremely obvious to me and I have noticed it in all 3 videos of the 2nd impact I have seen up to now.

Again sorry for my previous error.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bicnarok
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 334
Location: Cydonia

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don´t understand what some women waving or people standing in the hole of the tower have to do with a "no planes" theory.

It seems logical that if your trapped in a building in a disaster situation you will want to get out, a big hole in the bulding seems the logical possible way of escape. Maybe some helicopter can lower some cable or something to lift the person out.

Going to the roof wouldn´t be possible because heat rises and the roof would probably be well hot, if accessable at all. Going down seems an unlikely possibility seeing as the impact may have damaged the escape root, stairs (if there were and at all in the WTC?) So a big gaping hole seems like a good possibility of surviving.

_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bicnarok wrote:
I don´t understand what some women waving or people standing in the hole of the tower have to do with a "no planes" theory.


My understanding is that the point being laboured here (although the thread starter has done something of a U-turn now), is that if it had been a plane = lashings of aviation fuel burning.

This would mean it would be too hot for people to wander about sightseeing from the hole/s made, due to the high temperatures generated.

Not a new theory/standpoint, but what else do we have to discuss? Things are a trifle quiet of the new info front.

I have seen the Borat movie should anyone like a review.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bicnarok wrote:
I don´t understand what some women waving or people standing in the hole of the tower have to do with a "no planes" theory.

It seems logical that if your trapped in a building in a disaster situation you will want to get out, a big hole in the bulding seems the logical possible way of escape. Maybe some helicopter can lower some cable or something to lift the person out.

Going to the roof wouldn´t be possible because heat rises and the roof would probably be well hot, if accessable at all. Going down seems an unlikely possibility seeing as the impact may have damaged the escape root, stairs (if there were and at all in the WTC?) So a big gaping hole seems like a good possibility of surviving.


I now think the woman waving was a fake shot...why didn;t they zoom in closer..the actual clip only lasted a few seconds i believe...very conveniently
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I now think the woman waving was a fake shot...why didn;t they zoom in closer..the actual clip only lasted a few seconds i believe...very conveniently.

Can you elaborate as to why you believe it is fake? Is it just the length of the clip and the lack of zooming?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group