BLAG

BLAG Forums
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:32 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Do you believe the offical 911 story?
Poll ended at Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:03 pm
Yes 38%  38%  [ 5 ]
No 62%  62%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 13
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 108
Location: Oakland, CA, U$A, Earth, Milky Way
Quote:
You mean like Paul Wellstone? (keeping in tune with this thread...)

I know it's not a democracy nor was it ever intended to be one. But thinking some saviour is going to come along and change things radically is ______. It just won't be permitted. Anyone that does come along will just be thoroughly branded as a lunatic and marginalized (e.g. Kucinich).

Wellstone & Kucinich (& Sanders, for that matter) were & are good liberals (in the North American sense, i.e. what Europeans call social democrats), but not radicals, i.e. going to the root of the matter, that the U.S. is a plutocratic empire, not a democracy that just needs the right elected leadership. Of course the media and politicians would try to ignore a progressive (Sanders, for instance, is practically invisible to the U.S. press compared to the other Senate "independant", Vichy Democrat Leiberman). But the system might have more of a problem dealing with a real radical A sufficiently disconsonant message might become a cause celebre precisely because the hard right couldn't resist trumpeting this "insanity" to its base. For instance, my local rep Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the resolution authorizing the war against Afghanistan. There were national calls to recall her on all the pundit shows and throughout the media, despite the fact that 58% of her constituents approved of her action. The the establishment called off its attacks when it realized that attempts to unseat Lee were giving her a platform to express her views.

But that was a one-off kind of thing, and really, Lee isn't very radical, though she used to be a Panther. I wonder what would happen if, say, Noam Chomsky were a senator instead, repeatedly and articulately castigating the foundational myths that are the basis for whatever consent the American people give to imperialist adventures.

Certainly the system would try desperately to use constitutional means to silence a radical voice, a la the full court press that pushed Cynthia McKinney out of congress. That might work, but even if right-wing Georgia the system had a hard time icing McKinney, and she in fact was reelected in 2004 after being forced out in 2002, and would probably still be in the House today if it weren't for the Capitol Police incident giving the establishment enough ammunition to (barely) edge her out in 2006. If those tactics didn't work probably such an effective radical leader would meet with an "accident," I guess that's what the allusion to Wellstone was about. Certainly that has happened before, and would cause a certain amount of tongue wagging and skepticism, but unless the hit were clumsy it probably wouldn't threaten the status quo. So probably a single "hero in history" couldn't change the terms of debate, it would take several actors across the country. If we had proportional representation it would be a lot easier to generate such a radical movement.

I guess my real point is that the American people are not uniformly reactionary, there are millions of very solid progressives here, and if a radical point of view could get any kind of real hearing a powerful oppositional mass movement is not beyond the pale. Most Americans are very unhappy with the way things are going, they just don't see an alternative being offered.

Quote:
Praxis wrote:
"The establishment is finding itself having to resort to electoral fraud and death squads to retain neo-liberal footholds..."


And this is something new???
No, not new, Latin America looked like it was heading in a progressive direction in the seventies and and it took two decades of coups and death squads to wipe out a generation of radicals, killing hundreds of thousands of people. But by the early eighties it looked like that had worked, socialists were marginalized everywhere in Latin America, elections became contests between competing lists of neo-liberals. The establishment didn't NEED to resort to electoral fraud and violence most places. In the last few years, though, there has been a huge resurgence of the left in countries like Bolivia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Brazil, etc. OK, you don't need to convince me that Lula, Kirchner & Bachelet are not real alternatives, but they are actually to the right of their population, holding back a lot of popular anger at capitalism.

10-15 years ago the ruling class looked unassailable, their talking heads were going on about the "end of history": now the situation seems much more fluid, in part because of Bush & company's overreach. Nothing inevitable, but the pendulum seems to be swinging our way after 30 years of rightward momentum.

By the way, for a look at the mechanics behind the collapse of WTC7 (which I'll grant, looks strange), see here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
ewl wrote:
Unless the Bush administration was working hand in hand with Halliburton and didn't care about the Republican party as a whole, I don't think they saw this coming. And the reason was that they miscalculated badly.


Uh, you know the Vice President was CEO of Halliburton for years ya? You must. That's pretty hand-in-hand to me. I also don't see this terrible miscalculation everyone seems to hype on. So the Republicans lost some seats? After control for years? Well, that's pretty inevitable. And the price they are paying is essentially nothing. So they got us stuck in an interminable war? Who does that hurt? Not them, they're suffering all the way to the bank. Think the people who made billions off the Vietnam war give a fuck that it was "lost" in the end?

Also, as a side note, I'm not arguing that the republicans, bush, halliburton, or whatever blew up the towers or anything like that. Just so you're clear on that part from me...

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 5
POPULAR MECHANICS!!! MY GOD PEOPLE!! Who am I to argue with the Hearst Corportation tho. With such fine publications as Cosmo, Cosmo-girl, Seventeen, and good housekeeping, of course this is a respectable magazine with no ill intent towards the minds of it readers. God, some people are so stuborn (me for example) this is THEIR explanation
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/9 ... 13805.html
Go to page 4 "FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800? to 1500?F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750?F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, "
Then go to this documentary timemark 15:15 http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... -%2Blisten
Thats right MOLTEN STEEL, 5 WEEKS LATER STILL MOLTEN, STILL RED HOT
back to popular mechanics...same page, "NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832?F."
...and what temperature does steel melt at?? 2500 ...well that dosnt make much sense,
Dosnt it seem odd that all 3 buildings collapsed straight down, nice and neat?
PANCAKE COLLAPSE, thats the official explanation, of course with the resistance of each floor breaking and the air pockets between them the building should have collapsed much slower than freefall speed right?
JUDY WOOD PhD Professor of Mechanical Engineering Clemson University:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... +mysteries
TIME MARK: 27:10 ........THIS IS A GOOD ONE.... The towers collapsed within a second of freefall speed...9 seconds, She calcualtes the speed of a pancake collapse of 110 stories....remember shes Ph.D. ... of MECHANICAL ENGINEERING....at Clemson University....she says it should have taken...u ready?? 96 seconds! NINETY SIX SECONDS.
One more beautiful shot..
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... +mysteries
TIME MARK 49:38...see the way the beams are CUT, see the molten steel hardened around the cut? thats how the experts do it, you cut the beams on an angle so you can make the building fall in the direction of the cut... popular mechanics pft... thats kid stuff
________
Female advice forum


Last edited by mjaubie on Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
mjaubie wrote:
POPULAR MECHANICS!!! MY GOD PEOPLE!! Who am I to argue with the Hearst Corportation tho.


Yes, well that's called an ad hominem argument. But before I get into an involved discussion with you on this I think you should address the point that jebba made earlier. Are you indeed a troll? Specifically, are you a blag user who happens to be interested in the 9/11 disaster. If so I'll continue this dialog with you. If, however, you are a troll who is only interested in stirring up shit, I won't bother.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:07 am
Posts: 699
mjaubie wrote:
Listen to an Engineer from MIT http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... -%2Blisten
skip to 20:51 to hear him try to convince you. You may also want to look at the first 3mins of this video, or watch the whole thing it wont hurt anything but your ego.


Wow, what a great engineer. Let's take the point of melting point of steel, he claims that steel retains it's strength up to it's melting point. Wow, this must be quite a shock for all those companies trying to develope heat resistant steel that retains it's strength under heat. The truth is many types of steel hold up under heat better than others. But he talks like all steel is the same. The other truth is the loss of strength due to heat is something that happens gradually starting at lower tempatures, not all at once at the end.

Overall I think this video is full of error.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
jebba wrote:
Uh, you know the Vice President was CEO of Halliburton for years ya? You must. That's pretty hand-in-hand to me. I also don't see this terrible miscalculation everyone seems to hype on. So the Republicans lost some seats? After control for years? Well, that's pretty inevitable.


I phrased that badly. I didn't mean to imply that they weren't in bed with Halliburton. I just meant that it wasn't Halliburton and Bush using the Republican party as patsies. I think the war was a miscalculation because they actually thought that it would be a quick war and that they would be treated as heroes. That the United States would have a permanent presence in the country and that the oil companies would have a permanent slice of the Iraqi oil pie. I think all that is up in smoke. No matter how long the U.S. stays there the inevitable result will be like VietNam. The difference between VietNam and Iraq is the VietNam had no oil.

Secondly they also thought this would be the icing on the cake for a permanent Republican domination of the country's politics. When political parties make deals with large corporations the benefits are supposed to go both ways. Congressmen make those deals ultimately so that they can get enough money to beat the competition in the next election. If they think that the policies the corporations are asking them to back will lose them the next election, then the deal doesn't hold. From that point of view, things haven't gone as planned. And while the oil companies have made a bundle the financial markets have gone down the toilet. They didn't start the war just for the sake of starting a war. They actually had a goal in my and they failed.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:36 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
ewl wrote:
I think the war was a miscalculation because they actually thought that it would be a quick war and that they would be treated as heroes.


Do you really think that? If so, reconsider. I think you even noted how Bush Sr. and his crew knew they wouldn't be greeted as liberators. Cheney likely knew this as well, despite his public proclamations. Hell, Cheney was one of Sr.'s crew (cf. Brent Scowcroft Time article). Cheney was Sr.'s Secretary of Defense! This when they knew there would be no way they'd be greeted as liberators.

If I run a fire brigade, torch your house, run in and take as much as I can for myself while it's burning, and then let it burn to the ground have I failed? I've failed if my goal was to save your house. If my goal was to enrich myself, I've succeeded... And if the fire truck gets destroyed in the process and I happen to own a fire truck factory, well, awww shucks, I guess we'll need a few dozen more of those as well...

ewl wrote:
They didn't start the war just for the sake of starting a war.


"War is the health of the state"

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
jebba wrote:
Do you really think that? If so, reconsider. I think you even noted how Bush Sr. and his crew knew they wouldn't be greeted as liberators. Cheney likely knew this as well, despite his public proclamations.


I guess this debate is winding down if I'm going to have to read Dick Cheney's mind. That's not a place I want to go. It's way to dark. ;-)

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
Well, you don't have to read his mind, just look at his actions.

1) Secretary of Defense under Bush Sr., they decide not to go into Baghdad because it would be a mess.

2) After Bush Sr. is out of office, becomes CEO of a military contractor (and had pushed for basically privatizing large aspects of the military when in office). Builds the company up to provide huge amounts of services to the Govt.

3) Becomes Vice President and starts war as soon as convenient, with huge sums of money going to #2.

It's not obscure magic. It's right before your eyes....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
jebba wrote:
It's not obscure magic. It's right before your eyes....


When I said dark, I meant evil, not obscure. But what are you saying exactly? Evidently the time wasn't right in 1991 to topple Saddam. So Cheney invested in Halliburton, became Vice President and started the war... all by himself? Why didn't the Republicans and large corporations want to invade Iraq in 1991 but didn't mind doing it in 2003? We have Cheney's motivation, but what about everybody else?

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Chicago
I think it's very clear that Bush and the people who tell him what to think all believed that they could pull the Iraq war off without too much trouble at all. None of them thought that this particular war would go so badly. Read what they wrote and said beforehand. They were full of visions of unassailable US military supremacy, as well as all sorts of racist fantasies about the backward Arabs/Muslims, who were posited as on the one hand incapable of ruling themselves and on the other dying to get some o' that good ole American Democracy (i.e., to establish a pro-US government). This was not just lip service--these fantasies about Arab inferiority and their own superiority are long-standing, widespread, and deeply believed myths in the United States (and dare I say in "the West" in general). This fantasy is particularly strong among right-wingers, and even stronger among the neo-cons, who have been great supporters of racist Orientalist ideologues like Bernard Lewis and the loathesome Daniel Pipes.

Bush and Co. (including Cheney) certainly cared about winning, and they really really wanted to win. Bush Sr. and his group didn't think that they could take Iraq in 1991, but Junior had a different group of "advisers" telling him what to do. The fact that Cheney for a time worked with Scowcroft doesn't mean that they share the same assumptions or assessments about anything--they obviously don't--Scowcroft has already publicly rebuked them. The gang around Junior, with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz at the lead (and with Cheney strongly behind), thought Bush Sr. and Scowcroft were pussies--either cowards or not bold enough to take advantage of the conditions to maintain and extend US dominance. It's as simple as that. Read their writings. Read the writings of the insiders published in the last few years. Saddam was a tinpot dictator, and WE are AMERICA! We can annihilate Saddam, and turn Iraq into a protectorate brimming with permanent US military bases, and keep political and economic control over Iraq's oil and the whole region. And it wasn't just Bush and Co. who thought this--they managed, through their audacity and the media/pundits cravenness, to convince the whole US mainstream that it was going to be a piece of cake, and Iraq would prostrate itself and love it's conqueror just like Japan.

But saying that they thought they could win this war quickly doesn't mean that they were not hand in glove with the "defense" contractors, Haliburton, etc. They were prepared for war for the long haul--after Iraq, they wanted to "remake" through war or threats of war the whole Middle East and beyond. This was going to be a permanent war bonanza for the contractors. Winning in Iraq wouldn't have stopped the flow of money--they wanted it to flow at greater rates--making bases, preparing for and prosecuting other wars in the region, doing everything that they could to make the US global military empire utterly and unquestionably dominant forever (and their wing of the Republican party in power forever). People cared about this, and no one wanted Iraq a mess.

They did not imagine that their plan would falter at the first step--they couldn't even get past the pathetic, defenseless, already crushed nation of Iraq. They knew or understood nothing about the history of the anti-colonial liberation movements, and the utter impossibility of subjugating a nation like Iraq today. No matter how many "terrorists" they kill, how many Fallujas they destroy, Iraqis are going to continue to kill them until the last base is gone.

Although lots of people are still making money off of the current situation, this was not at all how ANY of them hoped it would turn out. The money that they thought they could spend on more offensive operations, like real war with Iran, Syria, etc etc, is now being used to try to shore up the hopeless dream of "stabilizing" Iraq under their rule. Now they're going to lose, and they know it. The Middle east is not being remade as they wanted it. They're holed up in their bases and their "green zone", and they're not even safe in those. They can't even complete construction on all of the bases that they started building. If they had pulled it off as they imagined, the money would have flowed in a torrent for the foreseeable future. Now, sure, the money is not going to get shut off right away or perhaps even soon, but it's likely that there are going to be congressional investigations, inquiries, audits, etc. As ineffective as those congressional measures are likely to be, none of the interested parties wanted that kind of oversight. The Republicans, who are somewhat more fervent lapdogs for military interests than Democrats, are losing power. That matters to them. And they're pretty much universally despised, inside and outside of the US. They didn't particularly want that, either. Money will still flow, but it's not like how it coulda been in their eyes. Permanent war that you're winning is different than permanent war that you're losing. And the key is that the defeat is on the horizon, and it's not looking to permanent anymore. The army and contractors are going to have to leave Iraq before too long, and the bonanza is going to come to an end and they know it.

That said, I think that Ed's argument about "competence" regarding Iraq and 9/11 is wrong, too. The fact that Bush and Co. were not able to succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't show that they are "incompetent." That's the establishment/Democratic Party line. The Democrats, they say, wouldn't have "screwed things up" like Bush, and maybe the Iraqi people would love us then. Right. In fact, it would have been impossible to "succeed" in this insane plan--failure was inevitable. To have attempted it shows that Bush and his handlers are racist megalomaniacs. But we knew that already.

The 9/11 attack, whoever did it, was an operation of a COMPLETELY different order. For the Bush faction of the government to have done it would have required the cooperation of some finite number of Americans (not all of whom needed then or even now to know "what was really going on"), and slamming four planes into three buildings on a certain morning. Not comparable to the Iraq adventure/ongoing atrocity at all by any stretch of the imagination. And surely Bush and Co. have some degree of "competence"--if they were completely incapable of getting anything done they would never have been able to take and maintain power for so long.

Furthermore, I think that Ed is too credulous about the official 9/11 story. I mean, for chrissakes, we don't even know for sure that there were 19 suicide hijackers flying the planes. The US has had the technology to fly planes by remote--including commercial passenger planes--since the 1980s. This is not science fiction--the US remotely flies its unmanned planes surveillance/bomber planes all of the time. I remember seeing the news about remotely controlling a passenger jet on the news in the 1980s--my memory was confirmed by the same story in the first few minutes of "Loose Change" (regardless of the other inadequacies of that film). The government has only given us indirect "evidence" that Atta et al. were flying the planes, like the fact that they supposedly immediately found Atta's pristine, unscorched passport amidst millions of tons of WTC rubble. I don't know about explosives in the towers, but there are enough fishy things, and the fact that certain people got so much money and power as a result of the attack--and the fact that they said in 1999 that their already existing plan of military expansion and permanent global dominance required such an attack to get started (Wolfowitz's "new pearl harbor" comment from 1999) that I'm deeply suspicious of the official story.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
contents wrote:

That said, I think that Ed's argument about "competence" regarding Iraq and 9/11 is wrong, too. The fact that Bush and Co. were not able to succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't show that they are "incompetent." That's the establishment/Democratic Party line. The Democrats, they say, wouldn't have "screwed things up" like Bush, and maybe the Iraqi people would love us then. Right. In fact, it would have been impossible to "succeed" in this insane plan--failure was inevitable. To have attempted it shows that Bush and his handlers are racist megalomaniacs. But we knew that already.


I never said the Democrats would "do better" except in the sense that they probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I also don't think that Bush's incompetence was responsible for 9/11. What I said was that Bush is incompetent, and his lack of competence led to a vacuum of power at the top which allowed a group of loose canons, who never would have wielded unfettered power in a more "competent" administration, to take command. When I say "competent" I'm speaking from the point of view of the American corporate interests.

contents wrote:
I don't know about explosives in the towers, but there are enough fishy things, and the fact that certain people got so much money and power as a result of the attack--and the fact that they said in 1999 that their already existing plan of military expansion and permanent global dominance required such an attack to get started (Wolfowitz's "new pearl harbor" comment from 1999) that I'm deeply suspicious of the official story.


There's a tendency among conspiracy theorists to look at who benefited from an incident and assume that that is somehow evidence that they planned it. That's a well known logical fallacy that has the annoying characteristic of being impossible to disprove. Because it's impossible to disprove, the burden of proof must be on the person making the claim. You have to come up with some evidence making some kind of link between the government and the event. Otherwise it's no more than rumor mongering.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Chicago
I think we're 99% on the same page about politics, Ed, so I don't want to make a big deal about this. I didn't mean to imply that you thought that administration incompetence was responsible for 9/11. My point, which might have been mistaken, was that it appeared to me that you were arguing that the neo-cons' failure in Iraq shows them to be "keystone cops" and "bumbling fools", and thus they were not capable of orchestrating 9/11, which would have required the efforts of "omnipotent illuminati." If that's not what you meant, then I apologize.

No one says that the fact that Bush and Co. benefited from 9/11 represents "evidence that they planned it." But when investigating a crime, is it a "logical fallacy" to ask who has benefited from the crime? Particularly if, a year or two before the crime happened, someone said, "We won't be able to carry out our plans unless a crime such as this occurs," and then the crime occurs, and then they carry out their plans. I (and I think most professional investigators and judges would agree) that it would be illogical to ignore such events, and that you should keep it in mind when investigating, regardless of what you can prove right away. I never said it proved or represented "evidence" of anything--all I said was that this, along with numerous other details, makes me deeply suspicious of the official story.

Futher, I took issue with your statement that government orchestration of 9/11 would have involved getting 19 muslim extremists to sacrifice their lives. I said that that wasn't technically necessary, and that at least one of the bits of "evidence" purporting to show Atta's involvement is so unlikely that it deserves to be treated with great skepticism. Praxis points out that "evidence" linking Osama bin Laden and especially Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is also very shaky. If you're going to amass your arsenal of logic and skepticism against the conspiracy theorists (and you are right to do so), then why not why not assess the government's claims with the same standards? Is the US government any more worthy of trust?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
I'll just let contents speak for me now. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
Okay, I give... Sometimes I get a little unreasonably cranky about some issues. At least that's what my wife tells me ;-)

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group