BLAG

BLAG Forums
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:35 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 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
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 5
In case you don't know, there is a strong case that WTC 1&2 did not collapse due to the planes that hit them, but were brought down in a controlled demolition perpetrated by those refered to as The New World Order, The Illuminati, FreeMasons, The Knights Templar, etc etc. PoppyCock? Search googlevideos for "911 mysteries" , "TerrorStorm", "Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove". Agree? Then I'll move on to the topic at hand. By the way please dont allow my opions to sway you away from the facts in these documentaries.

After following this "theory" for a few years and trying to put everything into context to fit this theory Ive come up with some theories of my own. First, if you run the world and control the media, it would make sense to not only show the side that applauds your puppets(as fox / murdock supports Bush) but also you should have an opposition as well(John Stewart). Its like the democrats and the republicans, both controlled by the same powers, but both rip on each other in the ways there told to, about the stories they are allowed to. Alex Jones had his movie "terror storm" in the top 10 sellers on amazon, Rosie O'donnel told 30million viewers 911 was an inside job, south park did a show about it. However i feel that it is only because the NWO wants to have this information out there. Why? Beats me. Maybe they know it dosnt matter, not unless Oprah Winfrey or Simon from American Idol says it. Perhaps they are trying to weed out the trouble makers so they know who to lock up in a not so distant future, maybe they are planning the downfall of america. Check these 911truth sites out there, are there forums? John Stewart, FoxNews, CNN, most places don't have forums, why?
What am I getting at? Nothing, just frustrated and alone with no icon to look to, no hero to save us. Just a closing grip with a finger up my ass.
________
SMOKING KILLS


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

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
It's too neat. If they were that good at conspiracies no one would ever know about it. I think Al Qaida perpetrated the attacks while George Bush was doing a photo op with some school kids in Florida. George Bush is as stupid as he seems and yet he is also the commander in chief. That's why the administration is currently falling apart. The Republicans thought they could get away with an idiot in the White House so long as his lieutenants (Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld) were smart enough. But when there's a vacuum at the top (mentally speaking) the pyramid doesn't hold together very well. The lieutenants fight among themselves for control and there is nobody but the idiot at the top to take responsibility. These aren't the Illuminati, they're the Keystone Cops.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Last edited by ewl on Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 5
You sound awfully sure of this, so you must have a good understanding of the evidence and you must know how to explain away the facts. But for others I will explain, and perhaps you can explain all this way.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7906&hl=en
that is a 10min video showing some of the evidence. Explaining how simple physics explains away the official story. The towers collapsed at freefall speed. Fire melted steel, the temperatures at ground zero were 1000degrees WEEKS after the towers collapsed(thermite). There is no photographic evidence of a plane hiting the pentagon, The towers were designed to withstand the impact of SEVERAL PLANES. WTC7 was not hit by planes but collapsed anyway, it housed the FBI, CIA, and evidence for many cases of fraud on wallstreet, including Enron, the evidence has been irretrievable so far, it also housed millions in gold, still never found. On September 10, 2001 (the day before) the USA announced it "Lost" almost 3 TRILLION DOLLARS, the next day it was a side note. If you watch "911 mysteries" you will see tesimoney of people feeling bombs go off in the basement of the towers, which is common in controlled demolition, you destroy the basement and cause the building to fall into it. Russian satelites show heat signatures well over that possible by jet fuel, and Physics Proffessor Stephen Jones has annalysed debris from the site and has found that it contains THERMITE, a common substance used in controlled demolitions that burns at extremely high temperatures. When you look at how the towers were built, their steel core, these were super structures taht should not have turned to dust, again they were designed to withstand the impact of several jets.
Of course you are not going to believe this if you dont research it for yourself, if you just rely on tv and mainstream sources for info you are never going to have a clue about anything. Dont think about how impossible it would be to cover this up, think about how impossible it was for those buildings to collapse, the rest will come later.
________
New jersey marijuana dispensaries


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

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
There is "Chomsky's" idea of "manufactured consent". Basically this is getting the press on your side so the people can be convinced of bullshit (e.g. weapons of mass destruction) so they will give consent to do completely insane/inhumane/immoral things like bombing poor people.

A twist on this is "manufactured dissent". This is a bit more subtle. It is controlling the counter-arguments. It other words, if you can frame both sides of the debate, you win.

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
mjaubie wrote:
Of course you are not going to believe this if you dont research it for yourself, if you just rely on tv and mainstream sources for info you are never going to have a clue about anything. Dont think about how impossible it would be to cover this up, think about how impossible it was for those buildings to collapse, the rest will come later.


Well, you're making a few very big assumptions. First of all, I have as much skepticism as anybody about the biases of the "mainstream media". I get almost all my news from "alternate sources" like Democracy Now and Z Net. But I'm also skeptical of the credulity of conspiracy theorists. I've argued endlessly with people who don't believe that people landed on the moon in 1969 thinking that the whole thing was staged on a Hollywood set. Others believe that UFOs have been abducting people and making crop circles which "could never be duplicated by human beings". They always present "scientific evidence" to support their claims. The problem with their claims is that they are basically non-falsifiable. It is almost impossible to prove a universal existential negative. I could claim that the government was responsible for my car breaking down on I190 a month ago and you can't prove that it's not true.

You are also assuming that I haven't "researched" the subject. If you want a good answer to the scientific claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists I refer you to this Popular Mechanics article from March 2005: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 108
Location: Oakland, CA, U$A, Earth, Milky Way
I'm convinced that the towers were brought down by the satanic machinations of the NWO, particularly that bastard Hollywood Hulk Hogan.

Really, I'm not persuaded that it really matters if Marinus Van Der Lubbe really torched the Reichstag, the point was that Hitler used to to suspend the Weimar constitution. Likewise, I am not that concerned with who exactly destroyed the twin towers, the important thing was cui bono?, what the results were. Bush was able to use the reprehensible act of terrorism as a pretext to dramatically increase the authority of the executive branch and make a play to grab ALL of the oil in the Middle East. I'm with Chomsky, the chances are very much against Bush and the Illuminati having ordered the WTC bombing, but even if they did, it doesn't matter. The essential thing is that the world is run by a tiny ruling class of very rich people for their own benefit and working people around the world need to overthrow the system and democratically reorganize society to serve the overwhelming majority. This sterile "9-11 truth" debate just diverts and divides progressive people and marginalizes progressives in the eyes of a large swath of folks that might be receptive to our institutional analysis of how the society is run. Que the URL music.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
I'm with you on the Hulk Hogan thing. Things just haven't been the same since Andre the Giant died ...

And I also agree that while the idiot-in-chief didn't create the 9/11 disaster, he and his cohorts (puppeteers?) certainly benefited from it. But I disagree that the conspiracy paranoia doesn't matter. These people aren't omnipotent puppet masters. Their power, for the most part comes from illusion. Remember this monkey in human clothing got re-elected after four disastrous years in power with the support of 51% of the sheeple of the U.S. So long as people think that these bumbling fools are omnipotent Illuminati, they will think of themselves as impotent, and keep on voting for the lesser of two inevitable evils. Or they will give up voting altogether in the belief that the process is futile...

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
Personally I think it will live on like the Kennedy assassination: the official story is likely a bunch of bunk, but there will be endless debates about alternatives and no one will ever know "the Truth". Personally I'm just a wee bit curious about WTC-7, which wasn't hit, collapsing on it's own the way it did... That said, I doubt I'll ever get a real answer.

I also wonder about people like mjaubie who have never written in the forums here before and start this thread and include quotes like: "Nothing, just frustrated and alone with no icon to look to, no hero to save us. Just a closing grip with a finger up my ass." ...and this is someone who is supposedly trying to convince others of 911 alternative views with a dose of "The New World Order, The Illuminati, FreeMasons, The Knights Templar" thrown in.

All sounds quite trollish to me. ;)

As for Bush being an idiot, it's quite convenient for him/them. Judging by his SAT scores he's estimated to have an IQ around 120--not off-the-charts but well enough above average (one would hope the president would be). As for things like his adminstration falling apart, well, that's hardly happening much either. Look at allllllllllllllll the enormous transformations he's made to the USA system and the world in general. It's huge. Hell, even things like trial by jury aren't 100% anymore--not even a facade of it. A few underlings doing a little bit of time, likely to be pardoned soon enough, is hardly falling apart. Look at past administrations. They all churn through the low-level guys. The only thing they've been nailed for is some guy lying a bit to a grand jury. Compare that to the crimes they've committed! Bah, they won, it looks like to me.

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:07 am
Posts: 699
Personally I pretty much believe the official story. Unless I start seeing some engineers coming out and explaining that the official story is wrong, I currently don't see merit in the conspiracy stories. That's not to say that the US didn't try to provoke a "Pearl Harbor" type event in order to make war in the middle east. Heck some people think that Pearl Harbor was provoked in order to enter WWII. We might have even known about it before hand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 108
Location: Oakland, CA, U$A, Earth, Milky Way
Quote:
Bah, they won, it looks like to me.
Dunno, Jeff, the games not over. I've got radical friends that think Bush is really damaging the empire with his over-reach. After 9-11 there were demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people in places like Paris and Tehran in solidarity with America. Now almost the entire world considers the U.S. the world's #1 source of evil. The establishment is finding itself having to resort to electoral fraud and death squads to retain neo-liberal footholds in the Western Hemisphere (Mexico, Columbia) compared to what really could be described as "the Washington Consensus" a few years ago. U.S.-backed dictatorships all over the Muslim world are facing seething hatred towards their imperial satraps, reliable client governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan could all be swept away overnight. The military is totally over extended as it is.

In 1980 nobody thought the Soviet enterprise would disappear in the next decade. Our empire may be just as brittle. Even here in the belly of the monster people are beginning to show signs of consciousness. Twice as many folks want to see the Demublicans win the presidency as the Republocrats. Most of the anger at Congress is because it isn't standing up to Bush enough. The first socialist ever was sent to the Senate. If the empire starts to totter and the government attempts to really mobilize the people (draft, dramatically increased sacrifices), who knows?

Bush's skirting constitutional safeguards often backfires, delegitimizing the empire more than it increases his power. Look at the world's reaction to the Hicks verdict and Democratic efforts to investigate the Patriot Act. Sure, the American sheeple is not a bad characterization, but they are FAR more suspicious of their government than they were in the sixties. It took years of 100-dead-troops-a-day warfare to cause demonstration of the scale that we had in the streets before this war even started. People don't have anything like the same kind of faith in the institutions (congress, the presidency, corporations, the military) that were common place in the fifties and early sixties. Though Bush is supposed to have "won" two elections, there is very good evidence that both elections were fraudulent.

I think if one articulate electoral politician suddenly started telling the truth, stopped speaking in approved code, it could threaten the whole imperial enterprise. The United States is NOT a democracy, if you read the Federalist Papers you realize it was never intended to be. It is not even a democratic republic where you have single member constituency elections controlled by the corporate media and the vote of folks in Wyoming or Alaska are worth 4.5 votes in California. The government is not a world-wide force for good, but an evil empire with over 700 military bases in over 130 countries. The system couldn't tolerate someone telling the people the truth over and over again, but clumsy efforts at control could get folks to really think about those propositions. Expelling a dissident Senator from the chamber would add publicity, weight and credibility to her arguments.

There is enormous discontent in this country with the government, but really no way for it to be expressed. The people think they have a democracy, thats what they have ALWAYS been told, and they support the idea of democracy. And electoral activity is the only legitimate form of political expression for the public. But they also know it doesn't matter if you vote for Tweedlededee or Tweedlededumb. In times of crisis attitudes can change very quickly. Compare public attitudes in 1962 to 1968. The internet gives people a alternative transnational method of communicating, organizing, that is harder to monopolize than a few TV networks. Revolution is not out of the question, even here.

As to the Official 9-11 Story, here are some salient points:

1) The government was incompetent. If I were paid to think about terrorist threats it would have taken me about 10 minutes to suggest that would-be martyrs might hijack planes and ram them in to buildings. Plenty of people had already discussed this option including the nutcases who shot up the high school in Columbine, Colorado. It would have been trivial to install locking doors to prevent that in the first place if the government REALLY were concerned about terrorism.

2) But Bush & co. actually have a symbiotic relationship with terrorists, they benefit from each other. Islamic fundamentalists and the Republican right have a long-standing partnership, from the contacts between Reagan and the Ayatollahs before the 1980 election to keep the hostages until Carter was defeated to the support of the Saudis and the billions given to Al Qaeda and its buddies in Afghanistan in the eighties. Every time Bush hit a lull in his popularity he played the Terrorism Card until it became a Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf situation for millions of Americans despite the full-throated complicity of the corporate press. If the definition of terrorism is using fear as a political weapon the U.S. government is the world's biggest terrorist, and is increasingly being recognized as such around the world.

3) I'm not convinced that Osama Bin Laden himself was personally involved in 9-11, that may just be a convenient way for the government to create a single recognizable figure head for the public to hate, rather like Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's 1984, Carlos The Jackal, or Zarqawi in Iraq. Bin Laden repeatedly denied involvement himself, and it is quite possible that the jihadist movement is diffuse and decentralized enough that he really did have little or nothing to do with it. When the government got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to confess to every crime since the Lindbergh kiddnapping, even the bourgeois press was a little suspicious, particularly after it was remembered that CIA officials had previously told ABC News that "Mohammed lasted the longest under water boarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk." The only time Bin Laden publically took credit for 9-11 was in a very suspicious video released the Friday before the 2004 election which CIA analysts immediately decided was released to help Bush win reelection (see #2 assuming the video is genuine). In any case, earlier & Taliban government offers to turn Bin Laden over to international tribunals were rebuffed by the U.S. government. That, plus the pathetic attempt to snag the "Al Qaeda" operatives in Tora Bora convinces me that the United Snakes government isn't interested in bringing responsible parties to justice for the 9-11 attacks, and that by itself should be grounds for impeachment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:29 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
Praxis wrote:
Quote:
Bah, they won, it looks like to me.


I think if one articulate electoral politician suddenly started telling the truth, stopped speaking in approved code, it could threaten the whole imperial enterprise.


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).

There's not going to be a draft because they know the second they start it, there will be huge opposition to the whole enterprise. They'll more likely recruit a bunch of "illegal" immigrants and tell them they have to fight or go to jail or similar. "Americans" pretty much want the benefits of empire, but don't want to fight it--it's a large poor world, so others will be found to fight the battle.

Taking some of your other points:

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???

Praxis wrote:
"Look at the world's reaction to the Hicks verdict and Democratic efforts to investigate the Patriot Act."


Ya, pretty much zilch. Remember it was a Democrat Senate that even passed the fucking Patriot Act. The reason they aren't running around yelling "Impeach!" is that they are just as guilty.


Praxis wrote:
"Though Bush is supposed to have "won" two elections, there is very good evidence that both elections were fraudulent."


And what became of it?

That said, the greatest thread to Bush & junta is their own overreach and self-implosion.

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
jebba wrote:
As for Bush being an idiot, it's quite convenient for him/them. Judging by his SAT scores he's estimated to have an IQ around 120--not off-the-charts but well enough above average (one would hope the president would be). As for things like his adminstration falling apart, well, that's hardly happening much either. Look at allllllllllllllll the enormous transformations he's made to the USA system and the world in general. It's huge. Hell, even things like trial by jury aren't 100% anymore--not even a facade of it. A few underlings doing a little bit of time, likely to be pardoned soon enough, is hardly falling apart. Look at past administrations. They all churn through the low-level guys. The only thing they've been nailed for is some guy lying a bit to a grand jury. Compare that to the crimes they've committed! Bah, they won, it looks like to me.
-Jeff


I'm not a big fan of IQ scores. I think you can have an above average IQ and still be an idiot. I qualify for mensa with my SAT scores, but I'm a Postal Worker, and I certainly would make a lousy President of the United States. Having a high IQ is mostly about being good at taking standardized tests. Bush doesn't read the newspaper, his handlers don't let him speak unscripted if at all possible because he can't put two coherent thoughts together in a sentence, on his own. Ronald Reagan used the folksy anti-intellectual approach in order to appeal to the "unwashed masses" but with Bush I'm convinced it's not an act.
It's true that they have been able to create a lot of changes in the U.S. since 9/11, but that was with both Houses of Congress heavily dominated by Republicans. Iraq (and Afghanistan also) has to be seen as a complete disaster from the Republican point of view. And if you look at the neo-con theories that spawned it, they are dominated by hubris to the point of being pathologically delusional. Reagan and Bush senior used these people, but never let them have their way unchecked. If you read the reasons that Bush sr. gave for not toppling Sadaam in the first gulf war, it reads like recent history. It was not that difficult to predict what would happen if you used the knowledge about the area that was available from the CIA. But in this administration, the neo-cons run things. And they ran with their delusional theories, rather than looking to see what would be good for the ruling class over the long term.
I'm not saying that the ruling class in the United States is going to be deposed anytime soon. They do have two parties to choose from. But I can't believe that it was the aim of the Republican Party to be ousted from power in congress after 12 years of dominance. The orchestration of the 9/11 attack would have involved getting 19 moslem extremists to sacrifice their lives, getting a demolition team to set explosives in the twin towers. You would need the participation of hundreds if not thousands of people whom you must trust not to have second thoughts about this act after the fact and leak what they know to the press. Can you imagine what the political upshot would be if real evidence ever surfaced that the administration plotted to kill 3000 Americans for political gain? I don't think that this administration is capable of that level of competence.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
ewl wrote:
It's true that they have been able to create a lot of changes in the U.S. since 9/11, but that was with both Houses of Congress heavily dominated by Republicans.


And how many Democrats voted against giving the president "war powers"? Basically none.

ewl wrote:
Iraq (and Afghanistan also) has to be seen as a complete disaster from the Republican point of view.


What if you are the Republicans that own/run the oil companies? Since then Shell has had the largest profits of any corporation ever. That's quite a gain. How about the obvious gains by companies like Halliburton, Carlyle, and the obscure ones that are raking in the cash? What the hell do any of them care about how popular their war is? They've already looted Iraq, the US Treasury, the taxpayers, etc. We're talking hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. And what has become of it? A couple guys may go to jail for a few months for lying about an interview with a journalist? Small price to pay.

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
jebba wrote:
And how many Democrats voted against giving the president "war powers"? Basically none.


Don't get me wrong, Jeff. I'm not letting the Democrats off the hook. I made a pact with myself never to vote for them again when they voted to support Israel during the genocidal attack against Lebanon last summer. But I don't think that Bush would have had the votes to invade if the Republicans hadn't been in control. The Democrats went along because they didn't want to be labeled wimps. They aren't exactly a politically courageous group. But I think they mostly thought it was a bad idea.

jebba wrote:
What if you are the Republicans that own/run the oil companies? Since then Shell has had the largest profits of any corporation ever. That's quite a gain. How about the obvious gains by companies like Halliburton, Carlyle, and the obscure ones that are


Yeah, those guys made a good investment when they backed the Republicans. But politicians don't usually make deals that involve themselves being voted out of office. 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. If anyone was in charge of a major conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center it would have to have been the people who control the Justice Department as well as the ones who control all the important Congressional oversight committees. And yet not one person in this giant conspiracy leaked anything to the press. All of the insights had to come from conspiracy theorists talking on late night talk radio.

I just don't buy it.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 5
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.
________
BMW C1 HISTORY


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

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 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