Jump to content

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

ScottsA:That makes at least half the universe so far...funny how no one has whispered even a hint of this plot for 6 years now...

People have been screaming about this for the last 6 years. Its spawned an entire industry of alternative news and videos. You should stop watching so much TV and maybe learn a little bit about this. Even the FEMA report admits the official version has a "low probability of occurance" - but you wouldn't know that.

Can you understand how much three trillion dollars is ? Its enough for 500 fully equiped gigantic nuclear powered aircraft carriers and it has dissapeared into thin air - no explanation given to congress when they asked "none of your business". You still insist on standing up for a government when you have defacto proof of absolute curruption sitting right in front of you on your TV set in mainstream media. To not see this requires a head filled with muck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What does it mean - "Unusual collapse of buildings, particularly building 7, www.wtc7.net" ??

I don't know - what it is - usual collapse of building ?

It means that no building has ever collapsed in a way that had all six characteristics of a controlled demolition as a result of accident. That can only happen as a result of controlled demolition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stignasty:Considering that your "evidence" for controlled demolition can be easily dismissed

Please...explain. Go ahead. Make my day.

No evidence of blasting caps or fuse cable in the building before collapse or in the debris.

The buildings didn't fall into their own footprints.

Destruction was from the top down, the so called "squibs" were debris and smoke being pushed out by the compression of the weight falling on the building from above. Real explosions peak early and then die out quickly - these grew in strength as the building fell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stignasty:Considering that your "evidence" for controlled demolition can be easily dismissed

Please...explain. Go ahead. Make my day.

No evidence of blasting caps or fuse cable in the building before collapse or in the debris.

The buildings didn't fall into their own footprints.

Destruction was from the top down, the so called "squibs" were debris and smoke being pushed out by the compression of the weight falling on the building from above. Real explosions peak early and then die out quickly - these grew in strength as the building fell.

Not to mention the fact that building demolitions involve explosives only on the lower floors, but hey, who's counting when it involves the TRVTH? Besides, the illuminati came along afterwards and picked up all the blasting caps, but there weren't any anyway because it was topsecret CIA blastingcapless explosives used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it mean - "Unusual collapse of buildings, particularly building 7, www.wtc7.net" ??

I don't know - what it is - usual collapse of building ?

It means that no building has ever collapsed in a way that had all six characteristics of a controlled demolition as a result of accident. That can only happen as a result of controlled demolition.

„result of controlled demolition” – how was it done ?

German Wuderwaffe ?

Explosive material ?

How many tons or kilograms ?

From what I know – sapper can estimate – how many kilograms or tons should be used in order to demolish such Big building !

No one saw suspicious behaviour of persons who had to do unusual things ?

No one said about it – to anybody ?

No one betrayed this secret ?

No one had moral doubts ?

No witnesses ?

No one from guards saw something disturbing, alarming ?

As Churchill said – the secret which is known by two persons – isn’t a secret.

As usual - the weak link is a human being.

Your theory is improbable !

I have only Big doubts !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stignasty:No evidence of blasting caps or fuse cable in the building before collapse or in the debris.

The buildings didn't fall into their own footprints.

Destruction was from the top down, the so called "squibs" were debris and smoke being pushed out by the compression of the weight falling on the building from above. Real explosions peak early and then die out quickly - these grew in strength as the building fell.

There was no evidence of blasting eqipment recovered because after the gold was recovered the rest of the wreckage with the bodies was shipped of to a garbage dump. The normal authorities that investigate these kinds of accidents were prevented from entering the scene by Guilianni.

The demolition of wtc1 & wtc 2 was not conventional, however, both engineers and scientist have gone public to state that anything but a controlled demolition would be impossible given the nature of how the buildings fell.

The NIST and FEMA reports cautiously avoid explaining the collapses.

ScottsA:Not to mention the fact that building demolitions involve explosives only on the lower floors, but hey, who's counting when it involves the TRVTH? Besides, the illuminati came along afterwards and picked up all the blasting caps, but there weren't any anyway because it was topsecret CIA blastingcapless explosives used.

You need to start looking at the evidence before you argue this. Its obvious that you haven't. It is also obvious that there were explosions at the bottom of the buildings before the collapse. Its on video (991 Eyewitness + others) plus there are many witnesses to this affect.

The illuminati did not come along and pick up all the blasting caps, they were thrown in the garbage with the bodies after all the gold was recovered.

Pictures of the site were restricted and firemen were gagged. I wonder why ? Why is it that the authorities tried to stop NY Times from publishing the oral histories from the firemen ?

Jerry Galinda:„result of controlled demolition” – how was it done ?

German Wuderwaffe ?

Explosive material ?

How many tons or kilograms ?

From what I know – sapper can estimate – how many kilograms or tons should be used in order to demolish such Big building !

No one saw suspicious behaviour of persons who had to do unusual things ?

No one said about it – to anybody ?

No one betrayed this secret ?

No one had moral doubts ?

No witnesses ?

No one from guards saw something disturbing, alarming ?

As Churchill said – the secret which is known by two persons – isn’t a secret.

As usual - the weak link is a human being.

Your theory is improbable !

I have only Big doubts !

Obviously Churchill wasn't aware of the nuclear bomb being constructed by thousands of people in New Mexico.

Just because you cannot imagine of wiring for controlled demolition could be hidden does not make it proof. I don't think you could hide that either. You would have to do it in plain sight.

The contractors would be hired to do piecemeal parts of the job, not knowing the final purpose but getting paid even though they don't know the purpose of their work. Its called compartmentalization and its how intelligence operations are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you cannot imagine of wiring for controlled demolition could be hidden does not make it proof. I don't think you could hide that either. You would have to do it in plain sight.

Yet, on the other hand, just because you can imagine it, you accept it as the truth. There is no evidence of blasting caps or fuse lines anywhere in the building. Someone made the story about controlled demonstration up, and you believe it without question because it supports what you want to believe.

There are simple logical explanations to all of your questions that you refuse to accept because you are set on your view of events. (For example, perhaps the pictures are restricted out of concern for the families of victims who might then see shots of body parts?)

You're no different from the people who go out looking for examples to support their theories of visits from aliens in the past. That's called pseudo-science. That's what you're guilty of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long will this thread continue to go round in circles? The same stuff is being rehashed over and over. I hope you guys are just rattling Poly's chain and not trying to reason. This is not a theory, it is an obsession and anything that contradicts that obsession is either not to be tolerated or must be ignored. Reason, if it ever existed, departed long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stignasty:Yet, on the other hand, just because you can imagine it, you accept it as the truth.

I'm dealing with science & evidence. You are dealing with imagination and possiblities because you are an opologist for the government. You will defend whatever they say.

Even if NIST and Bush both said there may have been explosives in wtc7 you would still be defending your beliefs - beliefs that are shared by non one - not even FEMA & NIST. They are products of only your own imaginations in an attempt to protect a government that has already robbed the tax payers of trillions of dollars, illegally invaded a country and sells off its own children as sex slaves. You are the lowest of the low.

There is no evidence of blasting caps or fuse lines anywhere in the building. Someone made the story about controlled demonstration up, and you believe it without question because it supports what you want to believe.

You keep saying the idea of controlled demolition is made up or someones fantasy. It isn't, its the conclusions many independent scientists and engineers came up with. Its been shown to be scientic fact in that its the only possible way the buildings could have collapsed that way. Its easily shown to be the case.

There are simple logical explanations to all of your questions that you refuse to accept because you are set on your view of events.

You keep saying that but every time you give one of your explanations I show how it directly counters the actual evidence. You have to make stuff up to make your theories work, I do not. You have to lie, I do not have to lie. All I have to do is point to evidence and very basic physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if NIST and Bush both said there may have been explosives in wtc7 you would still be defending your beliefs - beliefs that are shared by non one - not even FEMA & NIST.

Wait, you're claiming that there was a controlled demolition without any physical evidence. That's imagination.

Because I don't see any physical evidence, and because I have decided the visual evidence does not back up your claims of a controlled demolition, I have decided that the claims of such a demolition are unfounded. If you come up with some actual evidence to back up your claims (other than the squibs which were in my opinion obviously not squibs), I may reconsider. It's not likely at this time.

They are products of only your own imaginations in an attempt to protect a government that has already robbed the tax payers of trillions of dollars, illegally invaded a country and sells off its own children as sex slaves. You are the lowest of the low.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You keep saying the idea of controlled demolition is made up or someones fantasy.

Wait, you're claiming that there was a controlled demolition without any physical evidence. That's imagination.

Because I don't see any physical evidence, and because I have decided the visual evidence does not back up your claims of a controlled demolition, I have decided that the claims of such a demolition are unfounded. If you come up with some actual evidence to back up your claims (other than the squibs which were in my opinion obviously not squibs), I may reconsider. It's not likely at this time.

It isn't, its the conclusions many independent scientists and engineers came up with. Its been shown to be scientic fact in that its the only possible way the buildings could have collapsed that way. Its easily shown to be the case.

A scientific fact is something that can not be dismissed because the evidence for it is so compelling. Gravity is a scientific fact.

What you have with your controlled demolition concept, isn't even a workable theory. A theory is discarded after it is tested and it fails. Calling this "fact" doesn't make it so. Sorry.

You keep saying that but every time you give one of your explanations I show how it directly counters the actual evidence. You have to make stuff up to make your theories work, I do not. You have to lie, I do not have to lie. All I have to do is point to evidence and very basic physics.

Because I don't believe in evidence that you can't provide (blasting caps, explosive wiring, charges) that doesn't make me a liar. When I say, "you don't have any real evidence" it means you don't have any evidence.

My theory is that two airplanes crashed into the twin towers, fires burned and the structural damage caused by the airplanes coupled with the weakening of the steel from the heat caused the buildings to fall. The damage they caused coupled with the fires caused the structure of building seven to buckle and collapse. All of that has been observed. There is nothing made up there - I don't have to come up with invisible explosive charges or other implausible theories in order to forward my theory.

I'm sorry that you can't have an open mind about this - that you're so rabid about discrediting the government that you have to resort to making up stories about controlled demolition. Until you can come up with some real evidence that what you are proposing happened at the World Trade Center, I don't think I will bother responding to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stignasty:Wait, you're claiming that there was a controlled demolition without any physical evidence. That's imagination.

There is physical evidence. NIST reports that the buildings collapsed in 8 seconds and 10 seconds. There isn't enough potential energy in the buildings to make them collaspe that quickly. Either there was explosives or little green men with jackhammers - it wasn't the weight of the building that caused the collapse.

The building could not collapse through itself without a control mechanism. The top should have tipped over and fallen through the air because that is the path of least resistance. For the building to collapse straight down each support on evry floor all the way down would have to fail at exactly the same moment - that is impossible.

stignasty:Because I don't believe in evidence that you can't provide (blasting caps, explosive wiring, charges) that doesn't make me a liar. When I say, "you don't have any real evidence" it means you don't have any evidence.

No the fact that the proper authorities were prevented from entering the scene and the evidence was illegally destroyed is evidence of a coverup which is circumstantial evidence of guilt in a crime.

stignasty:Until you can come up with some real evidence that what you are proposing happened at the World Trade Center, I don't think I will bother responding to you.

Real evidence: Physical evidence of controlled demolition is sulfidization of the beams, cut beams that could only be cut that way with explosives, hot spots that were hotter than the temperature that burning fuel ever can be found weeks later and melted steel,FEMA itself saying that the official version has only a "low probability of occurance".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a much greater number of much more qualified scientists and engineers saying that the way the buildings collapsed proves alone that 911 was an inside job than there are engineers saying that the collapses were due to the weight of the building. Very few engineers are actually saying the collapses pccured the way they did because of the weight of the buildings - the topic is carefully avoided or side-stepped.

The TV and media tell us what the NIST & FEMA reports say and that is quite different from what these reports actually do say. They count on the dumbed down public for taking the words of a TV presstitute rather than investigate the collapses themselves and/or read these reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stignasty, did you ever read 911 Evidence - its about two pages long when printed. Its written by the ex deputy economist from the Regan administration who has a degree in engineering himself.

You are making comments that show you are not really interested in learning about what happened on 911, the same with the rest of you apologists. You are interested only in defending the official version. You are the "16 percenters" that actually believe the official version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I challenge government apologists everywhere to show that 911 was not an inside job.

Popular Mechanics and 911Myths are full of lies and misleading information. This is an open challenge to governemnt apologists to quote from these and other sources. I will show that these sources are lying or misleading.

911 was an inside job. We know this for the following reasons.

(1) Air defence stand down during attacks.

(2) Unusual collapse of buildings, particularly building 7, www.wtc7.net

(3) Subsequent cover up and/or removal of evidence

(4) Incomplete & biased investigation

(5) Congressional lies surrounding the investigation

(6) Numerous high ranking people from the establishment say it was an inside job. They have nothing to gain by doing this & everything to lose.

Americans (in particular Republicans) have always needed an excuse for war and when there is none, they simply invent one. 'Remember the Maine', when they blew up their own ship to justify the Spanish/American War. Allowing the Lusitania to be hit by a German U-Boat (despite warnings from Germany), to join WWI and The 'Sneak' attack on Pearl Harbour (2 weeks notice from Japan) to get their feet in WWII. I won't go so far as to say that they planned the attack, but the Bush Administration CERTAINLY KNEW WELL IN ADVANCE and CHOSE to do nothing. What I do think may have been a surprise was the Pentagon. Georgie may have realized that he had been screwed, but at least his buddies got their military contracts.

(7) Refusal to have unbiased independent investigation

(8) Hole in pentagon was too small for the jetliner.

(9) You could not make cell phone calls from 30,000 ft as the government sponsored Hollywood propoganda says you can "Hi Mom, Its Mark Bingham" :huh:

(10) People involved in coverup are involved in other war crimes such as invasion of Iraq and surrounding lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Obviously Churchill wasn't aware of the nuclear bomb being constructed by thousands of people in New Mexico."

I don't know if Churchill was aware of .....................or not - but WE KNOW - that it wasn't a secret for Rusians !

It means that it was not a SECRET !!!!

It was caused by the fact that many people had to do it.

It’s impossible to hide such big “adventure” . Impossible –not unimaginable.

Where are these contractors ?

Now – after this “event” - they don’t suspicious something, they don’t recall that they did something unusual – strange or something what (after passing time) may be suspicious.

People are suspicious in general – your attitude towards the “event” – is the best proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry Galinda:your attitude towards the “event” – is the best proof.

The fact that the buildings wtc1 & wtc2 could not colapse through themselves the way they did without the addition of at least ten times the available potential energy in the buildings is my proof.

Buildings just do not collapse through themselves - the building structure offers resistance and slows the collapse down (and that is if it was even possible which it wasn't) in the real world. For the building to collapse at freefall rate the building below would have to be removed.

There is also pile of physical evidence showing explosives were used. The only thing you have supporting your views is your imagination. Its not supported by NIST or FEMA findings - only people like you and Bill O'Reilly.

What would it take to legitimately question your blind trust of the government ? Are you aware that at least 1 trillion dollars has gone missing from the Pentagon since Sept 11 ? A trillion dollars is enough money to buy 150 fully equiped nuclear Nimitz aircraft carriers. Where do you think that money went ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Obviously Churchill wasn't aware of the nuclear bomb being constructed by thousands of people in New Mexico."

I don't know if Churchill was aware of .....................or not - but WE KNOW - that it wasn't a secret for Rusians !

It means that it was not a SECRET !!!!

It was caused by the fact that many people had to do it.

It’s impossible to hide such big “adventure” . Impossible –not unimaginable.

Where are these contractors ?

Now – after this “event” - they don’t suspicious something, they don’t recall that they did something unusual – strange or something what (after passing time) may be suspicious.

People are suspicious in general – your attitude towards the “event” – is the best proof.

It is not impossible. Nothing is impossible. Once someone understands that nothing is impossible, you must now look at how probable a situation is.

Something called compartmentalization. I make a part, you make a part, Polynewbie makes a part, Charles Anthony makes a part. None of us know each other and do not know that all our parts end up at the same place to make one complete item. None of us know the purpose of the item, we just know that we are all building an essential part of something new. Only those at the place where it is all getting put together need to know what the project is really about. So it is not that hard to understand that back when the US started their first atomic weapons programme, at the start and even near the end, only a select few needed to know the whole project. I am only given knowledge on my certain part I am building. I never got the whole picture, I just know my parts are being used for something important. At that point I could only guess what the whole project is about.

I am suspiciuous not naturaly, but learned habit. Something in my brain goes off when I find contradicting statements or stories. For me it works on a subconcious level. I have a damn good memory, so when I read a contradiction from the same officials about something they had said before, that gets stored in my brain for future cross reference of the differing statements. Red flags all over the place. To me there are so many inconsistencies even between your MSM outlets, and then even different to the Truthies. Even among Truthies our stories of what took place vary quite a bit. I agree with much of Polynewbie says, but somethings are quite improbable.

I find the whole holographic plane to be an interesting angle, but to me it is a non starter. Is it possible? Again, anything is possible. But I will say the holographic planes have a 2% chance of being probable. OK 2% may be high, but I think I have made my point.

So even with compartmentalization of the events needed to execute 9/11, you do not need many in the whole know of the situation. Only a few need to know the whole plan.

Even among the hijackers, not all knew the whole plot. Only Kalid Sheik Mohammed would really have to know the whole plan. Atta possibly would not have known the other hijackers on the other planes and what their intentions or job was. He was given orders about his part in the whole plot. So when I break it down this way, it is easy to see that compartmentalization can produce an environment where only a few at the top need to know everything. The more your underlings know about your plot, the greater the risk of the plot being exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if Churchill was aware of .....................or not - but WE KNOW - that it wasn't a secret for Rusians !

It means that it was not a SECRET !!!!

Of course Churchill knew. British scientists were directly involved in the Manhattan Project. Klaus Fuchs the physicist who betrayed the secret to the Russians was a Brit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GostHacked

So even with compartmentalization of the events needed to execute 9/11, you do not need many in the whole know of the situation. Only a few need to know the whole plan. ... So when I break it down this way, it is easy to see that compartmentalization can produce an environment where only a few at the top need to know everything. The more your underlings know about your plot, the greater the risk of the plot being exposed.

I will agree that that is reasonable. I'm not sure how reasonable in the case of 9/11 conspiracy, wich due to its complexity, would have involved a hellofalot of compartments.

So even if the conspiracy was efficient enough to compartmentalize efficiently they could have pulled off the 9/11 thing (I don't agree with this possibility). But, on 9/12, AFTER the death and destruction, when the folks in the various compartments would start wondering what atrocity they were implicated in. Would not then the various folks in the many compartments say 'Heyyyyy...wait a minit' and then the truth would come out. Insiders blowing the whistle. I was there, I had to run a bunch of electrical cabling in wtc7 a week before, or I was drilling holes in the floors, or I was mocking up wierd phone calls that had remarkably similar text to those cellphone calls, or I was told by my supervisor to make quadrupely shure that I had indeed lost the A/C track. Stuff like that.

Yet no insiders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterF: Would not then the various folks in the many compartments say 'Heyyyyy...wait a minit' and then the truth would come out. Insiders blowing the whistle. I was there, I had to run a bunch of electrical cabling in wtc7 a week before, or I was drilling holes in the floors, or I was mocking up wierd phone calls that had remarkably similar text to those cellphone calls, or I was told by my supervisor to make quadrupely shure that I had indeed lost the A/C track. Stuff like that.

You have one contractor do a few floors, another contractor do aother few floors, etc and you have the job on each floor compartmentalized so that the whole job on each set of floors isn't done by one contractor. Someone from the CIA drills the holes and is told its for national security reasons then foreign nationals go it and plant the bombs.

It wouldn't even occur to the contractors that they were part of this because their work was only done on a few floors and it was for fire alarms or something - no reason to think they were part of 911.

Lots of people have come forward - witnesses from the FDNY and NYPD then they were gagged. If the terror attacks were real why did gov try to stop their oral histories from being published in NY Times. Why are they gagged now ? Why were the proper authorities restricted from the accident scene ? Why was evidence removed so quickly ? Why was the construction of the building misrepresented by NIST & FEMA ?

What about the idea of planes flying around for 1/2 hour not being intercepted, the stand down at Andrews, Cheneys stand down order at the Pentagon (congressional record) ?

Not to mention of course that a building collapsing straight down through itself at freefall speed is impossible without controlled demolition.

Is this a governemnt that should be trusted not to do something like that ? Did you know that CPS (child Protection Services) lost 3000 kids in florida, they turned up dead or in foreign brothels. Did Hitler or Stalin ever let this happen ? A large percentage of people that work at CPS have records for abuse - of children ! Did you read my thread where it showed gov unwilling to prosecute cases in Texas where juvenile jails were used as whore houses ? What about the number of teengae girls in these places that end up pregnant ?

What about the torture ? Gonzales says they can crush a childs testicles - did Hitler or Stalin do this ? What about the missing trillions ? The lies about WMD's ?

What would it take to make you look at the evidence of 911 intead of just making excuses for the government all the time and assuming they are innocent ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember that nuclear tech to demolish buildings was developed in the 50's before they invented CD for building demoltion so its entirely possible that it was used. I think CD did wtc7 but it was likely nukes that did wtc1 & wtc2 IMO.

I don't spend a lot of time on speculation because the inside job idea can be proven without it. I haven't looked really closely at the evidence other than verified it was there.

The speed and nature of the collapse itself proves a controlled event scientifically and therefore inside job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polly:

Lots of people have come forward

Sure have...and none of them have any inside knowledge of the conspiracy or had anything to do with the conspiracy.

Polly:

You have one contractor do a few floors, another contractor do aother few floors, etc and you have the job on each floor compartmentalized so that the whole job on each set of floors isn't done by one contractor.

Thats alot of contractors. How many floors in each tower? 110? so thats 220 seperate contractors. Even the folks doing the contracting havn't come forward to mention the wierdness of hiring contractors to do one floor and only one floor. They may have not thought much of it at the time - Silverstien says do it so they do it, he's the boss. But afterwards, Polly, afterwards there'd be some mention of it. Since none of the contractors or those placing the contracts would have done nothing wrong - all was on the up-and-up and perfectly legal so as not to raise suspicion - so those involved would have every reason to come forward to say this is what they did and when they did it.

Not to mention the obvious paper trail of the numerous contracts

Sorry. That hypothosis does'nt hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...