9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Amskeptic, Sluggo

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:12 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

The use of oscams razor defined

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintel ... ry-is-alm/

Watching huge pieces of building turn to dust is irrefutably just steel and concrete turning to dust.
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

User avatar
JLT
Old School!
Posts: 642
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:08 am
Location: Sacramento CA
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by JLT » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:10 pm

It looks like the 9/11 attacks are the twenty-first century's version of the Kennedy assassination. It's all a kaleidoscope. You see one pattern, but if you turn the barrel of data by a miniscule amount ... move the car six feet, move the airplane up one floor... you see a different pattern emerge. Twist the barrel again. Another pattern. All one can do is examine the reports of those who you think are the best analysts of the data, and go with them, always ready to re-assess the data if new, equally credible evidence supports it.

E.B. White wrote that "truth should never be spelled with a capital 'T'." I agree with that, mostly.

I'm surprised that we're still talking about this, frankly.
-- JLT
Sacramento CA

Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Posts: 22207
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:47 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:11 am

JLT wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:10 pm
I'm surprised that we're still talking about this, frankly.
Why? Unanswered questions remain. Where are the answers to why Building 7 pancaked so cleanly seven hours later? How can any official conclusion about the twin towers hold, if the Building 7 collapse remains unanswered.

"Can't you just let it go?" is not a valid answer. I focus on Building 7. There is video. How on Earth did it just go down so cleanly so late in the day?
Colin
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .110,350 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,775 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . 72,350 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,478 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 64,425 miles

User avatar
JLT
Old School!
Posts: 642
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:08 am
Location: Sacramento CA
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by JLT » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:38 am

Amskeptic wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:11 am
JLT wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:10 pm
I'm surprised that we're still talking about this, frankly.
Why? Unanswered questions remain. Where are the answers to why Building 7 pancaked so cleanly seven hours later? How can any official conclusion about the twin towers hold, if the Building 7 collapse remains unanswered.

"Can't you just let it go?" is not a valid answer.
I get that. Unanswered questions will always remain. The biggest unanswered question seems to be "Who is the person who really knows, based on first-hand information, what happened, and why is that person not coming forward?" It's the same question that people had at the Kennedy assassination. If the official explanation doesn't hold up, there must be another explanation, and if there is one, then somebody somewhere must have first-hand details on it, or perhaps a file in some office somewhere that sheds light on the subject. If there was a shooter on the Dal-Tex Building, who was he, and who gave the order for him to be there? Was that person killed? If so, who gave that order, and who carried it out?

What I was commenting on was the fact that in the absence of this first-hand testimony, we are forced to speculate. That may be fun to do, and there is a remote possibility that it may eventually lead to more undisputed facts, but usually we're left with the feeling that something is amiss, without knowing how or where to proceed. A little of that goes a long way with me.

I might add that for thirty years after JFK's death, I probably read every single one of the books on the subject. In my local library, there were a shelf and a half of books on the assassination. I went back recently and found only a few; the rest had been culled due to lack of interest in the subject. So I can conclude that I am not alone in "letting it go."
-- JLT
Sacramento CA

Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Posts: 22207
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:47 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:30 am

JLT wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:38 am
Amskeptic wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:11 am
JLT wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:10 pm
I'm surprised that we're still talking about this, frankly.
Why? Unanswered questions remain. Where are the answers to why Building 7 pancaked so cleanly seven hours later? How can any official conclusion about the twin towers hold, if the Building 7 collapse remains unanswered.

"Can't you just let it go?" is not a valid answer.
I get that. Unanswered questions will always remain. The biggest unanswered question seems to be "Who is the person who really knows, based on first-hand information, what happened, and why is that person not coming forward?" It's the same question that people had at the Kennedy assassination. If the official explanation doesn't hold up, there must be another explanation, and if there is one, then somebody somewhere must have first-hand details on it, or perhaps a file in some office somewhere that sheds light on the subject. If there was a shooter on the Dal-Tex Building, who was he, and who gave the order for him to be there? Was that person killed? If so, who gave that order, and who carried it out?

What I was commenting on was the fact that in the absence of this first-hand testimony, we are forced to speculate. That may be fun to do, and there is a remote possibility that it may eventually lead to more undisputed facts, but usually we're left with the feeling that something is amiss, without knowing how or where to proceed. A little of that goes a long way with me.

I might add that for thirty years after JFK's death, I probably read every single one of the books on the subject. In my local library, there were a shelf and a half of books on the assassination. I went back recently and found only a few; the rest had been culled due to lack of interest in the subject. So I can conclude that I am not alone in "letting it go."
So, knowing that there are "unknowns" which are corrosive to human society, we have a recent example that is on film even more clearly than the entire canon of evidence regarding the JFK assassination, and this new example is thoroughly within the realm of material science, yet the dissembling and deception and distraction continues. I would think we could track this down.
Colin
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .110,350 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,775 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . 72,350 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,478 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 64,425 miles

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:21 am

Amskeptic wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:30 am
JLT wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:38 am
Amskeptic wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:11 am
JLT wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:10 pm
I'm surprised that we're still talking about this, frankly.
Why? Unanswered questions remain. Where are the answers to why Building 7 pancaked so cleanly seven hours later? How can any official conclusion about the twin towers hold, if the Building 7 collapse remains unanswered.

"Can't you just let it go?" is not a valid answer.
I get that. Unanswered questions will always remain. The biggest unanswered question seems to be "Who is the person who really knows, based on first-hand information, what happened, and why is that person not coming forward?" It's the same question that people had at the Kennedy assassination. If the official explanation doesn't hold up, there must be another explanation, and if there is one, then somebody somewhere must have first-hand details on it, or perhaps a file in some office somewhere that sheds light on the subject. If there was a shooter on the Dal-Tex Building, who was he, and who gave the order for him to be there? Was that person killed? If so, who gave that order, and who carried it out?

What I was commenting on was the fact that in the absence of this first-hand testimony, we are forced to speculate. That may be fun to do, and there is a remote possibility that it may eventually lead to more undisputed facts, but usually we're left with the feeling that something is amiss, without knowing how or where to proceed. A little of that goes a long way with me.

I might add that for thirty years after JFK's death, I probably read every single one of the books on the subject. In my local library, there were a shelf and a half of books on the assassination. I went back recently and found only a few; the rest had been culled due to lack of interest in the subject. So I can conclude that I am not alone in "letting it go."
So, knowing that there are "unknowns" which are corrosive to human society, we have a recent example that is on film even more clearly than the entire canon of evidence regarding the JFK assassination, and this new example is thoroughly within the realm of material science, yet the dissembling and deception and distraction continues. I would think we could track this down.
Colin
the biggest unknowns are "belonging" , your culture of independence of self is self regulating against the self. Put another way, the self is most happy when it belongs.
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:11 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:30 am
JLT wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:38 am
Amskeptic wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:11 am
JLT wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:10 pm
I'm surprised that we're still talking about this, frankly.
Why? Unanswered questions remain. Where are the answers to why Building 7 pancaked so cleanly seven hours later? How can any official conclusion about the twin towers hold, if the Building 7 collapse remains unanswered.

"Can't you just let it go?" is not a valid answer.
I get that. Unanswered questions will always remain. The biggest unanswered question seems to be "Who is the person who really knows, based on first-hand information, what happened, and why is that person not coming forward?" It's the same question that people had at the Kennedy assassination. If the official explanation doesn't hold up, there must be another explanation, and if there is one, then somebody somewhere must have first-hand details on it, or perhaps a file in some office somewhere that sheds light on the subject. If there was a shooter on the Dal-Tex Building, who was he, and who gave the order for him to be there? Was that person killed? If so, who gave that order, and who carried it out?

What I was commenting on was the fact that in the absence of this first-hand testimony, we are forced to speculate. That may be fun to do, and there is a remote possibility that it may eventually lead to more undisputed facts, but usually we're left with the feeling that something is amiss, without knowing how or where to proceed. A little of that goes a long way with me.

I might add that for thirty years after JFK's death, I probably read every single one of the books on the subject. In my local library, there were a shelf and a half of books on the assassination. I went back recently and found only a few; the rest had been culled due to lack of interest in the subject. So I can conclude that I am not alone in "letting it go."
So, knowing that there are "unknowns" which are corrosive to human society, we have a recent example that is on film even more clearly than the entire canon of evidence regarding the JFK assassination, and this new example is thoroughly within the realm of material science, yet the dissembling and deception and distraction continues. I would think we could track this down.
Colin
With the JFK assassination, the conspiracy mongers are basically saying instead of one asshole acting alone, a few others were involved to help him. Whatever. I've been to Dealey Plaza, and I could have easily made that shot, and I'm not a very good shot.

For 9/11, you at least agree the planes hit the towers, right? And there were 19 jihadists who carried that out, right?

So you are saying that in addition to the 19 hijackers, and the Al Qaeda leaders who bragged about organizing it, somehow agents in the US coordinated with them to plant explosives, and set them off after the planes impacted the towers. How many people would that take? Dozens for sure. What were their motives? What needed to be accomplished after the planes hit the towers? And how have they all kept the secret all this time? Hell, a frustrated official can't call his boss a moron without it making the press.

It was odd that WTC 7 collapsed, but there is a viable explanation that obeys the laws of physics. The alternative, a conspiracy involving dozens of Americans to coordinate with Islamic terrorists to bring down a bonus building after they had already achieved their planned objective, is simply ridiculous.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is today.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Posts: 22207
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:47 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:25 am

hippiewannabe wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:11 pm

So you are saying that in addition to the 19 hijackers, and the Al Qaeda leaders who bragged about organizing it, somehow agents in the US coordinated with them to plant explosives, and set them off after the planes impacted the towers.

It was odd that WTC 7 collapsed, but there is a viable explanation that obeys the laws of physics.

a) No, I have made no mention of anything. I do not know what "agents" there may be.

b) What is that viable explanation? I am more sure here of physics than I am of above intentions, motivations, etc.
(note: I have not met one viable explanation yet, so I am looking forward to yours)
Colin
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .110,350 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,775 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . 72,350 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,478 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 64,425 miles

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:19 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:25 am
hippiewannabe wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:11 pm

So you are saying that in addition to the 19 hijackers, and the Al Qaeda leaders who bragged about organizing it, somehow agents in the US coordinated with them to plant explosives, and set them off after the planes impacted the towers.

It was odd that WTC 7 collapsed, but there is a viable explanation that obeys the laws of physics.

a) No, I have made no mention of anything. I do not know what "agents" there may be.

b) What is that viable explanation? I am more sure here of physics than I am of above intentions, motivations, etc.
(note: I have not met one viable explanation yet, so I am looking forward to yours)
Colin
b) Fire started by debris from the towers weakened the steel structure. Gravity brought it down.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 4/4278874/

a) if you don't believe (b), then you are clearly implying a conspiracy, which requires nefarious agents.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is today.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Posts: 22207
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:47 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:07 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:19 pm
Amskeptic wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:25 am
hippiewannabe wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:11 pm

So you are saying that in addition to the 19 hijackers, and the Al Qaeda leaders who bragged about organizing it, somehow agents in the US coordinated with them to plant explosives, and set them off after the planes impacted the towers.

It was odd that WTC 7 collapsed, but there is a viable explanation that obeys the laws of physics.

a) No, I have made no mention of anything. I do not know what "agents" there may be.

b) What is that viable explanation? I am more sure here of physics than I am of above intentions, motivations, etc.
(note: I have not met one viable explanation yet, so I am looking forward to yours)
Colin
b) Fire started by debris from the towers weakened the steel structure. Gravity brought it down.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 4/4278874/

a) if you don't believe (b), then you are clearly implying a conspiracy, which requires nefarious agents.

A) Nobody gets to stuff me in a shoebox of their own logic. I am implying nothing! I want an explanation that does not insult my intelligence. That Popular Mechanics article is the very worst in casual assumptions. No, I do not ascribe to the notion that "fire started by debris from the towers weakened the steel structure". That is hogwash. Utter nonsense. Look at all the other buildings nearby, they weren't collapsing in horror from "debris fires". You don't get to have a perfect pancake of a steel-framed building only seven hours later, from "debris fires". No. Before anybody gets to beat an implication out of me, they have to answer the simple physics questions first.
Steel buildings do not collapse from paper fires, drywall fires, trashcan fires, they don't. Period. All you have to do is look at the many skyscraper fires that have occurred around the world for evidence. The one in Dubai raged for several hours. The one in Spain raged for thirty six hours. The Grenfell Tower in London raged for over twenty four hours. The frames did not collapse.
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .110,350 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,775 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . 72,350 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,478 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 64,425 miles

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:57 am

If you think about the rules of logic, clearly, the lack of one building falling down does not mean that a different building can't fall down while obeying the same laws of physics. But what the heck, I'm a curious sort, so I'll play.

Dubai. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-in-dubai
.......Several residents said the fire broke out just after 1 a.m. at the 87-story Torch Tower — a more than 1,100-foot-tall (335 meters) residential building in Dubai's Marina district.....Dubai's Civil Defense announced at about 3:30 a.m. that firefighters had brought the blaze under control and said cooling operations were underway. Authorities shared video of the building from the outside later on Friday, showing the entire length of the tower charred on one side.
The fire was successfully fought and brought under control. The water was cut off to WTC 7 by the collapse of the towers, and the area was evacuated, so that fire was free to proceed.

Spain. http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/projec ... efault.htm
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
The steel perimeter columns weakened and failed, just like WTC, but the reinforced concrete core held it up.
Image


London: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... s-earlier/

This certainly proves hydrocarbons other than jet fuel, such as paper, plastic and wood, can burn hot enough to weaken steel. But it looks like it had reinforced concrete columns, not steel.

Image
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is today.

User avatar
bradleygt
I'm New!
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 5:11 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by bradleygt » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:43 am

Truth out- it's our job to wade through the lies and disinformation to find it. Generally speaking, any power, group or force with the will to pull off an event, for example JFK, will have the resources to cover their tracks, even to the point of termination. Look at the trail of blood since 1963 of anyone 'lucky' enough to find out wrong way. Any great lie, once presented to the public will Never be retracted, come what may. Eventually the story comes out, waiting to be picked up by a wary audience.
From the scientific american..The dark comedy of the assassination of the Archduke and his wife is succinctly narrated in skeptic and writer Michael Shermer's highly readable book "The Believing Brain", Shermer recounts how, on that fateful day, six conspirators waited in the shadows to carry out their deed. When the Archduke's motorcade passed close by, the first two conspirators failed to take any shots because of the crowds and an inadequate line of sight. The next conspirator managed to throw a bomb at the Archduke's car but it simply bounced off and fell into the car behind. The two conspirators quietly disappeared while the third tried to commit suicide by ingesting cyanide but simply vomited and was captured by the police. Unlucky Princip and the other two insurgents gave up and sauntered away. Meanwhile the Archduke made it all the way to the city hall and gave a speech, expressing outrage to the mayor that he had just been subjected to an assassination attempt.
the foolish archduke went back the same way he came in and the rest is 'history;

Re: 911 even a superficial look at you tube videos from that day will provide lots of food for thought. the testimony of the custodian, last guy out of the building, the firemen testimony, the doctored day of the event videos, the fishy eyewitness videos who just happened to be pointing their cameras in the right place at the right time, pilots saying they could not have flown the planes on those paths, lack of debris at the pentagon, the stand down orders that prevented any chaser jets from intercept, the freefall of bldg 7, the security company owned by a bush dropping the account the day of the event, it goes on and on- i personally think what has been derided as 'space lasers' was involved, dew directed energy weapons, which were recently used in california to deleterious effect- keep diggin' yall
it's a bay! '78 FI 2L Deluxe Campmobile

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:53 pm

In every video, the peices falling down turn to dust. If you can't see that you're blind.
Falling Steel and concrete don't turn to dust in midair, in the paradigm we live in.
This will never compare to some shots out of a book depository or a grassy knoll.
Doesn't matter how much or little fire occurred in the buildings or how hot it was.
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

User avatar
bradleygt
I'm New!
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 5:11 am
Status: Offline

Interview with Fire Captain on Origins of CA Fires

Post by bradleygt » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:31 pm

it's a bay! '78 FI 2L Deluxe Campmobile

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:25 am

Spezialist wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:53 pm
...concrete don't turn to dust in midair, in the paradigm we live in.
Sure it does, like here: https://www.videoblocks.com/video/teari ... 42-jmcuwg/

The concrete floors couldn't possibly stay together and not turn to rubble and dust as each failed in turn.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is today.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Posts: 22207
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:47 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:52 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:25 am
Spezialist wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:53 pm
...concrete don't turn to dust in midair, in the paradigm we live in.
Sure it does, like here: https://www.videoblocks.com/video/teari ... 42-jmcuwg/

The concrete floors couldn't possibly stay together and not turn to rubble and dust as each failed in turn.
Did I forget to update you, Don? I read some interesting engineering analyses that really do make your point. Some of these new building methods are as shoddy as a new chipboard contractor' McMansion , so foreign to me after the 270 year-old house I grew up in. Give me some time to process.
So the junky-ass skyscrapers warp and fall apart from trashcan fires. Okey-dokey.
Colin :blackeye:
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .110,350 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,775 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . 72,350 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,478 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 64,425 miles

Post Reply

Return to “Free Speech”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests