FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio Interview: Richard Gage on 9/11 Demolitions
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Audios
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bardobeing wrote:
As for the company "Controlled Demolition" doing the clean up. Who else but a controlled demolition company would be in a position to clean up collapsed skyscrapers?

I guess the thought is: there are other companies out there to do the job. Was this one chosen partly for its name? As I said, if CD was the method, real life is seldom so ironic that the clean up crew had the same name as the 'murder weapon'. And this doesn't necessarily mean the entire company was complicit if they were chosen for their psyop effect.

bardobeing wrote:
That the fire escape exits weren't adequate is a non-issue. Greedy corporations cutting costs to maximize profit when the buildings went up.

The general point is relevant. The twin towers were not adequately protected against fire in many ways because corners were cut in construction. Fintan is saying this weakness was exploited intentionally.

I agree, though, that it is still difficult to apply this to WTC7.

bardobeing" wrote:
As for the 30-degree angle of attack, I'd say that if you (i.e. the perps) were trying to sell the story that the collapse was caused only by impact and fire, that you'd want the planes to strike at the optimal angle so as to strengthen the argument for such an occurrence.

If this was the plan, why hasn't that argument been used in the MSM yet? This is the first I've heard of it. What it points to is remote control of the planes, to precision flying, not flying by amateurs. So I think it would be something that would poke holes in the official story, not support it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bardobeing



Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanspaceman wrote:
bardobeing wrote:
As for the company "Controlled Demolition" doing the clean up. Who else but a controlled demolition company would be in a position to clean up collapsed skyscrapers?

I guess the thought is: there are other companies out there to do the job. Was this one chosen partly for its name? As I said, if CD was the method, real life is seldom so ironic that the clean up crew had the same name as the 'murder weapon'. And this doesn't necessarily mean the entire company was complicit if they were chosen for their psyop effect.

bardobeing wrote:
That the fire escape exits weren't adequate is a non-issue. Greedy corporations cutting costs to maximize profit when the buildings went up.

The general point is relevant. The twin towers were not adequately protected against fire in many ways because corners were cut in construction. Fintan is saying this weakness was exploited intentionally.

I agree, though, that it is still difficult to apply this to WTC7.

bardobeing" wrote:
As for the 30-degree angle of attack, I'd say that if you (i.e. the perps) were trying to sell the story that the collapse was caused only by impact and fire, that you'd want the planes to strike at the optimal angle so as to strengthen the argument for such an occurrence.

If this was the plan, why hasn't that argument been used in the MSM yet? This is the first I've heard of it. What it points to is remote control of the planes, to precision flying, not flying by amateurs. So I think it would be something that would poke holes in the official story, not support it.


All good points (as well as from Rmpl4skn above), especially as to why the 30 degree angle of attack hasn't been brought up until now. Though striking at an angle, to the common eye, comes off as sloppy, rather than precise, and I think supports the official story.

Since this company "Controlled Demolition" seems a player in these ops, is does make you wonder why they would use such a name. I don't know. It would have to be deliberate. It's cartoonish. PsyOps can be explained from so many different angles (eg: "hide the obvious", eg: "flaunt the obvious"). I think Fintan overestimates the ability of the average American to take notice. If you polled the whole country asking them the name of the company that hauled off the debris maybe half of one percent would know. Likely less. They were way too occupied frothing at the mouth for a Reichian fascist response to brutally retaliate against the dark-skinned, non-christian menace overseas that they had been so carefully prepared for decades to despise.

I must add that I don't hold myself out as an expert at any of this stuff, though I've paid a great deal of attention over the past couple of years.

I found it intriguing, if I understood what Richard was saying, that thermate could be sprayed on as a gel under the cover of fireproofing upgrade. I had imagined all along teams of guys dressed like ninjas drilling tens of thousands of holes in thousands of steel columns meticulously placing charges and timers like in the movies. Now I'm thinking, "hey, you spray the stuff on, its intensely inflammatory once the reaction begins, so you need at most a handful of trigger devices per floor to set it off". I'd like to know more about this. Seems the best fit at the moment.

Richard also seems committed to the irregularity of tons of molten iron at the base of the three debris fields. This seems very important to me and he and Fintan are way off on how each explains it. I'm not sure if Fintan's version has a basis in physical fact. Richard seems more prepared and researched in his explanation and it doesn't sound like you have to rely entirely on Steven Jones for the evidence.

So, the questions I'm filled with today as to molten metal are directed toward that of verification and where Fintan stands in relation to what Richard claims. Was there tons of molten iron under all three debris fields? Was it tons? How was it measured and by who? How reliable is the measurement? How hot was it? Who took the samples? How many different people/groups took samples? Who measured the constituent components? Where are the samples today? Have tests been peer reviewed? Is it true that it can't have come from structural steel? Is it true that it also contain signature constituents of thermite/thermate?

See where I'm going? Spray-on thermate gel under cover of fire-proofing upgrade, easy to do, small teams, simple to ignite, guaranteed to leave no undetonated charges in the debris field, no typical explosive sounds, and leaving tons of molten iron, as expected, that can be verified as not having come from the structural steel from which the building was made. Oh, and producing the pyrotechnic show of massive outward projection and pulverization of 95% of the contents and structure of the buildings. Seems a good fit.

Also, I disagree with Fintan in that, if the highest priority was to make sure the towers fell (and I agree), second to that of leaving as little evidence as possible (my opinion, since they have so much control over media, investigation, judicial, congressional, etc.), that they would risk the entire op by only flying the two planes in loaded with fuel with a lot of finger crossing. No, if they had to come down, you go with thermate and manage the spin and investigation with the brute force we all know they have.

I'll add real quick that I thought Richard explained well why he left off the second phrase of that quote that Fintan took issue with. I thought he nailed it. He even added that he probably could have kept it in. I didn't sense any intent to deceive from him.

_________________
"There is only one admirable form of the imagination: the imagination that is so intense that it creates a new reality, that it makes things happen." - Sean O'Faolain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3862

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rusty shackleford



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Hey, that was a great post by Neil, wasn't it?

Touche:
Quote:
Neil:

One thing I have learnt these past 5 years is how to tell when
one of Fintan's shows is dangerous to the Powers That Be.

How? By the number, frequency and tactical arrangement of what are
known as trolls.

And what does one mean by a troll?

Well, those who deliberately, ponerologically and amygdalagically
provoke and distract others in the hope of an emotional response.

Do we understand each other now? Wink

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54483#54483


Oh yeah, Neil. We all understand each other.


Fintan says:

Dissenting views are fine. That's how we make progress.
People with oposing views are debating issues all over the forum.
There are even direct personal attack threads against me. And the
only criteria are that there must be some substance --not just
personal attack for it's own sake or simply to disrupt the forum

I say:


So where's the substance in calling me a troll? You didn't address a single point that I raised. Weak. Perhaps I should post my questions in crop circles instead, then you could decode them. Is that something that might interest you?

P.S. The idea that more criticism=more credibility, pure sophistry.

Calling someone a troll may be a good way to evade a debate, but it's not very next level, is it?

_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people.


Last edited by rusty shackleford on Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
bardobeing:
I found it intriguing, if I understood what Richard was saying, that
thermate could be sprayed on as a gel under the cover of fireproofing
upgrade.


I don't think Richard was saying it could be sprayed under fireproofing.
But that it could be applied to columns as a gel.

However he may be misunderstanding Stephen Jones on this one,
because Jones is the originator of this thermate gel angle.

My understanding is that the gel is used in a special form of thermate
cutter charge. It's part of a "fuel-air" style of explosive detonation.

Quote:
bardobeing:
That the fire escape exits weren't adequate is a non-issue.

The point is that not alone were the fire escapes in contravention of
existing bulding codes, but that this obvious escape defect means that
the claim the buildings could deal with a 707 strike was a self-serving
lie by the designers/architects.

Quote:
bardobeing:
As Richard points out, your argument is one of a building mostly
collapsing in on itself, pancaking down with air pressure blowing out small
percentage of the mass outward. What I see in the videos with my non-
expert eye is a massive outward ejection of all mass with almost nothing
in the way of concrete flooring left in the debris.

Well, are you seeing "a massive outward ejection of all mass"? Or is it
more a question of "a massive outward ejection of all dust."

Appearances are deceptive. The reality is that the collapses retained
about 80% of mass within 100 feet of the immediate footprints.

Quote:
bardobeing:
That the dismembered cap of the ST (or was it NT?) tipped 22 degrees, then suddenly disappeared in a massage explosion has always been something that's pushed me heavily toward CD, and your new arguments do nothing to dissuade me. Where did it go? It should have kept falling off and hit the ground, broken into large chunks, but all of it still there. And it's supposed to be the very pile driver crushing the building below it in perfect symmetry, yet it's in an entirely unsymmetrical position? It's weight would have been pushing down on the outer 1/3 edge of the fully intact building below it.

If the Towers were solid blocks of steel and concrete.... then yes in that
case if the top cracked off it would slide off the rest of the building.

But the Towers were 70% air.
And gravity operates straight down.
Not sideways.

Once global collapse began, the top would keep it's tilt during the fall.
And disappear into a plume of dust --still largely intact.

The claim is often made that the collapse fields were symmetrical.
Neither of them were.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rusty shackleford



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember that Hocus Locus came up with an explanation that fit quite well with the events observed during the collapses. He used the construction diagrams to support his idea.

Basically, as the tilt of the top became too severe for the core columns to remain standing, they began to collapse (break at the welds) putting more weight on the sagging perimeter columns. The floors losing their support at the core began crashing down. As they broke away from the perimeter, those columns lost the support that they needed to remain standing while being pushed outward by the wave of debris crushing down. They then peeled back like a banana skin, dragging air and concrete dust out in a mushroom cloud, and allowing some debris to spill over. More than enough mass was left in the footprint to keep the downward crush moving because the floor joists alone could never withstand that momentum.

Some explosives may have been needed to bust a few core columns loose.

I hope that I got that right. I think that Hocus could step in anytime to elaborate. Or you could just search for those posts. Try the concrete core thread. Good luck.

_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rusty shackleford



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba

PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Quote:
bardobeing:
I found it intriguing, if I understood what Richard was saying, that
thermate could be sprayed on as a gel under the cover of fireproofing
upgrade.


I don't think Richard was saying it could be sprayed under fireproofing.
But that it could be applied to columns as a gel.


"Under the cover of fireproofing upgrade" as in a Trojan horse type psyop, not "under fireproofing".

_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bardobeing



Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rusty shackleford wrote:
Fintan wrote:
Quote:
bardobeing:
I found it intriguing, if I understood what Richard was saying, that
thermate could be sprayed on as a gel under the cover of fireproofing
upgrade.


I don't think Richard was saying it could be sprayed under fireproofing.
But that it could be applied to columns as a gel.


"Under the cover of fireproofing upgrade" as in a Trojan horse type psyop, not "under fireproofing".


Yes, thanks for clarifying that. I didn't mean literally "under the fireproofing", I meant the thermate gel could have been applied under the guise of a fireproofing upgrade operation.

_________________
"There is only one admirable form of the imagination: the imagination that is so intense that it creates a new reality, that it makes things happen." - Sean O'Faolain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bardobeing



Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:

Quote:
bardobeing:
That the fire escape exits weren't adequate is a non-issue.

The point is that not alone were the fire escapes in contravention of
existing bulding codes, but that this obvious escape defect means that
the claim the buildings could deal with a 707 strike was a self-serving
lie by the designers/architects.


I'm not connecting the logic here. A claim made that the buildings could survive a 707 impact does not preclude the possibility that, upon such an impact, poorly designed fire escapes could leave building occupants trapped in the floors above the impact.

The only way it could be a "lie" is that if they said that the fire escapes could survive a 707 impact. My understanding is that they were claiming that the buildings wouldn't fall to the ground.

I do see how it could be argued that if they were bastards about building inadequate fire escapes, that anything else they say can't be trusted.


Fintan wrote:
Quote:
bardobeing:
That the dismembered cap of the ST (or was it NT?) tipped 22 degrees, then suddenly disappeared in a massage explosion has always been something that's pushed me heavily toward CD, and your new arguments do nothing to dissuade me. Where did it go? It should have kept falling off and hit the ground, broken into large chunks, but all of it still there. And it's supposed to be the very pile driver crushing the building below it in perfect symmetry, yet it's in an entirely unsymmetrical position? It's weight would have been pushing down on the outer 1/3 edge of the fully intact building below it.

If the Towers were solid blocks of steel and concrete.... then yes in that
case if the top cracked off it would slide off the rest of the building.

But the Towers were 70% air.
And gravity operates straight down.
Not sideways.

Once global collapse began, the top would keep it's tilt during the fall.
And disappear into a plume of dust --still largely intact.

The claim is often made that the collapse fields were symmetrical.
Neither of them were.


They weren't 70% air by mass. Maybe by volume, but that doesn't strike me as relevant. Momentum is momentum, and that cap was moving sideways with only air to resist it's lateral movement. It wouldn't just "keep it's tilt", it would keep it's momentum, too.

The lateral movement/momentum of the cap of the building wouldn't be affected by the sudden collapse of the building below it. It would continue to move laterally while simultaneously falling vertically, though the vertical pull of gravity would eventually produce a vertical descent path. From the looks of it, it should have produced an entirely seperate debris field to the side of the larger debris field create by the collapse of the floors below it. It would have been of a different characteristic, - that of landing on it's side, rather than "pancaking". It would contain nearly 100% of it's original mass and very little of it would have been pulverized into dust.

I accept that I could be way off.

_________________
"There is only one admirable form of the imagination: the imagination that is so intense that it creates a new reality, that it makes things happen." - Sean O'Faolain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
the claim the buildings could deal with a 707 strike was a self-serving lie by the designers/architects.

bardobeing wrote:
I'm not connecting the logic here

I believe I follow Fintan's argument. The case for controlled demolition of the towers is partly based accepting the architect's claim that the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 strike. If what the architects claim is true, then the planes couldn't have done it, so it must have been something else like planted explosives.

But Fintan is saying that the architect's aren't telling the whole truth, because they have a self serving reason for lying if they had designed unsafe buildings. If they did hide the fact that the buildings couldn't REALLY deal with a plane strike (ie. true they would remain standing after the initial impact, but what did the design cover after that?), then this weakens the case for CD. The architects don't want to appear culpable for the tragedy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rusty shackleford



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Richard Gage interview won't work for me, my comp says it contains corrupted data.

I would also like to add that counting on the fires and crash damage alone to initiate the collapse seems a little too faith based for men who don't seem to have much faith in anything other than their own will. If there were truly no explosives used, I think that would be proof enough that these towers were indeed designed to collapse themselves.

_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neil



Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 156
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:37 pm    Post subject: Don't forget the small print. Reply with quote

Post Structure

1 Preamble
2 Constructivism
3 Timing
4 Style vs Substance Sophistry, criticism, credibility
5 An Afterthought


1 Preamble

Hi Everybody,

What we do here requires a lot of thought and consideration. Personally, I compose and edit my posts on a separate word-processing document prior to putting them on the forum.
I find this helps me to weigh my words and balance the message.
Above all, it aids me in distinguishing my philosophy and ideas from those of others, so that the potential for extrinsic manipulation is neutralised.

So let’s rewind the tape, shall we?

2 Constructivism

Constructivism, in education at least, is premised upon the philosoply of creating the conditions for the individual to construct their own meaning using their previous experience.
It was in this spirit that I wrote the following on Friday February 6th 2009.

Quote:
As a non-prolific poster (a mere 17 posts since joining in August 2006), a visitor to BFN since May 2004, a closet luddite and a writer of Germanically long sentences, it behoves me to make a general comment first of all.

It takes a lot of guts, commitment and dedication to keep a free, not-for-profit website like this going so long and still put food on the table. I know I couldn't do it at the moment.

It takes a bluetooth laptop, a wireless internet connection and 2 or more people with an agenda to ruin it for everyone else.

What are we at now, 8 days and 14 pages of postings already and counting?

One thing I have learnt these past 5 years is how to tell when one of Fintan's shows is dangerous to the Powers That Be.

How?

By the number, frequency and tactical arrangement of what are known as trolls.

And what does one mean by a troll?

Well, those who deliberately, ponerologically and amygdalagically provoke and distract others in the hope of an emotional response.

Do we understand each other now?


This was intended not to point any fingers but rather to stimulate reflection upon what we do here. As Fintan emphasised at the end of his interview with Ormond on Friday April 27th 2007 entitled ’Psychopaths run our lives’, the key is not to play the game but rather to analyse and understand it.

Thus avoiding using the amygdala Arrow

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2399

3 Timing

As I mentioned above, we had had a considerable use of bandwidth since January 29th 2009 (the date of Fintan’s 9\11 The Verdict Part One- The CIA vs 911 Truth) and also since then.
Imagine my surprise ( Wink ) when I received no reply to my constructivist invitation to reflect upon what it means to be a Transdisciplinary Recriminator Of Litigious Lure or T.R.O.L.L. for short.
Ah....silence is golden. (w)

A full 9 days had elapsed until...

Sunday February 15th
Fintan’s reply-

Quote:
Hey, that was a great post by Neil, wasn't it?

Touché
Quote:
Neil:

One thing I have learnt these past 5 years is how to tell when
one of Fintan's shows is dangerous to the Powers That Be.

How? By the number, frequency and tactical arrangement of what are
known as trolls.

And what does one mean by a troll?

Well, those who deliberately, ponerologically and amygdalagically
provoke and distract others in the hope of an emotional response.

Do we understand each other now?

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54483#54483



Oh yeah, Neil. We all understand each other
.

Good for you Fintan! Very Happy

A further 3 days went by until the following riposte appeared-

Quote:
Wednesday February 18th Rusty Shackleford Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 49
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba
I say:


So where's the substance in calling me a troll? You didn't address a single point that I raised. Weak. Perhaps I should post my questions in crop circles instead, then you could decode them. Is that something that might interest you?

P.S. The idea that more criticism=more credibility, pure sophistry.

Calling someone a troll may be a good way to evade a debate, but it's not very next level, is it?


4 Style vs Substance; Sophistry, criticism and credibility

Let us attempt to use deconstructivism in order to attain constructivism.
A cursory glance at my posts will reveal to the casual reader that I specialise in larger-scale geopolitical trends rather than the minutiae of criminal investigation.

A- Because I don’t have the time

And B- Because I tend to record mentally and later link diverse events over the medium term, so that they synthesise with current events as they unfold.

When troll-watching, I observe style not substance; the motivation behind and delivery of a given message.
i.e. The messenger.

Question: Was any particular person accused of being a troll in my last post? Question

An important point is that like with the CIA fakes, one can also unwittingly become a troll. This is similar to how sociopaths recruit accomplices who later become their victims.
It would be instructive for all concerned here at BFN to get together and role-play scenarios involving provocative bullies, victim-bullies and provocative victims etc. Just to get a handle on the dynamics at play. I see it in my classroom every day.
They probably do this sort of training in intelligence agencies anyway (with IT interface of course). Idea

I didn’t raise anyone’s points because frankly, as a peer and wearing my juror’s hat, I wouldn’t know where to start with all the reading I’d have to do. I would prefer to compare evidence that will fit inside my briefcase and provide me with a comprehensive and logical overview of the case, before I give a verdict and send people to prison.

As for the suggestion of crop circles, this would interest me immensely but let’s wait for the technology to catch up... moon1

As a student of History of Ideas and avid dictionary reader from the ages of 8 to 16, I always read the small print.

Quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.


Subtle I may be, but tricky? Me thinks Madam doth flatter too much...

As for the Criticism-Credibility idea, I will quote from page six of that most learned of tomes and soon-to-become BFN standard text;

’Inappropriate Treatment- Instructions for preventing and dealing with harassment and inappropriate treatment at work’. Occupational Safety and Health Guides and Instructions 42.

Published by the ’Team for work-related well-being’ of the Occupational Safety and Health Inspectorate of Uusimaa (Southern Finland).
Finnish Occupational Safety and Health Administration 2007.

Quote:
’Instances where a problem becomes personalised are for example, cases where an employee’s working manner differs from his collegues, and the problems are, therefore, considered to be caused by this person instead of the working methods in general. If focus is put on what people say and do instead of searching for solutions the situation gets easily confused and the observation and development of working methods will be neglected’.


This document goes on to give an example of where an employee is blamed for inefficiency at work because others are hiding their own shortcomings.

So does criticism necessarily indicate credibility? That depends on the manner, style and tone of the criticism. Is it constructive? Is it personalised? Is it inaccurate? Is it provocative and intimidatory?

5 An Afterthought

Just in case I have evaded debate and in order to push us onto the next level.
Let’s put my definition to the test. Let’s compare what I have written with an example.
And here we go................................................................................................................................... :cool

Quote:
dimedr Friday February 13th dimedr
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 18
Fintan, I appreciated you having Gage on ... you got owned throughout the discussion and sounded like a naive shill trying to match wits every minute of it, I'd list them but i would have to translate the entire thing ... many thanks for exposing yourself http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4936


Does anyone smell adrenalin?

This post took 4 hours by the way, so my dear Rusty Shackleford, you might have to reply to me in Old Entish to get a dialogue going.
Peace and Love Brudder! Keep it constructivist! drinking44

P.S. Maybe it’s just an Irish Solidarity thing but this is the only place on the net I trust. Cool

_________________
'Essayons de ne pas rire avant la fin d'Hamlet'-'Let us try not to laugh before the end of Hamlet'- Pierre Desproges.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Audios All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
Page 23 of 29

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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.