reply to post by tezzajw
tezz
the point was that eyewitnesses for plane crashes are unreliable. that's all i was trying to say.
that's all.
Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm, page 9
privacy
reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 08:48 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
Circular logic.
You sure are a big fan of logical fallacies!
NoC is not a theory. It is evidence. Scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence that has nothing to do with CIT.
We theorized no such thing.
It is what the witnesses unanimously report and it happens to prove a deception.
Sorry!
Ok at this point we have broken the argument down to the fundamentals and this exposes why my logic is sound and yours is not.
I am a skeptic who relies only on independent verifiable evidence and you base your argument on nothing but pure faith in what you were told.
I'm in the mood to delve into the psychology and difference between my critical thinking skeptical approach to this issue compared to your faith based belief so here it goes...
We start with an event and a question.
Event: The attacks of 9/11.
Question: Does the official explanation hold up to scrutiny and were elements of the U.S. government covertly involved in the execution of the event?
A true skeptic devoid of any confirmation bias would consider the evidence within context of the question.
If the official explanation does not hold up to scrutiny AT ALL, it implicates a very complex psychological black operation of deception with the suspect having control of all the resources of the U.S. military and a clear home court advantage with the ultimate power to sequester, cover-up, manipulate, and control the evidence.
So a true skeptic would keep this in mind when considering the question much like a homicide detective will approach his investigation differently depending on the nature of the murder or murders.
In light of these complex implications if ANY evidence can be found to raise questions in the official story, given the nature of the crime, we must approach the investigation with the full understanding that a significant cover-up and manipulation of evidence has been involved.
So with that in mind.....when considering the question....it is not logical or skeptical to automatically accept information that has been controlled by the suspect as a means to declare the suspect innocent.
That would be rather contradictory behavior for a critical thinker wouldn't you say?
Only independent verifiable evidence is acceptable.
So we refused to believe what we were told, we sought out independent verifiable evidence to confirm or refute what we were told, it unanimously refuted it and this has been scientifically verified 14 times over.
So....a true skeptic would accept this independent evidence that implicates a very complex deception while government loyalists with confirmation biases in favor of what they were told will continue to hold on to their faith based belief while dismissing all evidence that shows otherwise.
Is the evidence we present falsifiable?
Absolutely!
If 15 independent witnesses with equal to or greater vantage points of the witnesses we interviewed were all confirmed first hand specifically placing the plane on the south side of the gas station.....the evidence we present would be effectively refuted.
I think if you are honest with yourself you'll understand how that simply is not going to happen because we provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the north side.
[edit on 24-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]
Mod edit: Removed carriage returns making the post to big.
[edit on 11/25/2008 by Hal9000]
Circular logic.
You sure are a big fan of logical fallacies!
NoC is not a theory. It is evidence. Scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence that has nothing to do with CIT.
We theorized no such thing.
It is what the witnesses unanimously report and it happens to prove a deception.
Sorry!
Ok at this point we have broken the argument down to the fundamentals and this exposes why my logic is sound and yours is not.
I am a skeptic who relies only on independent verifiable evidence and you base your argument on nothing but pure faith in what you were told.
I'm in the mood to delve into the psychology and difference between my critical thinking skeptical approach to this issue compared to your faith based belief so here it goes...
We start with an event and a question.
Event: The attacks of 9/11.
Question: Does the official explanation hold up to scrutiny and were elements of the U.S. government covertly involved in the execution of the event?
A true skeptic devoid of any confirmation bias would consider the evidence within context of the question.
If the official explanation does not hold up to scrutiny AT ALL, it implicates a very complex psychological black operation of deception with the suspect having control of all the resources of the U.S. military and a clear home court advantage with the ultimate power to sequester, cover-up, manipulate, and control the evidence.
So a true skeptic would keep this in mind when considering the question much like a homicide detective will approach his investigation differently depending on the nature of the murder or murders.
In light of these complex implications if ANY evidence can be found to raise questions in the official story, given the nature of the crime, we must approach the investigation with the full understanding that a significant cover-up and manipulation of evidence has been involved.
So with that in mind.....when considering the question....it is not logical or skeptical to automatically accept information that has been controlled by the suspect as a means to declare the suspect innocent.
That would be rather contradictory behavior for a critical thinker wouldn't you say?
Only independent verifiable evidence is acceptable.
So we refused to believe what we were told, we sought out independent verifiable evidence to confirm or refute what we were told, it unanimously refuted it and this has been scientifically verified 14 times over.
So....a true skeptic would accept this independent evidence that implicates a very complex deception while government loyalists with confirmation biases in favor of what they were told will continue to hold on to their faith based belief while dismissing all evidence that shows otherwise.
Is the evidence we present falsifiable?
Absolutely!
If 15 independent witnesses with equal to or greater vantage points of the witnesses we interviewed were all confirmed first hand specifically placing the plane on the south side of the gas station.....the evidence we present would be effectively refuted.
I think if you are honest with yourself you'll understand how that simply is not going to happen because we provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the north side.
[edit on 24-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]
Mod edit: Removed carriage returns making the post to big.
[edit on 11/25/2008 by Hal9000]
reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 08:08 PM by CameronFox
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Your claims ignore evidence.
Your claims ignore witnesses.
Your claims lack common sense.
Your claims make unfair accusations.
When will you interview first responders on video?
When will you supply the necessary math and physics to prove ONE path NoC?
When will interview some of the contractors from the Pentagon?
When will you realize that attempting a deception of a multi TON aircraft in broad daylight is simply ludicrous?
Your claims ignore evidence.
Your claims ignore witnesses.
Your claims lack common sense.
Your claims make unfair accusations.
When will you interview first responders on video?
When will you supply the necessary math and physics to prove ONE path NoC?
When will interview some of the contractors from the Pentagon?
When will you realize that attempting a deception of a multi TON aircraft in broad daylight is simply ludicrous?
reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 08:45 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
Your off topic sweeping generalized completely unsupported statements about my "claims" are fallacious.
Quote me and back up your point with evidence (in the appropriate thread) or concede you have no argument.
Meanwhile this thread is about our latest encounter with Lloyde England the cab driver so I would appreciate it if you would stay on topic.
I'd like to focus on something Lloyde said just before I interviewed him in his living room. Go to 19:43 and review when Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures.
After being invited into Lloyde's home to conduct our follow-up interview, while I was setting up the camera, Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures of his cab and the pole on 9/11.
At this point our interview had not started and nothing was said about Lloyde's location or the north side evidence yet.
Lloyde let it slip that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and the pole!
This is absolutely critical because it proves that he KNEW his location on the bridge minutes before our interview started where he would ultimately and steadfastly deny this very fact that we both forgot he just admitted.
Once the camera was on him and the interview started he must have remembered that he was supposed to shift his location to the north side.
If he really thought he was where he said he was during the interview he would never have referred to the photographer neighbor as being "on the bridge".
Frankly, this is proof enough that Lloyde wasn't simply confused as he continued to deny his location on the bridge DESPITE the photographic evidence I showed him AND that we later obtained from his neighbor further confirming what Lloyde actually already said when the encounter first began......
"He was up on the bridge."
Your off topic sweeping generalized completely unsupported statements about my "claims" are fallacious.
Quote me and back up your point with evidence (in the appropriate thread) or concede you have no argument.
Meanwhile this thread is about our latest encounter with Lloyde England the cab driver so I would appreciate it if you would stay on topic.
I'd like to focus on something Lloyde said just before I interviewed him in his living room. Go to 19:43 and review when Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures.
After being invited into Lloyde's home to conduct our follow-up interview, while I was setting up the camera, Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures of his cab and the pole on 9/11.
At this point our interview had not started and nothing was said about Lloyde's location or the north side evidence yet.
Lloyde let it slip that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and the pole!
This is absolutely critical because it proves that he KNEW his location on the bridge minutes before our interview started where he would ultimately and steadfastly deny this very fact that we both forgot he just admitted.
Once the camera was on him and the interview started he must have remembered that he was supposed to shift his location to the north side.
If he really thought he was where he said he was during the interview he would never have referred to the photographer neighbor as being "on the bridge".
Frankly, this is proof enough that Lloyde wasn't simply confused as he continued to deny his location on the bridge DESPITE the photographic evidence I showed him AND that we later obtained from his neighbor further confirming what Lloyde actually already said when the encounter first began......
"He was up on the bridge."
reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 09:38 AM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
Thanks for staying on topic for the most part.
No critical thinker would suggest they can judge someones character, true lifestyle, or financial situation based on how they look!
Your questions do not address the evidence.
They are based solely on speculation which again, would NOT be the response of a critical thinker.
However what's clear is that Lloyde was MEANT to be out front.
His face, his story, his cab.......ALL of it was meant to be used to help sell the official story.
He had talked to media on many occasions before and he was well known to anyone who has looked into to the Pentagon attack with any detail and his cab on the highway was a famous image even known to many who haven't looked into it.
In fact if you watch the 9/11 "tribute" at the republican national convention this year to nominate McCain you'll see his cab.
So if you consider his role in the operation to be that of a "simple" man that is hard not to believe who sells the low and level south side impact to the public via media, images, and his nice demeanor...yes it makes perfect sense that he would agree to be interviewed by us.
Lloyde had been challenged by nobody. Even we didn't challenge him during the first interview.
Lloyde is used to people eating his story up and with the strength of the dark powers behind him he probably has no fear or worries whatsoever about any powerless citizen investigator otherwise known to the rest of the world as conspiracy theorists!
Naturally he may have figured we would challenge him when I showed up at his doorstep the second time but clearly he decided on the spot to try and "iron this out" with us.
I bet he regrets it now and didn't really understand the level of knowledge, facts, and determination that he was up against when he first uttered the words "you can come in".
As far as Dewitt goes....I am not inclined to speculate why he refused to discuss his experience on 9/11 but I think that should be pretty obvious concerning the account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. and all the north side witnesses.
In contrast with Lloyde....Dewitt was virtually unknown and in fact is not included in any of the known lists of previously published witnesses.
[edit on 26-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]
Thanks for staying on topic for the most part.
No critical thinker would suggest they can judge someones character, true lifestyle, or financial situation based on how they look!
Your questions do not address the evidence.
They are based solely on speculation which again, would NOT be the response of a critical thinker.
However what's clear is that Lloyde was MEANT to be out front.
His face, his story, his cab.......ALL of it was meant to be used to help sell the official story.
He had talked to media on many occasions before and he was well known to anyone who has looked into to the Pentagon attack with any detail and his cab on the highway was a famous image even known to many who haven't looked into it.
In fact if you watch the 9/11 "tribute" at the republican national convention this year to nominate McCain you'll see his cab.
So if you consider his role in the operation to be that of a "simple" man that is hard not to believe who sells the low and level south side impact to the public via media, images, and his nice demeanor...yes it makes perfect sense that he would agree to be interviewed by us.
Lloyde had been challenged by nobody. Even we didn't challenge him during the first interview.
Lloyde is used to people eating his story up and with the strength of the dark powers behind him he probably has no fear or worries whatsoever about any powerless citizen investigator otherwise known to the rest of the world as conspiracy theorists!
Naturally he may have figured we would challenge him when I showed up at his doorstep the second time but clearly he decided on the spot to try and "iron this out" with us.
I bet he regrets it now and didn't really understand the level of knowledge, facts, and determination that he was up against when he first uttered the words "you can come in".
As far as Dewitt goes....I am not inclined to speculate why he refused to discuss his experience on 9/11 but I think that should be pretty obvious concerning the account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. and all the north side witnesses.
In contrast with Lloyde....Dewitt was virtually unknown and in fact is not included in any of the known lists of previously published witnesses.
[edit on 26-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]
reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 11:08 AM by CameronFox
reply to post by billybob
Hi Billy,
Then why would he talk at all? Knowing that it would risk his families lives, money, etc.
You have to keep in mind...the amount of people you are involving with this deception now too. Lloyd was chosen... his kids get hush money or threatened?.... you see...it goes on and on.
-Cam
Hi Billy,
Then why would he talk at all? Knowing that it would risk his families lives, money, etc.
You have to keep in mind...the amount of people you are involving with this deception now too. Lloyd was chosen... his kids get hush money or threatened?.... you see...it goes on and on.
-Cam
reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 11:26 AM by billybob
reply to post by CameronFox
well, it IS going on and on, isn't it? his silence now would seem an admission of guilt. the 'government' knows that, too, and that why they MUST allow him to speak.
any suspicious death or silence would be a martyrdom, and any good ruler knows that is worse than the truth, because the truth can always be danced around and disguised blatantly in front of the eyes and ears of the masses.
i assume they consider lloyde to be 'under the radar' and unimportant at this point. much like hijackers that are still alive or like the completely fabricated story of jessica lynch(complete with television movie). the truth doesn't have as much impact as the original lie. especially when 'they' control the airwaves, and hence, the mass mind.
thank god for viral truth!
edit to add, there are GOOD PEOPLE in the secret services and the military/government, or we'd already all be microchipped and under curfew and 100% surviellance. the 'shadow rulers' have to work through deceit within the system set up by men of good conscience.
[edit on 26-11-2008 by billybob]
well, it IS going on and on, isn't it? his silence now would seem an admission of guilt. the 'government' knows that, too, and that why they MUST allow him to speak.
any suspicious death or silence would be a martyrdom, and any good ruler knows that is worse than the truth, because the truth can always be danced around and disguised blatantly in front of the eyes and ears of the masses.
i assume they consider lloyde to be 'under the radar' and unimportant at this point. much like hijackers that are still alive or like the completely fabricated story of jessica lynch(complete with television movie). the truth doesn't have as much impact as the original lie. especially when 'they' control the airwaves, and hence, the mass mind.
thank god for viral truth!
edit to add, there are GOOD PEOPLE in the secret services and the military/government, or we'd already all be microchipped and under curfew and 100% surviellance. the 'shadow rulers' have to work through deceit within the system set up by men of good conscience.
[edit on 26-11-2008 by billybob]
reply posted on 28-11-2008 @ 10:28 AM by billybob
reply to post by CameronFox
i don't have to know the answer to that question to know that lloyde's story is impossible. i've known lloyde's story was impossible since the moment i saw the cab. the 'government'(ie. the real terrorists who are working WITHIN the government) can't be everywhere at once. i'm sure they'd love to silence both lloyde and craig, but for whatever reason their hands are tied or their too busy covering their arses in other arenas.
it simply doesn't matter WHY he's allowed to talk, or WHY he's willing to talk. the fact is, that what he is saying is an obvious backpedaling lie. have you WATCHED? he points at a picture of himself and his cab right underneath the overhead road sign on the bridge and says, "that's not where i was".
the lie is so blatant it defies ANY attempt at spin. it's a lie. lloyde, that otherwisely affable fellow, is lying through his teeth about where his cab was hit by light poles, and indeed, his whole story is an obvious lie. he is a plant, and knowing WHY he is doing what he's doing is not necessary to know that.
the plane did not knock over the poles. the rust around the tears on some poles, and the ZERO damage to the lawn are enough to prove that.
the cab was not hit by a pole. the lack of damage to the hood proves that.
it's interesting that you have never acknowledged that lloyde is lying, even though it's so obvious a little KID could see it. my goodness, he points at a bunch of pictures of himself and his cab standing in front of the burning pentagon, and says, 'that's not where i was, ....that's not where i was'. you don't call that a lie?
i don't have to know the answer to that question to know that lloyde's story is impossible. i've known lloyde's story was impossible since the moment i saw the cab. the 'government'(ie. the real terrorists who are working WITHIN the government) can't be everywhere at once. i'm sure they'd love to silence both lloyde and craig, but for whatever reason their hands are tied or their too busy covering their arses in other arenas.
it simply doesn't matter WHY he's allowed to talk, or WHY he's willing to talk. the fact is, that what he is saying is an obvious backpedaling lie. have you WATCHED? he points at a picture of himself and his cab right underneath the overhead road sign on the bridge and says, "that's not where i was".
the lie is so blatant it defies ANY attempt at spin. it's a lie. lloyde, that otherwisely affable fellow, is lying through his teeth about where his cab was hit by light poles, and indeed, his whole story is an obvious lie. he is a plant, and knowing WHY he is doing what he's doing is not necessary to know that.
the plane did not knock over the poles. the rust around the tears on some poles, and the ZERO damage to the lawn are enough to prove that.
the cab was not hit by a pole. the lack of damage to the hood proves that.
it's interesting that you have never acknowledged that lloyde is lying, even though it's so obvious a little KID could see it. my goodness, he points at a bunch of pictures of himself and his cab standing in front of the burning pentagon, and says, 'that's not where i was, ....that's not where i was'. you don't call that a lie?
reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 01:24 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
You aren't getting it.
You have NO IDEA about Lloyde's life other than what he told you in our interviews with him.
If he had gained the trust of the intelligence community (who his wife works for!) while being used as an asset in various operations throughout his life he sure as heck wouldn't tell you!
In fact you have no clue if he really works as a cab driver at all let alone how much money he has.
The 9/11 operation HAD to involve many dozens of people in many different compartmentalized levels.
You can refuse to believe it all you want but the evidence proves a deception and therefore that many dozens of living, breathing, seemingly regular people who currently walk the earth are in full knowledge of it.
Do you really think you would be able to tell who they are by how they look??
The notion that "the government" can't keep a secret is ludicrous. Illegal covert activity is happening behind the scenes ALL the time.
MANY people have been indoctrinated into the deep world of intelligence where an absolute complex and extremely ingrained culture of secrecy IS maintained at all times.
Real spooks exist. Not just in conspiracy theories. Not just in Tom Clancy novels.
They follow orders even when it means killing people because that's how they roll.
They utilize assets, connections, patsies, whatever it takes to get the job done and they have plenty of resources available to do so throughout the world.
Maybe Lloyde was a tested resource or maybe it's even deeper than that. The point is that YOU CAN'T KNOW simply by looking at him and thinking you can judge his character.
So to simply dismiss the overwhelming evidence PROVING his story false by writing off the 13 NoC witnesses as simultaneously hallucinating or drastically mistaken in the exact same way, while going against all logic and reason to accept Lloyde's physically impossible and utterly ridiculous account that is corroborated by nobody, merely because he seems honest to you...well sorry man but that seriously stretches the realm of reason.
You aren't getting it.
You have NO IDEA about Lloyde's life other than what he told you in our interviews with him.
If he had gained the trust of the intelligence community (who his wife works for!) while being used as an asset in various operations throughout his life he sure as heck wouldn't tell you!
In fact you have no clue if he really works as a cab driver at all let alone how much money he has.
The 9/11 operation HAD to involve many dozens of people in many different compartmentalized levels.
You can refuse to believe it all you want but the evidence proves a deception and therefore that many dozens of living, breathing, seemingly regular people who currently walk the earth are in full knowledge of it.
Do you really think you would be able to tell who they are by how they look??
The notion that "the government" can't keep a secret is ludicrous. Illegal covert activity is happening behind the scenes ALL the time.
MANY people have been indoctrinated into the deep world of intelligence where an absolute complex and extremely ingrained culture of secrecy IS maintained at all times.
Real spooks exist. Not just in conspiracy theories. Not just in Tom Clancy novels.
They follow orders even when it means killing people because that's how they roll.
They utilize assets, connections, patsies, whatever it takes to get the job done and they have plenty of resources available to do so throughout the world.
Maybe Lloyde was a tested resource or maybe it's even deeper than that. The point is that YOU CAN'T KNOW simply by looking at him and thinking you can judge his character.
So to simply dismiss the overwhelming evidence PROVING his story false by writing off the 13 NoC witnesses as simultaneously hallucinating or drastically mistaken in the exact same way, while going against all logic and reason to accept Lloyde's physically impossible and utterly ridiculous account that is corroborated by nobody, merely because he seems honest to you...well sorry man but that seriously stretches the realm of reason.
reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 08:04 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
Now you're completely shifting the discussion.
YOU were the one who hypothetically suggested that if 9/11 was an inside job and Lloyde was involved that he would not have been allowed to speak with me or would be killed or whatever.
I used logic to demonstrate how you have absolutely no clue what would happen in the scenario so you have no valid point.
The fact is the evidence proves Lloyde's story false and you can not refute it but refuse to accept it based on noting but pure faith in what the government told you.
Now you're completely shifting the discussion.
YOU were the one who hypothetically suggested that if 9/11 was an inside job and Lloyde was involved that he would not have been allowed to speak with me or would be killed or whatever.
I used logic to demonstrate how you have absolutely no clue what would happen in the scenario so you have no valid point.
The fact is the evidence proves Lloyde's story false and you can not refute it but refuse to accept it based on noting but pure faith in what the government told you.
US Consulate Whistleblower Says 9/11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA
Posted 19 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 19 days ago with 21 member flags
An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
Posted 15 days ago with 12 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 12 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Four Priests Charged In Vatican Banking Scandal
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 34 minutes ago
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 34 minutes ago
Occupy Wall street, we are witnessing social revolution.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 1 hours ago
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Google accidentally released Maine election results early!
2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 31 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 31 flags
Threatened by a Ron Paul victory in Maine, GOP (insider spills beans) adds last minute caucuses.
2012 US Elections, Posted 11 hours ago, 26 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 11 hours ago, 26 flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
Space Exploration, Posted 14 hours ago, 22 flags
Space Exploration, Posted 14 hours ago, 22 flags
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 17 hours ago, 17 flags
Middle East Issues, Posted 17 hours ago, 17 flags
Greek police union wants to arrest EU/IMF officials
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 13 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 13 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
BREAKING rumour: Kim Jong-Un assassinated?
Breaking Political News, Posted 16 hours ago, 175 replies
Breaking Political News, Posted 16 hours ago, 175 replies
Most Canadians want the death penalty back
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 97 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 97 replies
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 17 hours ago, 84 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 17 hours ago, 84 replies
EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate
US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 72 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 72 replies
Google accidentally released Maine election results early!
2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 67 replies
2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 67 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.345 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.345 seconds
