"Flight 93" Eyewitnesses Prove No Boeing 757 Crashed In Shanksville on 911.

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I think you all need to update your files; Flight 93 is no mystery at all. It landed at Cleveland, with a "bomb aboard."

www.youtube.com...

Flight 93, was also, oddly enough, boarded twice, by 2 groups of people at Newark. Flight 93 ended up at the NASA Glenn hangar. It never crashed. And wasn't shot down.

Mystery solved, right?


Cheers-
Phil




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
I think you all need to update your files; Flight 93 is no mystery at all. It landed at Cleveland, with a "bomb aboard."


Actually you need to update.

It was Delta Flight 1989 that landed at Clevland. It was confused for Flight 93 for a while.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
I think you all need to update your files; Flight 93 is no mystery at all. It landed at Cleveland, with a "bomb aboard."


Actually you need to update.

It was Delta Flight 1989 that landed at Clevland. It was confused for Flight 93 for a while.






It actually still is confused for flight 93. There were actually 2 planes which landed at Cleveland airport on the morning of 9/11. And both planes landed with alleged bombs aboard. And there can be no mistake when looking at the records and facts;

Delta 1989 was diverted to Cleveland and landed at 10:10, with what we were told was 60-69 people aboard. (3 reports, all varied) Another plane was also diverted to Cleveland, United flight 93, and landed at 10:45. This plane, we were told,was carrying 200 passengers. Both United & the Mayor of Cleveland confirmed this was United flight 93.

The way to look at the facts and see what happened is to count the passengers we were told were on the respective planes, along with their landing times. In both cases they are drastically different. One plane had 200 passengers. The other had 60-69 passengers. One plane landed at 10:10 while the 2nd plane landed at 10:45. One plane was sequestered at the NASA Glenn Hangar (United 93) while the other plane was sequestered miles away, across the airport in front of the IX exposition center. Delta 1989 was sequestered on runway 18/36, while Flight 93 was sequestered on runway 28/10.

2 planes. Far different # of passengers on each plane. United 93 landed 35 minutes after Delta 1989. On different runways, at different times. The 2 planes were literally miles apart from each other. And one more fact which helps us understand there were 2 planes diverted to Cleveland with a bomb aboard.

Delta 1989 was evacuated at 12:30, while United 93 was evacuated at 11:15.

There was most definitely 2 planes sequestered at Cleveland airport on the morning of 9/11. And as a matter of fact, this is a helpful key to understanding what happened to the passengers on 911.

Cheers-
Phil



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
2 planes. Far different # of passengers on each plane. United 93 landed 35 minutes after Delta 1989.


What is your source for this?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Well one source is the Air Traffic Control tapes, which I think settle the issue, as long as all the other facts are taken into consideration.

Here is the ATC tape of United 93 pulling the same bomb aboard trick that Delta 1989 would also pull that morning;

Youtube Link here: United 93 bomb aboard:

And the rest of the core research and references can all be found in this article I wrote about a month ago, making a summary report and finding.

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What happened to the passengers?

All I have done is taken my own research and others, compiled it, and summarized it. Once you see there were 2 planes which landed at Cleveland on 911, your 25% of the way to seeing what happened to the passengers.

When you see the 2 boardings on flight 93 at Newark your nearly 50% of the way to figuring out where the passengers ended up.

And once you realize the significance of Delta 1989, your darned near close to 100% of the way there.

Hope that helps! And nice to meet you Remisne!

Cheers-
Phil



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


Sorry, Phil...your theory is incorrect.

You have been misled, somehow. I am puzzled, though, how you can post that ATC tape, and reach the conculsion you did?

Because, it's quite clear, from the tape, what the pilots (AAL 1060, and Executive 956) saw, and what happened with UAL 93.

UAL 93 did NOT, I repeat, did NOT land in CLE.

Furthermore, UAL 93 did NOT have "200 passengers" onboard. A Boeing 757, in two-class configuration (as United's are configured) does NOT hold that many people.

The reports you seem to be referencing are very, very old, and were the result of confusion, early on...and, YES, even by the Mayor of Cleveland.


This is, as usual, a situation where people who are NOT familiar with the airline business, and aviation in general, make mistakes, and have misconceptions.

Unfortunately, this "information" lingers on the Web --- it will forever, because that's the way the Web works.

AND, this bad and incorrect "info" keeps being repeated by those who don't know any better.

I suggest you listen to your YouTube link again. I will go out on a limb, here, and assume you are NOT a pilot? So, if you can, you should have a pilot listen and interpret it for you.

Certainly, that's what I can do, but since I'm anonymous on an an Internet forum, I doubt you will be convinced by me. Perhaps IF you find someone you personally know, then you will get corrected.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


Sorry, Phil...your theory is incorrect.

You have been misled, somehow. I am puzzled, though, how you can post that ATC tape, and reach the conculsion you did?

Because, it's quite clear, from the tape, what the pilots (AAL 1060, and Executive 956) saw, and what happened with UAL 93.

UAL 93 did NOT, I repeat, did NOT land in CLE.

Furthermore, UAL 93 did NOT have "200 passengers" onboard. A Boeing 757, in two-class configuration (as United's are configured) does NOT hold that many people.

The reports you seem to be referencing are very, very old, and were the result of confusion, early on...and, YES, even by the Mayor of Cleveland.


This is, as usual, a situation where people who are NOT familiar with the airline business, and aviation in general, make mistakes, and have misconceptions.

Unfortunately, this "information" lingers on the Web --- it will forever, because that's the way the Web works.

AND, this bad and incorrect "info" keeps being repeated by those who don't know any better.

I suggest you listen to your YouTube link again. I will go out on a limb, here, and assume you are NOT a pilot? So, if you can, you should have a pilot listen and interpret it for you.

Certainly, that's what I can do, but since I'm anonymous on an an Internet forum, I doubt you will be convinced by me. Perhaps IF you find someone you personally know, then you will get corrected.



Ya, I am not really interested in arguing with you. I already know I am correct. but thanks anyways. Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This is a certainty. Flight 93 was also carrying the passengers from flight 77, but that's a whole other issue.

I would try and cut down on the condescending attitude though because not many people will listen to you with that attitude of arrogance.

I will go out on a limb here and assume not many people listen to you? Well, that's because of your arrogance.

Cheers-
Phil :wink:



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


Wanna call my stating facts as an example of "arrogance"?

Well.....

Let's turn the tables, here then. YOU made some startling claims, but as yet have nothing to substantiate them. Am particularly interested, since is on topic, just how the ATC tapes of Cleveland ARTCC and the various airplanes on the frequency support your contentions.

So far, the various UAL 93 "theories" that abound are mutually exclusive, and conflicting:

---There is the premise of this thread, the "eyewitnesses" (shown in other venues to be unreliable, but anyway, here it is...)

---There is another claim that the physical evidence is missing/incomplete/not 'right' looking....

---And, there is this latest twist. The "Cleveland" theory...


...Which now, surprisingly, has a sub-section apparently (news to many of us, I would expect) of another unusual claim that AAL 77's passengers having been combined with UAL 93's. Have to admit, that's a new one, at least to me....

But, best let that drop, deserving of own thread for debate, to remain topical here.


Now, back to UAL 93---this is the most definitive response to the mistake by the Mayor of Cleveland, early on:

www.livevideo.com...

And also, this:


NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...

FAA: "He did not land."


Repeating that bit, there, for emphasis:

FAA: "He did not land."

Carrying on:



NEADS: "Oh, he's down? Down?"

FAA: "Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David."

NEADS: "Northeast of Camp David."

FAA: "That's the last report. They don't know exactly where."

The NEADS air defenders never located the flight or followed it on their radar scopes. The flight had already crashed by the time they learned it was hijacked.

10:17 Command Center advised headquarters of its conclusion that United 93 had indeed crashed.

Despite the discussions about military assistance, no one from FAA headquarters requested military assistance regarding United 93. Nor did any manager at FAA headquarters pass any of the information it had about United 93 to the military.


Here is the link.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
---There is another claim that the physical evidence is missing/incomplete/not 'right' looking....



An alternative theory is simply a possible solution to the problem.

The problem is the physical evidence does not exist or has not have shown to prove the official story.

There simply is no concrete evidence that a 757 crashed in shanksville
.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



There simply is no concrete evidence that a 757 crashed in shanksville.


That is true ONLY if you ignore:

---The CVR and SSFDR

---The human remains

---The FAA ATC radar tracking data

---The FAA ATC tapes

---The experiences of the first responders on scene, and the other don't-know-exactly how many other people who were called in, to help search and locate those human remains, the various parts (debris) of the airplane structure, and internal contents

---The fact that none, NOT ONE of those individuals who were present has ever come out to state publically that it was all a "hoax" or "faked"

Contrary to the unsubstantiated claim above, there is overwhelming evidence...



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I already understand that you believe those things exist as evidence to support the official story.

However, trusting a source that evidence is there is not the same thing as actually seeing the concrete evidence.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I already understand that you believe those things exist as evidence to support the official story.

However, trusting a source that evidence is there is not the same thing as actually seeing the concrete evidence.


I agree with you. I didn't really come here because I want to argue anything with some stranger on the internet. (weedwhacker) This is what I have discovered, and am sharing it. People can do with this information whatever they want.

When you find an alternate theory, which solves nearly every other mystery, there is a good likelihood it is because it is very close to the truth.

Arguing on the internet with people is akin to sticking pins in your eyes. LOL

Either people can trust a hole in the ground with no plane, or they can simply go with what we were told that day, that United 93 landed in Cleveland. This was confirmed by both the mayor of Cleveland and United airlines as well.

Its up to them to decide. Why there are people here chasing around people who don't believe the official story, is beyond weird. Don't they have better things to do with their lives?

Cheers-
Phil


And extraordinary claim or not weedwhacker, that's what I believe. And I didn't see anything in the rules here that says I need to somehow run this by you for approval. And all that that implies.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


This is hard for me to say.... I agree with Phil Jayhan.

When you investigate flight 1989 you will learn something very important about the attacks of 911.

On flight 1989 they had, bombs on board, phone calls to loved ones of people stating "we think we are being hijacked".


The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight. Also, there was an irregularity in the passenger manifest because there were two people [with the same middle eastern name] who were listed but only one aboard.

After our emergency landing, our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport, and we waited for over two hours in quarantine before FBI agents and bomb sniffing dogs came out to the plane. Just after we landed, the pilot gave us permission to make one very brief telephone call before we were banned from any further telephone use
256.com...

p.s Why would the pilot allow to make " one brief phone call considering that there is a threat of a bomb on board and possibility that these bombs could be detonated via cell phone?



[edit on 3-4-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


This is hard for me to say.... I agree with Phil Jayhan.

When you investigate flight 1989 you will learn something very important about the attacks of 911.

On flight 1989 they had, bombs on board, phone calls to loved ones of people stating "we think we are being hijacked".


The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight. Also, there was an irregularity in the passenger manifest because there were two people [with the same middle eastern name] who were listed but only one aboard.

After our emergency landing, our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport, and we waited for over two hours in quarantine before FBI agents and bomb sniffing dogs came out to the plane. Just after we landed, the pilot gave us permission to make one very brief telephone call before we were banned from any further telephone use
256.com...

p.s Why would the pilot allow to make " one brief phone call considering that there is a threat of a bomb on board and possibility that these bombs could be detonated via cell phone?



[edit on 3-4-2010 by Shadow Herder]


Shadow--

Those are very good and valid points. It is not a plausible story that we were told regarding Delta Flight 1989. Not only what you pointed out with the "ok" on the use of one quick cell phone call (lie, never happened) but there are other indicators that everything is just as wrong with flight 1989 as was the other "4" flights. You have the same "cell phone lie" being parroted by an alleged passenger of that flight, Delta 1989.

Because of this, one can tell that this plane had "9/11 issues" and needs further and deeper investigation. And it isn't any wonder to me that so much smoke and mirrors has been erected concerning Delta 1989, and I think this is for no other reason than the "cargo" which Delta 1989 was "delivering to Cleveland." And it was that very lie, of the cellphone use by an angry Arab or Muslim man, that lead to the chain of events leading that plane to Cleveland, as was originally planned before 9/11. And to achieve that plans objective, they used the same "cell phone ruse" they did the other 4 flights, and used the "bomb aboard" trick as well.

And don't forget about the 2nd boarding of Flight 93 at Newark. That's an important part of the equation in understanding what happened to the passengers on the 4 planes.


Cheers-
Phil







[edit on 3-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


OK, guys...pay attention!

From the very link that SH provided, here's a snippet:


...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.


Notice anything?

If not, then allow me to point out something --- MANY so called "9/11 truthers" make a great deal of noise about cell phone calls that WERE made (actually, there were only a handfull...at least ONE on AAl 77, and only TWO on UAL 93...rest inflight calls were using the on-board AirFones!)

A-a-a-anyway....this incident on DAL 1989 is simply "excitement-after-the fact", and fostered by the complexities, and confusions of the moment. That is, the morning of 11 September, 2001.

In all this hand-waving hysteria, WHERE are the reports of ACTUAL BOMBS FOUND on DAL 1989???

Does anyone see where I'm going with this?

What we have, here, is a perception of suspicious activity, and especially considering the events of the day, that is WARRANTED!!! An abundance of caution. IN FACT, that is (or should be) the mindset, even today. Like it or not, we should ALL be aware of our surroundings, and any activities that seem out of the ordinary. (AND, before we go nuts on this, let me add to ALWAYS just bring any suspicions to the attention of the professionals, and let THEM assess!)

To repeat --- FBI were notified, and inspected DAL 1989, on the ground in Cleveland. FOUND NOTHING!

The entire confusion (to include the MAYOR) is now on record as a mistake --- BUT the Internet being what it is, NOTHING ever gets removed! EVEN incorrect, and out-dated information!


ALSO....pay close, close attention to the timeline....

THE emergency NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) to GROUND, ASAP, every civilian flight in the United States Airspace System was issued at about 1028 EDT, with effectivity at 1030. (That equals 1428 UTC/1430 UTC. "UTC" is the aviation acronym for 'Universal Coordinated Time'. However, "UTC" is the accepted acronym, from the French translation. It is the SAME as the more commonly known "GMT").

(There are some minutes' differnces, depending on source....I have seenteh actual NOTAM, did not find it yet. However, I found this:


0945. In the first unplanned shutdown of U. S. airspace, FAA orders all aircraft to land at the nearest airport as soon as practical. At this time, there were more than 4,500 aircraft in the air on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plans.

1007. (approx.) United Flight 93 crashes in Stony Creek Township, PA.

1039. Reaffirming the earlier order, FAA issues a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that halts takeoffs and landings at all airports.

1215. (approx). The airspace over the 48 contiguous states is clear of all commercial and private flights.

Notes:
All times are Eastern Daylight. For UTC/Zulu/GMT, add four hours.
Flight departures are actual takeoff times, not scheduled or gate departure times.


www.faa.gov...















[edit on 3 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


OK, guys...pay attention!

From the very link that SH provided, here's a snippet:


...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.


Notice anything?

If not, then allow me to point out something --- MANY so called "9/11 truthers" make a great deal of noise about cell phone calls that WERE made (actually, there were only a handfull...at least ONE on AAl 77, and only TWO on UAL 93...rest inflight calls were using the on-board AirFones!)

A-a-a-anyway....this incident on DAL 1989 is simply "excitement-after-the fact", and fostered by the complexities, and confusions of the moment. That is, the morning of 11 September, 2001.

In all this hand-waving hysteria, WHERE are the reports of ACTUAL BOMBS FOUND on DAL 1989???

Does anyone see where I'm going with this?

What we have, here, is a perception of suspicious activity, and especially considering the events of the day, that is WARRANTED!!! An abundance of caution. IN FACT, that is (or should be) the mindset, even today. Like it or not, we should ALL be aware of our surroundings, and any activities that seem out of the ordinary. (AND, before we go nuts on this, let me add to ALWAYS just bring any suspicions to the attention of the professionals, and let THEM assess!)

To repeat --- FBI were notified, and inspected DAL 1989, on the ground in Cleveland. FOUND NOTHING!

The entire confusion (to include the MAYOR) is now on record as a mistake --- BUT the Internet being what it is, NOTHING ever gets removed! EVEN incorrect, and out-dated information!


ALSO....pay close, close attention to the timeline....

THE emergency NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) to GROUND, ASAP, every civilian flight in the United States Airspace System was issued at about 1028 EDT, with effectivity at 1030. (That equals 1428 UTC/1430 UTC. "UTC" is the aviation acronym for 'Universal Coordinated Time'. However, "UTC" is the accepted acronym, from the French translation. It is the SAME as the more commonly known "GMT").

(There are some minutes' differnces, depending on source....I have seenteh actual NOTAM, did not find it yet. However, I found this:


0945. In the first unplanned shutdown of U. S. airspace, FAA orders all aircraft to land at the nearest airport as soon as practical. At this time, there were more than 4,500 aircraft in the air on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plans.

1007. (approx.) United Flight 93 crashes in Stony Creek Township, PA.

1039. Reaffirming the earlier order, FAA issues a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that halts takeoffs and landings at all airports.

1215. (approx). The airspace over the 48 contiguous states is clear of all commercial and private flights.

Notes:
All times are Eastern Daylight. For UTC/Zulu/GMT, add four hours.
Flight departures are actual takeoff times, not scheduled or gate departure times.


www.faa.gov...















[edit on 3 April 2010 by weedwhacker]


Are you talking about the Flight 93 that allegedly crashed at Stony Creek or Shanksville? Or the Flight 93 which landed at Cleveland? Or, are you talking about the Flight 93 out of Philadelphia?

Just curious which flight 93 that your speaking of. Enquiring minds wanna know...

Cheers-
Phil



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That is true ONLY if you ignore:

---The CVR and SSFDR


You mean the ones that have not been matched tot he plane by part or serial number?


---The human remains


Questions about the DNA evidence and proper chain of custody.


---The experiences of the first responders on scene, and the other don't-know-exactly how many other people who were called in, to help search and locate those human remains, the various parts (debris) of the airplane structure, and internal contents


No official reports matching parts to the plane. No reports or photos of seats or luggage.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 





Or the Flight 93 which landed at Cleveland? Or, are you talking about the Flight 93 out of Philadelphia?



There was no flight operated by and identified as United Airlines 93 that landed in Cleveland (KCLE)on 11 September, 2001.


There was no flight operated and identified as United Airlines 93 that operated out of Philadelphia (KPHL) on 11 September, 2001.

So, your questions are moot, and irrelevant. Perhaps they are stemming from some bad (and incorredt) information that is laying about on the Internet? Too often, that is exactly how this misinformation gets traction, and continues to confuse and distract from actual historical fact.

Please look at the following link. In weeks and months prior to 11 September, 2001 United Airlines assigned the number "93" to a regularly scheduled KPHL-KSFO flight. On date 5 September, 2001, they instituted a scheduling change, and re-numbered the KEWR-KSFO flight to "93". This is very common practice in the airline business, happens frequently, and is usually dictated by marketing and competitve reasons.

I merely asked the BTS site for the date range "2 September, 2001 to 10 September, 2001", and here are the results:

www.bts.gov...


Further research shows this data:


Detailed Statistics
Departures

Airport: Philadelphia, PA - Philadelphia International (PHL)
Airline: United Airlines (UA)
Month(s): September
Day(s): 4
Year(s): 2001

{snip}

Airline Date Flt # N# Dest SDep SArr
UA 09/04/2001 0093 N471UA SFO 17:00 18:45


THIS is the snapshot of ALL United Airlines scheduled departure and arrival times on 4 September, 2001, out of KPHL, and the destination airports.

Note that, prior to the re-assignment of the flight number "93" to a KEWR-KSFO segment, the departure time of "93" KPHL-KSFO was in the evening, at 1700.

Now, compare to the same day (09/04/01) and the United Airlines schedule of non-stops from KEWR to KSFO:


UA 09/04/2001 0073 N502UA SFO 09:25 09:22
UA 09/04/2001 0075 N528UA SFO 14:30 14:30
UA 09/04/2001 0077 N550UA SFO 19:30 21:26
UA 09/04/2001 0079 N514UA SFO 18:40 19:34


www.bts.gov...

Now, the final step will be for anyone who still claims that UAL 93 landed in Cleveland (or operated KPHL-KSFO on 11 September, 2001) they will need to provide evidence, in the form of ATC recordings, or written logs from ATC facilities.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I told you, I am not really interested in arguing anything with you at all. Feel free to believe what you want; I owe you nothing. Just because you make a post and demand something doesn't mean anything to me.

Your wrong. And its not worth arguing with someone who is a nameless faceless person on the internet. I don't have to prove anything to you. I am sharing my research and what I have found. Sorry that that bothers you.

Good day-
Phil



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 



I am sharing my research and what I have found.


This is not an argument. I offer additional research venues for you to consider. IF a person is truly interested in proper research.

Unfortunately, there is a large contigent of individuals who prefer to start with a premise, then only selectively choose anything that can be found, in "research", to support that supposition. Whilst ignoring, or discounting, any other evidence that refutes the contention.

Note, the very title of this thread? Once the word "proof", or 'Prove" is introduced into thread titles such as this, then the bias is obvious from the get-go.


Sorry that that bothers you.


Now that's a very odd assumption to make about my 'feelings'.

What is necessary here is to point out obvious flaws. NOT that the person who posts them is responsible for the flaws in the first place; rather, that person has likely been duped, led down a wrong path, by poor information. I think everyone would rather have truth. And facts. Those non-hyperbolic factoids exist, they just have to be sifted from the detritus of the more insubstantial claims that infest this topic so frequently.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join