Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The most intriguing conspiracy theory
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe most intriguing conspiracy theory

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1213141516 19>
Poll Question: Choose the conspiracy theory that most interests you
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
5 [10.64%]
0 [0.00%]
6 [12.77%]
5 [10.64%]
16 [34.04%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [2.13%]
3 [6.38%]
3 [6.38%]
3 [6.38%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [6.38%]
2 [4.26%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 18:20
Originally posted by James James wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Originally posted by James James wrote:

I have read what everyone has posted.  Including your own.  You've not brought anything to this debate.
 
You're open mind forgot about this:
Why should I plagarize why you're wrong when I could just link to it?

*plagiarise
Thank you.  I can spell pretentious, though

I haven't read it yet but I sincerely doubt it'll make any difference.  You have no idea if I'm wrong or not.  Neither do I.  We could both be wrong.
 
My problem with your refusal to read it is that you keep putting it out there how many different conspiracies there could be based on what you've watched.  If you'll look into the conspiracies why won't you look into the more plausible explainations?  This is a real historical event we are discussing here, by the way.  You can't just try to go agnostic while also continuing to fan the flames of conspiracy. 
 
Originally posted by James James wrote:

A question: do you know anyone who was personally affected by the events?  I mean, say any families that lost loved ones, for example.
 
No.  Wait... I thought you said those loved ones were all fake.

I did not say that.  I said other people think that.  I actually said in the previous post that I rebuke the whole Vicsim idea.

You did not answer my question though.
 
I absolutely did: I said "no"

 
Just a basic question here, for you:  How many people do you think would have to have been involved to carry out this conspiracy?  Just curious as to how many people it would take to plan it, confuse eyewitnesses, fudge the film, control the planes, build the massive secret remote controlled planes, plant the explosives, hide the launching of massive remote controlled planes, brainwash airtraffic controllers up and down the east coast into not noticing those weren't real planes, ... I could keep going.


Again, I have no idea how many people.  It's not a question anyone can answer.

To confuse witnesses isn't difficult.  Especially if what they saw was what has commonly been reported.  If they were R/C planes, they'd look like real ones.  No need to confuse witnesses.  They'd see what everyone else saw.

By the way, I'm not saying they were R/C.  It's just one of many ideas.

Fudging the film is also easy.  The presenters wouldn't need to know anything.  They're like the witnesses above, they see what everyone else sees.  You could probably keep those in the know to a minimum here.

Controlling the 'planes is easy too.  You don't even have to build new ones.  Having said that, the two 'planes that hit the tower were still registered a long time afterwards.  When aircraft crash and are unrepairable, they get deregistered as being able to fly and would also be taken off the American Airlines list.

Planting the explosive wouldn't too difficult either.  There were likely always contract builders in doing work.  I'm not saying it was done by contract builders either, before you say that's what I said.

The Air Traffic control thing is something I've not seen mentioned, so I cannot comment about that but I've also read that those 'planes with those registrations were not meant to fly that day, so there was need for ATC to notice anything amiss here.

I'm not saying I believe all the above.  I'm just positing several ideas I have read and relaying some of them.  I am still very much looking into all this myself.  There's a lot to go through.  Besides, I'm not really all that bothered about it.
 
 
You didn't answer my question.  I asked for an estimate of how many people you think would have to be involved?
 
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

If you'd have looked at the Cracked article with your "open" (yet seemingly empty) mind then you'd be aware of the motives.  Grasping for strings of evidence to support a story that was fictional to begin with is pathetic but not as pathetic as people buying it.  You remind me of Karl Pilkington, James.  I can see you and him out there looking for the chimp doctor he read about.
Your continued ugly comments are out of line and completely unnecessary--  might I add James has been nothing but civil.   Why don't you stop relying on personal insults and argue like a man.

 
You are right, the part in parentheses was uncalled for and I apologize for saying that.  I think the comparison of how James seems to gather information with how Karl Pilkington does is apt, though.


Time always wins.
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 18:42
I still have no idea who Karl Pilkington is...

I did answer your question.  I said I have no idea how many people it would take.



Anyhow, time to debunk some of that Cracked article:

"I mean, keep in mind, I don't know how big of a job that would be (no one has ever demolished a building that size before) but a building just half the size of one WTC tower took 4,000 separate charges to bring down. Four thousand.

That job took seven months of prep work... and they had the run of an abandoned building, without having to hide their work from 100,000 people every day. Our demolition crew, on the other hand, can work only at night and has to spend the last bit of every shift carefully repairing the wall and hiding any evidence of charges or detonators as not to be discovered during the day.

Huge teams of demolitions experts, who had no problem wiring a building full of innocent New Yorkers to explode, hired in secret, worked every night for what had to be a year (and that's only if they had a big enough crew) placing maybe 10,000 separate charges in each tower and another few thousand in WTC 7 (the smaller WTC tower that also collapsed, later in the day on 9/11).

And nobody notices."


So a 'plane flies into one tower and another into the other tower and the intense fire causes both towers to freefall when on no previous occasion has an intense fire ever done such a thing.  Yet this article says it would take 10,000 separate charges to bring down a building in such a manner.

So now a 'plane and the intense fire it causes is supposed to be equal to 10,000 charges of dynamite?

Oh please!  That's just silly.  Two 'planes bring down 2 towers in less than a day after impact yet they claim it would take 7 months of preparation to bring down a much smaller building (I'm not saying that's a lie)?

And there was building work going on and it was happening the whole week prior to the incident.  Indeed, I believe some people have claimed there were empty floors within both towers (this has not been officially proven) and if this is the case, they'd be a prime target for explosives as nobody would be on those floors to witness anything.

Plus this could happen during the day and not just at night.



But wait, there's more. Because there are hundreds of thousands of civil engineers and structural engineers in the world (people who are experts in what makes buildings fall down) and lots of demolitions experts. Approximately zero of them say the 9/11 attacks looked like bombed buildings. All of them either say outright that the demolition theory is asinine, or are silent in the face of what the Loose Changers say is video proof of mass murder so obvious even an uneducated jackass off the street can spot it.



This is quite simply not the case.  There's quite a few demolition experts (they're on Youtube) who disagree with the above and claim it was a controlled explosion that took the buildings down.  For the author of the article to claim there was approximately zero is a complete lie.

WT7 was barely hit by any debris, yet it also collapsed in freefall for no apparent reason.


The author finally has to say this:

If you'd like to read more about the 9/11 conspiracy movement, there's lots more at Debunking911.com and Screw Loose Change, whose research I stole for this article.


So he didn't even do his own research?

Disappointing.


I've said before that Loose Change is not to be trusted and neither is Dylan Avery or Alex Jones.


I also have to make a correction: Loose Change does indeed posit the missile theory.  My mistake.  I've not watched the film in quite some time.
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 18:59
I'd like to add:

How on earth would an intense fire that started about 3/4 of the way up the tower cause two buildings to collapse in almost a perfect freefall?  That's not even including WTC7, of course.

I'd expect the hottest floor(s) (so the floors that were impacted first) to maybe weaken the steel beams and thus cause the floors above to collapse downwards on top of those floors.  They wouldn't cause the less hot floors below to collapse as well.  The floors (I mean the floors, walls and ceiling and the structure) would just fall sideways and slide onto other buildings surrounding it and thus cause far more devastation.

For a building to collapse as it did, I'd expect there to be controlled explosions on certain floors that would cause the floors above (as the explosives would start at the top) to fall down on top of the lower floors in a nice neat pile.  Just like what appears to have happened.

I've watched a lot of Fred Dibnah programmes to know what buildings being brought down by explosives is like.

I'm not a structural engineer or indeed a demolition expert though.  I'm just basing this on watching buildings (and chimneys) freefall in demolitions.  There's plenty of videos showing this.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 19:05
 ^ I saw a decent lecture (on Youtube) by a guy who thinks it was some kind of "Concentrated Energy Weapon" being tested, with the planes as a cover.   He contends that would be the only way for the towers to 'shear off'.   Don't know how convincing, but it was great conjecture.

Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 19:12
I'll have to look for that one, David.

Some say the metal beams were tested at the time of construction to withstand extreme heat.  Thermite (although not an explosive) could have been used.  You'd need a lot of it though and in concentrated areas to cause fires.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 19:14
and of course there could have been any number of explosives on the planes

Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 19:17
If you believe the no 'planes theory (I'm not saying I do), then of course the explosives would have been in the missiles.

You could easily pack explosives into a 'plane and use some kind of timer to set them off.

In fact, the Germans did it in World War 2.  Not so much with the timer but they still tried it with their Mistel Composite aircraft which consisted of a bomber with explosives in the nose, no pilots or instruments or anything and a fighter aircraft to carry it and guide it in.


Edited by James - November 20 2011 at 19:30
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 19:30

Saying because it would take a certain amount of explosives to demolish a building, in such a way, that a plane crash couldn't is a logical fallacy.

Experts is a subjective term.  In my opinion claiming, on youtube or elsewhere, that the buildings looked like they were bombed invalidates your expert status.
 
Do his own research?  He was writing an analysis of existing information.
 
Here's a little video about debunking controlled demolition, while I'm here:
 
Oh, and Karl Pilkington is a friend of British comedian Ricky Gervais.  Ricky finds Karl's bizarre world view and willingness to believe anything he reads online to be hilarious and has put a lot of effort into trying to make him a household name.


Time always wins.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 19:43
has anyone mentioned 'Globalism' ?; not so much a conspiracy theory as an emerging reality some think of as conspiratorial, in fact I believe it is thought of mostly as a "conspiracy of the Left" rather than the garden variety Industrial-Military kind.   John Kennedy was considered by some to be an early Globalist, perhaps one of the things that made the Defense/Intelligence elite nervous.  
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 19:56
Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Saying because it would take a certain amount of explosives to demolish a building, in such a way, that a plane crash couldn't is a logical fallacy.

How so?  Please do explain. Wink

Experts is a subjective term.  In my opinion claiming, on youtube or elsewhere, that the buildings looked like they were bombed invalidates your expert status.

So basically you're calling bullsh*t on anyone with a differing opinion to your own?  Whoever they claim to be.  Hold on, that's a false negative.  I could easily say the same thing about people who are experts and post something on Youtube who claim that the buildings collapsed due the 'plane crashes and fires.  Because they claim this on Youtube, it therefore invalidates their opinion and their expert status.

It's the same argument you're making.

Oh and I never said they were bombed.  Do you not read properly?

A controlled explosion is not being bombed.  It may consist of using bombs but they're not being dropped by 'planes. Wink
 
Do his own research?  He was writing an analysis of existing information.

No.  He chose to pretty much steal information from sources that try to debunk the conspiracies.  He dismisses everything that supports conspiracies and doesn't even think before he types (sorry, copy and paste), otherwise he'd never have said what he did about there being not experts in demolition who disagree with the official story.  I suspect his source said the same thing and he just stole and it didn't fact check.
 
Here's a little video about debunking controlled demolition, while I'm here:
 
Oh, and Karl Pilkington is a friend of British comedian Ricky Gervais.  Ricky finds Karl's bizarre world view and willingness to believe anything he reads online to be hilarious and has put a lot of effort into trying to make him a household name.


Ah.  Ricky Gervais... urgh.  He's so up his own arse!  He used to be amusing but now he's just annoying.  He was born in the same town as my two older brothers too... oh well.


Edited by James - November 20 2011 at 19:58
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 20:07
Actually, there are reports of people hearing explosions whilst on the ground floor.  So that video lies as well.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 20:07
Originally posted by James James wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Of course, 9/11 is all in the news footage too.  It's not as though 8 million people live in New York city or that they ever look up.


A question: do you know anyone who was personally affected by the events?  I mean, say any families that lost loved ones, for example.



Yes.  In real life, and even in the PA community, if I recall correctly Jody lost a relative in the attacks.

Also, I happened to look up the Potomac and see an enormous black column of smoke rising from the Pentagon.  My wife was even closer.  But I'm sure you'll tell me it was a well orchestrated campfire.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 20:15
The only conspiracies that have some resemblance of probability are those where only a few people would have to be a part of.

Which means: almost none. Hell, maybe the JFK thing is the closest one to a "few people" conspiracy...

Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 20:29
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by James James wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Of course, 9/11 is all in the news footage too.  It's not as though 8 million people live in New York city or that they ever look up.


A question: do you know anyone who was personally affected by the events?  I mean, say any families that lost loved ones, for example.



Yes.  In real life, and even in the PA community, if I recall correctly Jody lost a relative in the attacks.

Also, I happened to look up the Potomac and see an enormous black column of smoke rising from the Pentagon.  My wife was even closer.  But I'm sure you'll tell me it was a well orchestrated campfire.


I do seem to remember Jody having a relative who perished. Cry

And no, something did hit the Pentagon, so I'm not saying there wasn't a fire.
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2011 at 21:52
Originally posted by James James wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Saying because it would take a certain amount of explosives to demolish a building, in such a way, that a plane crash couldn't is a logical fallacy.

How so?  Please do explain. Wink

Ever hear of the expression: "comparing apples to oranges"

Experts is a subjective term.  In my opinion claiming, on youtube or elsewhere, that the buildings looked like they were bombed invalidates your expert status.

So basically you're calling bullsh*t on anyone with a differing opinion to your own?  Whoever they claim to be.  Hold on, that's a false negative.  I could easily say the same thing about people who are experts and post something on Youtube who claim that the buildings collapsed due the 'plane crashes and fires.  Because they claim this on Youtube, it therefore invalidates their opinion and their expert status.

It's the same argument you're making.

I said expert was a subjective term so it's not as though you caught me here.  I even said "in my opinion".

Oh and I never said they were bombed.  Do you not read properly?
 
The piece from the cracked article said "bombed".  I was responding to your response to that.

A controlled explosion is not being bombed.  It may consist of using bombs but they're not being dropped by 'planes. Wink
Anyway you want to word it, it didn't happen.  You might not agree with the video below but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything you've thrown out there.
 
Do his own research?  He was writing an analysis of existing information.

No.  He chose to pretty much steal information from sources that try to debunk the conspiracies.  He dismisses everything that supports conspiracies and doesn't even think before he types (sorry, copy and paste), otherwise he'd never have said what he did about there being not experts in demolition who disagree with the official story.  I suspect his source said the same thing and he just stole and it didn't fact check.

Have you ever written a paper for a class?  You don't pull information out of your ass.  You gather information, piece it together in your own voice for your audience, then cite your sources.  I suspect that he probably thinks as much of your experts as I do. 

Here's a little video about debunking controlled demolition, while I'm here:
 
Oh, and Karl Pilkington is a friend of British comedian Ricky Gervais.  Ricky finds Karl's bizarre world view and willingness to believe anything he reads online to be hilarious and has put a lot of effort into trying to make him a household name.


Ah.  Ricky Gervais... urgh.  He's so up his own arse!  He used to be amusing but now he's just annoying.  He was born in the same town as my two older brothers too... oh well.
 
Ricky's funny but Karl is hilarious.  I've found this discussion far from funny and extremely close to tragic.  I'm all for skepticism, especially when it comes to government, but I just can't stand people yelling fire when there isn't even any smoke.  There is just no way in hell that 9/11 was a government conpiracy.  I'd swear that on my life.


Time always wins.
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2011 at 04:29
Originally posted by James James wrote:


I believe also some of these hi-jackers have since been found alive.

No, you are completely misunderstanding the situation, can you stop saying crazy things without spending 15 seconds Googling them first. There are many more words if you want.

mom, cracked is not really a good source for you to be leaning so heavily on...
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2011 at 04:53
Originally posted by James James wrote:



It's Andy's turn now:I've watched Ripple Effect now.  It's all rather interesting, I must say.I do have a few issues with the presentation though.  The narrator (not sure if it's the same guy who researched it all and made the video but presume it is) concludes a lot of stuff but doesn't back a lot of it up with sources.  He says such-and-such said this but doesn't always show a clip, or a newspaper/online source.  So us as the viewer have to just assume he's correct.  I realise he probably wanted to fit it all into an hour but I did feel a bit like he'd rushed through it a bit.Secondly, he pretty much blatantly says that the mock terrorist threat that day turned into the real thing and thus then went onto presume all the non-terrorists didn't know they were involved in a real event and didn't show any proof of this.I still see much evidence of an inside-job though, I just feel his presentation could have been better.  I shall probably now end up looking into some of the stuff mentioned and try and find sources to back these things up.





The film maker calls himself 'Moadib' (sp?) which is a reference to to Frank Herberts Dune.

In a BBC documnetary he was tracked down to Northern Ireland, and questioned over his alleged links to a far right group, and anti Semitic literature. The BBC may have just been on a smear mission. I'm sure it wouldn;t have been the first time.

A number of the film makers claim have been de-bunked as far as I know, especially with regard to the timing of their journey into London, and the times the bombs went off.

What interests me most about 7/7 is not so much the specifics of the day, but the intel that was not share with the public inquiry. Specifically I'm interested in the link between th bombers and Haroon Rashid Aswat. You'll need to look this character up, if you're interested, but basuically the Telegraph reported, shortly after the attacks that he had been in touch with the bombers in the days and weeks before the attacks. swat had been arrested in the US in thelate 90's, in Seattle, charged with trying to set up a training camp in Oregon. The FBI caught up with him in Seattle but were 'ordered' by the CIA to release him, and send him back to Britain. Intelligence expert John Loftus believed swat to be a valuable MI6/Al Queada double agent, feeding valuable information to the UK government. The plot is very dark and complex, and I'm not going into it any further here, suffice to say there is plenty of information on the web about it, and much of that info is in the mainstream.
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2011 at 05:04
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

has anyone mentioned 'Globalism' ?; not so much a conspiracy theory as an emerging reality some think of as conspiratorial, in fact I believe it is thought of mostly as a "conspiracy of the Left" rather than the garden variety Industrial-Military kind.   John Kennedy was considered by some to be an early Globalist, perhaps one of the things that made the Defense/Intelligence elite nervous.  


Globalism will be the undoing of the west, but I suspect that was not the original aim. It could be considered an inevitable conseqeunce of capitalism, or at least of the kind of crony capitalism by which we run the global economy.

What do you call a conspiracy thory that comes true? Is there a name for it?

The idea that the global banks run the show, and not the governments of sovereign nations is one popular CT. I'll not make any commnt on this, but just say two words: Greece and Italy. If people don't know what I mean by that, then watch the news, from a variety of different sources.
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2011 at 05:37
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by James James wrote:


I believe also some of these hi-jackers have since been found alive.

No, you are completely misunderstanding the situation, can you stop saying crazy things without spending 15 seconds Googling them first. There are many more words if you want.

mom, cracked is not really a good source for you to be leaning so heavily on...


That BBC link is hilarious.  It doesn't prove anything whatsover. LOL  It's rather a vague article and statement and you want me to seriously believe the FBI's word?

Or the BBC for that matter.
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2011 at 05:39
Originally posted by James James wrote:

That BBC link is hilarious.  It doesn't prove anything whatsover. LOL  It's rather a vague article and statement and you want me to seriously believe the FBI's word?

Or the BBC for that matter.

Because there's a big difference between the FBI f**king up and giving the wrong people initially and "the hijackers turning up alive". And their word is the only reason you have these insane beliefs to begin with...
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1213141516 19>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.197 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.