Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Final Fantasy Dreams

RegisterLoginControl PanelMembers

FFDreams is expanding. HTTP calls replaced by HTTPS January 7, 2020.

runboard.com       Signup
Login:   

Page  1  2  3  4  5 

 
Sparky77275 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Omnislash
 


Reg: 09-2005
Loc: Ireland
Posts: 6371
Greatness: 127 (+188/-61)
Reply Quote
Re: 9/11 hoax


Dude, did you see the size of the hole it left in the pentagin? not big enough for a plane and did you see how far it penetrated throught he walls? and the 6 tonne engines didnt leave damage on the outside of the building.

Plus there were only 3 pieces of identifiable bits left out of all the metal? I think not.

---

23/Mar/06, 11:33 am Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: 9/11 hoax


   Yes I did see it but first let me state another bad assumption by the esteemed maker of this documentary. He says that becuase the planes that hit the wtc left a distinct outline we should also see the same at Pentagon. What he fails to take into account is the fact that the two building are constructed out of different materials and have a different construction to begin with. If the outlines were identical then it would seem strange to me.



quote:


Dude, did you see the size of the hole it left in the pentagin? not big enough for a plane



    Yeah the author shows a very smokey, unclear photographic, and then claims the hole is only 16ft in diameter. I wonder how he managed to calculate that given the fact the picture is so smokey and I can barely even make out the impact site. I've read and heard that the hole was actually closer to 60 ft, not anywhere near 16ft like the author claims. I'll have to look around a bit more.


quote:

and did you see how far it penetrated throught he walls?



  I don't see why this is that hard to believe. These planes have a large mass, and it was supposedly travelling at a high velocity. Thats a simple recipe for desctruction if you ask me.


quote:

and the 6 tonne engines didnt leave damage on the outside of the building.



I've actually read that the hole on the outer ring was closer to 60 ft and if thats the case I can see the engines as being part of twhat made a hole that large.

quote:

Plus there were only 3 pieces of identifiable bits left out of all the metal? I think not.



  There's actually a tad more than 3 pieces that were identified. Just search around and you'll see.


One thing that irks me about this is that author never backs up his claims with any mathematics. He merely assumes that the planes should've made a larger hole, couldn't have punched throught that much of the building and many other things.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

23/Mar/06, 8:58 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 
RevolutionaryNinja Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Black Waltz
 


Reg: 12-2005
Posts: 222
Greatness: -6 (+9/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: 9/11 hoax


quote:

Now if you read this whole quote you can see why it doesn't prove much of anything. The air traffic controller never said "it wasn't a 757", simply that you typically don't fly a 757 in that manner. I wonder how much a hijacker would care for the safety of the passengers?



That defies the law of physics. Please tell me how a 80 ton aircraft going at 500-600 MPH would manuever like a jet fighter or missle with Earth's gravity.


 
quote:

There's also plenty of eyewitness accounts that claim the plane crashed into the building itself. Perhaps it depends on what angle you viewed the crash from.


Can you back up this claim by showing us these eyewitness interviews.


quote:

Well for one the plane did crash into the pentagon which started a large fire. Large crashes and explosions tend to destroy the object that crashed so it comes as no surprise to me that something like this wouldn't leave large pieces of the plane laying around.


80 tons of metal does not disintegrate that easly the twin towers left wreckage so why didnt the pentagon leave wreakage? Also there was a explosion when it crashed if you happened to finish watching the video you would see it was like a bullet, it went right through the wall then exploded. 757's doesnt just disintegrate that easily you'd need hundreds of thousands of degree's for it to do so.

 
quote:

This has also happened in other airplane crashes. If you've ever seen pictures of a similar crash then you'd realize that.


Please back this statement up with proof.

 
quote:

Also given that the plane did penetrate into the structure I wouldn't think there would be too much on the front lawn.


Thats the point a 757 wouldent penetrate it, it would demolish it sending wreckage unto the lawn like that happened with the twin towers.



    
quote:

Yeah the author shows a very smokey, unclear photographic, and then claims the hole is only 16ft in diameter. I wonder how he managed to calculate that given the fact the picture is so smokey and I can barely even make out the impact site. I've read and heard that the hole was actually closer to 60 ft, not anywhere near 16ft like the author claims. I'll have to look around a bit more.



Again... back your statements up. Show us a source for your claims.


quote:

I don't see why this is that hard to believe. These planes have a large mass, and it was supposedly travelling at a high velocity. Thats a simple recipe for desctruction if you ask me.


From what your claim the plane's that hit the twin towers would of gone right through them punching a hole in the towers and coming out the other side. Did the happen? No you had wreckage and alot of it. If a 757 hit the pentagon it wouldent leave clear holes it would leave alot of wreckage and bodies of the passagers which none were present.

quote:

I've actually read that the hole on the outer ring was closer to 60 ft and if thats the case I can see the engines as being part of twhat made a hole that large.



Last time a checked planes didnt have a complete circular shape and werent 60 feet tall.



quote:

There's actually a tad more than 3 pieces that were identified. Just search around and you'll see.


Source? Again back this statement up.


quote:

One thing that irks me about this is that author never backs up his claims with any mathematics. He merely assumes that the planes should've made a larger hole, couldn't have punched throught that much of the building and many other things.


This reminds me of someone very similar... someone i'm debating with on this forum.


---

26/Mar/06, 8:08 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM
 
Furiae Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Omnislash
 


Reg: 09-2005
Posts: 3561
Greatness: 157 (+174/-17)
Reply Quote
9/11 hoax


http://gprime.net/flash.php/911pentagonstrikeconspiracy

You know? This guy has a point. He shows pictures and gives a clear overview. When you see that film, it's hard to believe an airplane ever flew into the pentagon. It's just five minutes, but he does ask some very good questions in it.

Last edited by Furiae, 27/Mar/06, 12:56 pm
26/Mar/06, 9:52 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN
 
Sparky77275 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Omnislash
 


Reg: 09-2005
Loc: Ireland
Posts: 6371
Greatness: 127 (+188/-61)
Reply Quote
9/11 hoax


I bet grenseals next post will be pages an pages long emoticon revolutionary ninja said all the things i was going to say in one way or another so meh. And dieuw i'll have a look at that later once i'm home from college.

---

29/Mar/06, 2:28 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: 9/11 hoax


quote:

That defies the law of physics. Please tell me how a 80 ton aircraft going at 500-600 MPH would manuever like a jet fighter or missle with Earth's gravity.



    Did you not read what I wrote??? The air traffic controller never said it WAS a jet or missile, simply that he thought it wasn't a 757 becuase they aren't typically flown in that manner. I think its a pretty large leap in logic to immediately conclude that because of that quote whatever he saw had to be a jet fighter or a missile. I also don't know how sharp of a turn the aircraft made, I've been unable to find out any actual numbers on that. Given that how can you conclude that it defies the laws of physics??? Which law and how???


quote:

Can you back up this claim by showing us these eyewitness interviews.



   http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

 There's a ton of them listed here. I've read some and many say they saw a large airliner crash into the pentagon. This website http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/911_dump_of_Pentagon_quotes.html

also has a bunch of them.

quote:

80 tons of metal does not disintegrate that easly the twin towers left wreckage so why didnt the pentagon leave wreakage? Also there was a explosion when it crashed if you happened to finish watching the video you would see it was like a bullet, it went right through the wall then exploded. 757's doesnt just disintegrate that easily you'd need hundreds of thousands of degree's for it to do so.



   Uh the pentagon did leave wreckage, I can see that in the movie itself. Take another look.

It was like a bullet and then exploded??? There is plenty of eyewitness accounts of seeing a large explosion. I don't see why this couldn't occur with a large airliner. They are packed with fuel you know.

And no it wouldn't need hundreds of thousands of degrees to to disintegrate. Also it didn't disintegrate. I saw plenty of shredded metal in the movie that could've come from a plane.
Go down to Part 7 on this website, http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm#8 and look at the pictures. It sure looks like plane parts to me. I don't see why you think such a violent crash wouldn't warp and shred an aircraft.


quote:

Please back this statement up with proof.



  I remember when a C-130 crashed into a building in Iran.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/c130crash.html

There also another link at the bottom of that page with another picture which shows not much recognizable debris. Like I said before, violent crashes and explosions tend to destroy whatever creted those inicdents.


quote:

Thats the point a 757 wouldent penetrate it, it would demolish it sending wreckage unto the lawn like that happened with the twin towers.



   So it would demolish the aircraft and still send large amount of wreckage everywhere??? That doesn't make sense. I have yet to see any mathematical proof that a 757 couldn't penetrate the pentagon as far as it did. You and the author of that video are just assuming it couldn't.

quote:

Again... back your statements up. Show us a source for your claims.



 I've seen claims to both and I can't determine whether or not the hole was 16 or 60 feet.

quote:

From what your claim the plane's that hit the twin towers would of gone right through them punching a hole in the towers and coming out the other side. Did the happen? No you had wreckage and alot of it. If a 757 hit the pentagon it wouldent leave clear holes it would leave alot of wreckage and bodies of the passagers which none were present.



   Well I never said they would go all the way through the wtc so thanks for putting words in my mouth. I'm not a master of the physics behind all of this.

And the crash into the pentagon did leave holes. Look at the pictures again. I also wouldn't think the plane would punch an outline of itself into the pentagon. That just seems unreasonable. I also wouldn't think there would be too many bodies as there was a large explosion and a fire. Fire burns things which includes the human body. I'll let you figure out the rest.


quote:

Last time a checked planes didnt have a complete circular shape and werent 60 feet tall.



  Did I ever say that hole was a perfect circle??? No, but nice try.

quote:

Source? Again back this statement up.



  The video itself and you can also refer to the link of the debris I sent above.

quote:

This reminds me of someone very similar... someone i'm debating with on this forum.



  Yes that would be both you and I. I know I can't back up everything I say with math but then again i'm not claiming a missile hit the pentagon. If you're going to make a claim like that it should be based on more than just assumptions and speculation.



I generally don't like conspiracy theories at all and this one fits the bill for one. There are so many eyewitness accounts of people seeing a plane and yet you have people trying to insist it was a missile. All of those people who gave accounts would have to be paid and would have to keep silent. Thats pretty much the basis of most conspiracy theories. It kills me that people don't believe we landed on the moon and other rubbish like that. So many people would have to be silent and not blow a whistle that it borders on not being very credible. Also there never seems to be any solid evidence to support them other than idle speculation and assumption.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

1/Apr/06, 2:37 am Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 
RevolutionaryNinja Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Black Waltz
 


Reg: 12-2005
Posts: 222
Greatness: -6 (+9/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: 9/11 hoax


  
quote:

Did you not read what I wrote??? The air traffic controller never said it WAS a jet or missile, simply that he thought it wasn't a 757 becuase they aren't typically flown in that manner. I think its a pretty large leap in logic to immediately conclude that because of that quote whatever he saw had to be a jet fighter or a missile. I also don't know how sharp of a turn the aircraft made, I've been unable to find out any actual numbers on that. Given that how can you conclude that it defies the laws of physics??? Which law and how???

Ask yourself that... Your a fool if you believe a 80 ton aircraft can manuever like a jet fighter. 757's usually lose alot/all of its balance and altitude if it makes very sharp turns.



   
quote:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html


Do you have any proof that these people exist? I was expecting actually video of people describing it not typed on a page which even a kid could fake. Also get proof from something NOT MADE BY THE US GOVERMENT. Also why did the FBI seize whatever video survilence of that object and the crash (except for that very blury 3 second video)?



quote:

There's a ton of them listed here. I've read some and many say they saw a large airliner crash into the pentagon. This website http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/911_dump_of_Pentagon_quotes.html

also has a bunch of them.



You know something i just relized... the fact these people were never interviewed by the news or any major media but they were interviewed by a website which doesnt even have 100,000 hits yet. Also the fact they were written not video'd pretty much kills the possibility these people even exist.



quote:

Uh the pentagon did leave wreckage, I can see that in the movie itself. Take another look.


Who said it didnt? I said that a 757 would leave alot more.

quote:

It was like a bullet and then exploded??? There is plenty of eyewitness accounts of seeing a large explosion. I don't see why this couldn't occur with a large airliner. They are packed with fuel you know.


Think to yourself how would a aircraft that large dig into a wall and sorta explode inside of it? In that video i showed and furiae showed , a part which showed the impact and the explosion. Such explosions are much similar to that showen in war video's.

quote:

no it wouldn't need hundreds of thousands of degrees to to disintegrate. Also it didn't disintegrate. I saw plenty of shredded metal in the movie that could've come from a plane.


Then show us show us picture of the wreckage.

quote:

Then point it out to all of us to see.
Go down to Part 7 on this website, http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm#8 and look at the pictures. It sure looks like plane parts to me. I don't see why you think such a violent crash wouldn't warp and shred an aircraft.


There arnt any pics on the link you have provided just written claims. Also according to pretty much every other airplane crash large planes leave wreckage. Why is this the only one that hasnt left any wreckage?


 
quote:

I remember when a C-130 crashed into a building in Iran.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/c130crash.html


That has nothing to do with the question i asked. I asked for you to show me pics and links showing that those clear hole's were 60 feet in diameter. But since you posted that i would like to ask why you are comparing a bomber to a 757? Also considering the fact it was a military aircraft it would carry things unknown to civilian that the goverment would cover up for obvious reasons. Also the building that was hit did not have any clear holes unlike the pentagon. It left a giant gap which the one on the pentagon didnt do.

quote:

There also another link at the bottom of that page with another picture which shows not much recognizable debris. Like I said before, violent crashes and explosions tend to destroy whatever creted those inicdents.

Then the same thing would of happened with the wtc planes it crashed into a building hundreds of feet above the streets then had a building collapse on top of it and still lefts wreckage. The nose of one of the planes was even intact.




quote:

So it would demolish the aircraft and still send large amount of wreckage everywhere???

Yeah remember the WTC? It destroyed the aircraft and send parts of it everywhere.

 
quote:

That doesn't make sense. I have yet to see any mathematical proof that a 757 couldn't penetrate the pentagon as far as it did. You and the author of that video are just assuming it couldn't.


Its not mathmetical proof its common sense ask yourself how it could?
And prove that it could.




quote:

Well I never said they would go all the way through the wtc so thanks for putting words in my mouth.I'm not a master of the physics behind all of this.


I wasnt putting words in your mouth i was telling you that from your theory that would happen because of its "high velocity and mass"
 

quote:

And the crash into the pentagon did leave holes. Look at the pictures again. I also wouldn't think the plane would punch an outline of itself into the pentagon. That just seems unreasonable.


As unrealistic as making a clean clear hole. It would be more realistic for it to make a hole in a shape of the plane then of one that doesnt.

 
quote:

I also wouldn't think there would be too many bodies as there was a large explosion and a fire. Fire burns things which includes the human body. I'll let you figure out the rest.


Yeah burn so it would leave burnt bodies. They didnt even find any human ashes. I'll let you figure out the rest.

 
quote:

Did I ever say that hole was a perfect circle??? No, but nice try.


No and i never said you did but the pictures do, so nice try.


quote:

he video itself and you can also refer to the link of the debris I sent above.


Last time i checked planes werent made of concrete. Also show us pics showing the debris.


quote:

Yes that would be both you and I. I know I can't back up everything I say with math but then again i'm not claiming a missile hit the pentagon. If you're going to make a claim like that it should be based on more than just assumptions and speculation.


When a goverment like the US has commited such evil acts upon the humanity and the Earth as the US goverment anything is possible. They claim that Ronald Reagan took down the Berlin wall but in fact it was planned for demolition years before. This is far more then math or physics its common sense.


quote:

I generally don't like conspiracy theories at all and this one fits the bill for one. There are so many eyewitness accounts of people seeing a plane and yet you have people trying to insist it was a missile.
All of those people who gave accounts would have to be paid and would have to keep silent. Thats pretty much the basis of most conspiracy theories.


Then why were these people interviewed by some website that doesnt even have 50,000 hits and not by some news station? Why werent these interviews video taped like MOST eyewitness interview's are. You dont even know if these people exist all you have are names written on a site with quote's, anyone could make a website and make witnesses and make claims that they witness something. Untill i see these interviews coming from the mouths of these people they currentlly do not exist. Also if the goverment does not have anything to hide then why did they seize video footage of the object and the crash? Except for that blury 3 second video).

 
quote:

It kills me that people don't believe we landed on the moon and other rubbish like that. So many people would have to be silent and not blow a whistle that it borders on not being very credible. Also there never seems to be any solid evidence to support them other than idle speculation and assumption.


Actually yes there was, ask yourself how did a country standing on the edge of oblivion do something that another stable country with superior technology didnt? Again it isnt speculation and assumption its common sense that make people think this way. I have seen Hollywood
movie setups much better that that of the Background in the space footage. Also the radiation shield would of killed the astronats at the time.


Last edited by RevolutionaryNinja, 1/Apr/06, 4:49 am


---

1/Apr/06, 4:45 am Link 2 this post Email   PM
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: 9/11 hoax


quote:

Ask yourself that... Your a fool if you believe a 80 ton aircraft can manuever like a jet fighter. 757's usually lose alot/all of its balance and altitude if it makes very sharp turns.



  Once again we don't have any actual numbers as to how sharp a turn was made therefore I cannot make any conclusions as to what was actually flying.

quote:

Do you have any proof that these people exist? I was expecting actually video of people describing it not typed on a page which even a kid could fake. Also get proof from something NOT MADE BY THE US GOVERMENT. Also why did the FBI seize whatever video survilence of that object and the crash (except for that very blury 3 second video)?



    In case you didn't notice the page provides links to the sources of all the quotes, many of which happen to come from new sources. Also it doesn't matter if it was a video or not, you would claim that the people were simply acting and weren't telling the truth just to further the misinformation. You'd then say it was common sense that they would do that.

quote:

You know something i just relized... the fact these people were never interviewed by the news or any major media but they were interviewed by a website which doesnt even have 100,000 hits yet. Also the fact they were written not video'd pretty much kills the possibility these people even exist.



    Once again defer to my statement above.

quote:

Think to yourself how would a aircraft that large dig into a wall and sorta explode inside of it? In that video i showed and furiae showed , a part which showed the impact and the explosion. Such explosions are much similar to that showen in war video's.



   Well first off the plane would've been travelling quite fast, and I don't think it would have too much trouble breaking through the walls. Once again I'll just claim this as common sense.
    Lol the explosions were similar. I find it very odd that you are resorting to saying the explosions looked similar. To me its very hard to tell the difference between large fiery explosions.

quote:

Then show us show us picture of the wreckage.


 
   Take a look at the video again and you'll see it , that is unless you don't want to see it.

quote:

There arnt any pics on the link you have provided just written claims. Also according to pretty much every other airplane crash large planes leave wreckage. Why is this the only one that hasnt left any wreckage?



   Uh yeah there is, you simply have to make a small effort to go down to Part 7, like I instructed and you will see some pictures. Of course that won't be enough for you but the points stands that there are some pictures of it.

quote:

That has nothing to do with the question i asked. I asked for you to show me pics and links showing that those clear hole's were 60 feet in diameter. But since you posted that i would like to ask why you are comparing a bomber to a 757? Also considering the fact it was a military aircraft it would carry things unknown to civilian that the goverment would cover up for obvious reasons. Also the building that was hit did not have any clear holes unlike the pentagon. It left a giant gap which the one on the pentagon didnt do.



    All you said was "Please back this statement up with proof". Am I supposed to now read your mind??? Also a C-130 isn't a bomber, they are large transport aircraft. I guess that statement is part of your common sense.
   And also why do you think every plane crash should be close to identical??? The building these planes crashed into were constructed differently and out of different materials. IF they did look identical I would find that strange.


quote:

Then the same thing would of happened with the wtc planes it crashed into a building hundreds of feet above the streets then had a building collapse on top of it and still lefts wreckage. The nose of one of the planes was even intact.



Refer above.


quote:

Yeah remember the WTC? It destroyed the aircraft and send parts of it everywhere.



   And if you'll look at some of those pictures in the movie and on the website I gave you'll see debris.

quote:

Its not mathmetical proof its common sense ask yourself how it could?
And prove that it could.


 
  I would rather rely on some mathematical data then simple common sense when it comes to the physics of a plane crashing into something.

quote:

I wasnt putting words in your mouth i was telling you that from your theory that would happen because of its "high velocity and mass"



   Once again you are assuming the same thing would happen with not a shred of evidence to support it.

quote:

As unrealistic as making a clean clear hole. It would be more realistic for it to make a hole in a shape of the plane then of one that doesnt.



  Not really considering that parts of the plane aren't made of heavyweight materials. I would expect a simple hole rather than the exact outline of the aircraft.


quote:

Yeah burn so it would leave burnt bodies. They didnt even find any human ashes. I'll let you figure out the rest.



  Well good luck trying to find a human ash amidst all the other ashes of what burned that day. This also begs the question of what happened to people who were on that flight??? I guess they were killed by the government to keep them silent.

quote:

No and i never said you did but the pictures do, so nice try.



 I guess you need to retake elementary geometry then.


quote:

Last time i checked planes werent made of concrete. Also show us pics showing the debris.


 
 Once again refer above.


quote:

When a goverment like the US has commited such evil acts upon the humanity and the Earth as the US goverment anything is possible. They claim that Ronald Reagan took down the Berlin wall but in fact it was planned for demolition years before. This is far more then math or physics its common sense.



  Commone sense isn't enough to prove what you are claiming thought. Its good for assuming things but not for proving.

quote:

Then why were these people interviewed by some website that doesnt even have 50,000 hits and not by some news station? Why werent these interviews video taped like MOST eyewitness interview's are. You dont even know if these people exist all you have are names written on a site with quote's, anyone could make a website and make witnesses and make claims that they witness something. Untill i see these interviews coming from the mouths of these people they currentlly do not exist. Also if the goverment does not have anything to hide then why did they seize video footage of the object and the crash? Except for that blury 3 second video).



     Once again if you actually bothered to look at one of the sites I gave you it actually links back to all the sources from the quotes. Some of them are GASP!, by news stations.
   I don't know why they seized the footage.

quote:

Actually yes there was, ask yourself how did a country standing on the edge of oblivion do something that another stable country with superior technology didnt? Again it isnt speculation and assumption its common sense that make people think this way. I have seen Hollywood
movie setups much better that that of the Background in the space footage. Also the radiation shield would of killed the astronats at the time.



   Good lord here we go again. I'll have to make another topic on this one.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

1/Apr/06, 5:34 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 


Add a reply

Page  1  2  3  4  5 






You are not logged in (Login) Or Register an account

Local Business Directory, Search Engine Submission & SEO Tools