Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-10-2016, 11:34 AM   #1
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,834
Likes: 986 (538 Posts)
Default 911 holograms

I think Richard D Hall's explanation of a missile hitting the WTC towers disguised as a plane, is, for me, the most satisfactory explanation. I certainly wouldn't say it is far fetched. I agree with him about the planes not being CGI as some claim due to the impossible number of recorded footage that would've needed to have been obtained and manipulated with to show a fake plane. Richard clearly does his research and uses his common sense and weighs up the pros and cons of each scenario/theory and, from that, he makes a rough conclusion of the likely answer, one which would work the best without anything going wrong.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 12:09 PM   #2
oz93666
Senior Member
 
oz93666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 7,476
Likes: 3,607 (1,955 Posts)
Default

Well what is his explanation ? you don't say ...no links ..

How can you disguise a missile as a plane?

IMO ..No planes or misiles hit the towers ... pre-placed explosives and gasoline were detonated at the 'impact points' ... planes 'airbrushed' in for TV footage.

Last edited by oz93666; 28-10-2016 at 12:10 PM.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 12:20 PM   #3
paddy_blake
Senior Member
 
paddy_blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: No Self
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 3,715 (1,870 Posts)
Default

The planes were the missiles.
paddy_blake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 06:52 PM   #4
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,834
Likes: 986 (538 Posts)
Default

No I don't believe the planes were air brushed in or CGI'd in or involved any kind of computer trickery. Far too complex to pull off, plus, as Richard stated in his talk, would be difficult without one piece of video falling through the net. People would've noticed that there were no planes in the sky. I don't think the media can manipulate the mind into believing there were planes at the time when there never was. Something "physical" had to have been there at the time that looked like a plane but was actually something else, something much more robust and penetrable than a plane; as we've learned from the event, no ordinary airliner could possibly slam or dive into the towers like it was a knife through butter.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 07:25 PM   #5
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,982 (2,088 Posts)
Default

I tell you what could cut into the towers like butter, a plane prepped with cutting charges wherever it would touch the outer walls of the tower.
Let's face it they have plenty of mothballed military stuff laying in the desert, they could easily make a few go missing now then.

Same for chem trailing as well.

I see all sorts of holes appearing in the official and conspiratorial theories.

But I wood wood-nt eye.
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 08:59 PM   #6
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,827
Likes: 5,958 (2,989 Posts)
Default

i suggested years ago that there may be secret tech capable of producing a hologram around (say) a cruise missile - so that it would appear to be a plane.

Very dodgy ground though, as is mentioned above, just one blink out of place or sunlight hitting the hologram wrong and being filmed would blow the show open...

My niece was in NYC during the attacks, she said she saw the second plane from her hotel window.

Certainly, i don't believe for a moment that what hit the Pentagon was a plane.

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...hlight=hanjour

No way would Hanjour sit on a plane that takes off twenty miles from its target, wait 40 minutes to hijack it, and then fly for a further 40 - 45 minutes, in a plane he'd never flown before, while the American military are in a state of high emergency having already witnessed the attacks in NYC.

Given that the Twin Towers had been hit twice, and that a flight 77 had gone 'missing' - in very close proximity to the Pentagon - its hard to believe that that would not be investigated with the up-most urgency.

If those points aren't questionable enough:
  • The OS asks us to believe that Hanjour could overpower a pilot who was physically at the top of his game, trained in anti-terrorism tactics and who many considered to be as fit as an ox.
  • The OS asks us to believe that Hanjour performed a miracle manouver over Washington that many trained pilots with hundreds of flight hours in large Boeings would find tricky.
  • Thet he managed that dive in the most highly protected piece of air space in the world.
  • That he was able to fly 20 ft off the ground, at full speed, without going into Ground Effect and hit the Pentagon without any wings or tail piece...
  • And leave absolutely zero evidence of a Boeing anywhere at the site!

Hanjour could not have done any of these things, the CCTV of hotels and petrol stations that he apparently 'flew over' were taken away and classified by FBI, and despite the hundreds of cctv points around the Pentagon, the only footage that was released does not show a plane.

The Pentagon was hit by a missile - there is zero evidence to suggest anything else, and yet people still believe the OS.

I think the WTC was hit by planes, perhaps not the planes that we have been told hit them, they were more than likely military planes kitted out to look like civillian aricraft, packed with explosives.

The WTC was likewise packed with explosives, first respinders state they heard secondary explossions 'boom, boom, boom, boom,' going of just before the collapse(s) - video evidence shws secondary explosions and clouds of smoke below the collapse points, free fall speeds....

We have been told a lie, just how big that lie is is anyones guess, but it is a lie.

Last edited by the mighty zhiba; 28-10-2016 at 09:33 PM.
Likes: (2)
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 09:30 PM   #7
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,982 (2,088 Posts)
Default

Nobody ever goes near the sub level explosions that lifted the janitor off of his feet on the morning, here is the towers Achilles heel, large exosions that erupted up through the lift shafts and blew out the lobby area.
Likes: (1)
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2016, 04:21 PM   #8
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,056
Likes: 1,246 (803 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the mighty zhiba
i suggested years ago that there may be secret tech capable of producing a hologram around (say) a cruise missile - so that it would appear to be a plane.
The elite has stuff we cant even imagine!!


They can pull up in a car ON THE ROAD and listen to every house they pass!! (Whats being said inside)
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2016, 04:28 PM   #9
paddy_blake
Senior Member
 
paddy_blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: No Self
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 3,715 (1,870 Posts)
Default

I think it was David Icke himself that said it wasn't how it was done that is important, it's why it was done. Looking at the details rather than the bigger picture.
paddy_blake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2016, 04:34 PM   #10
whatsinaname
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,294
Likes: 990 (495 Posts)
Default

People are still pushing the hologram plane theory? Blimey!
Likes: (1)
whatsinaname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2016, 01:32 AM   #11
oz93666
Senior Member
 
oz93666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 7,476
Likes: 3,607 (1,955 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy_blake View Post
I think it was David Icke himself that said it wasn't how it was done that is important, it's why it was done. Looking at the details rather than the bigger picture.
Yes ... you're dead right to point that out paddy..

But you haven't responded to my question about your avatar ... whenever I notice it ,it takes my mind into a nasty, violent place ..

Is that the effect you want to have on me and other members ?

Avatars do direct the minds of those who see them , and should be chosen carefully.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2016, 01:49 AM   #12
decim
Senior Member
 
decim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 15,618
Likes: 2,584 (1,447 Posts)
Default

Hollow
G
Ram

Enochian squares, Enochian Angles, Enochian 3Dee chesssss

oo7 Two ball cane

Saucery four shore
__________________
DISCLAIMER: Reader discretion advised. The above post is entirely fictional, for entertainment purposes only. Any similarities to real life events, animals, humans, persons, politicians, or any other form of organisation entity living, dead or in any other state of existence are coincidental. Any opinion, comment or statements related or attributed to this username are not necessarily nor implied to be those held by the ip/computer/username or other electronic media device or service owner/user.
Likes: (1)
decim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 08:13 AM   #13
raburgeson
Senior Member
 
raburgeson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 424 (282 Posts)
Default

The news video shown over and over could have been simple green screen. Bluebeam could have been used but, I doubt it. They have had lots of time to produce the other videos considering the time of their release. The witnesses that saw the plane were low in number and possibly agents and trolls. The real witnesses were only heard for a bit and censored off the net. I have saved many of these. One of the best ones showed the explosions and fire made better sense without the plane. See if you can find that one.
Likes: (1)
raburgeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 08:15 AM   #14
paddy_blake
Senior Member
 
paddy_blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: No Self
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 3,715 (1,870 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Yes ... you're dead right to point that out paddy..

But you haven't responded to my question about your avatar ... whenever I notice it ,it takes my mind into a nasty, violent place ..

Is that the effect you want to have on me and other members ?

Avatars do direct the minds of those who see them , and should be chosen carefully.
It's a scene from the Matrix. Neo is hitting Agent Smith (The System). Shame you didn't get that.
Likes: (1)
paddy_blake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 08:52 AM   #15
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,834
Likes: 986 (538 Posts)
Default

I hadn't considered the possibility that using some hologram type technology disguised as a plane could have mishaps (going invisible then visible) which people would suss what it was. But I'm sure Richard D Hall already considered that likely scenario. From what I gathered from his talk/analysis, he thinks a missile was "cloaked" in an image of a plane. He also put forward the suggedtion that some eyewitnesses seemed confused as to what they were seeing flying towards the WTC: the audio of one witness proclaiming "what the hell is that?", as Richard pointed out, does not indicate that they were seeing a plane but something very odd and out of place. We can only guess, but you could say that this "hologram/cloaked plane" suddenly, at that moment, became uncloaked and revealed what it actually was. However, what was seen on video from the corresponding audio dosent show anything other than a very dark (non commercial looking) airliner. Unless the video only picked up what was meant to be seen and the naked eye was seeing something entirely different. It gets confusing I know.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2016, 05:12 PM   #16
billybleach
Senior Member
 
billybleach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 955
Likes: 340 (181 Posts)
Default

Fake news footage of flight 175

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-YMpU6Y5eJ8
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ_o6...rom=PL&index=9
Saul Williams - Not In Our Name (The Pledge of Resistance)
Likes: (1)
billybleach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 02:45 AM   #17
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,778
Likes: 189 (124 Posts)
Default

“9/11 holograms” have been debunked from 20 different directions and backwards and forwards and upside-down for ages. Where have you been?

The hologram theory claims that all the morons that were supposedly out there “photographing things,” never mind that all of their “photographs” are proven fakes and/or created in an obvious fake CGI 3-D environment, were authentic photographers “fooled by the holograms” that they supposedly photographed! lol Furthermore, THE ENTIRE MEDIA was also fooled by these supposedly “authentic” photographs of “hologram planes.” lol

Except that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the “plane” flight-paths shown in the different videos supposedly representing the same “plane” disappearing like a ghost into the same building, is different, VASTLY different to say the least, not even remotely in the same ballpark (see Simon Shack post links below).

If these were authentic photos of “holograms” that supposedly fooled everybody, then at the very least, the flight paths shown in the different videos would be the same and not WILDLY and RIDICULOUSLY inconsistent with each other.



Flashback:


Simon Shack's total debunks of the silliest 9-11 shills of all, 'the hologram huggers':

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...hilit=hologram

RICHARD HALL'S "RADAR ANALYSIS"
or the latest & silliest hologram shill theory annihilated completely in one post:


http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1246





Quote:


Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS


by simonshack on September 18th, 2014, 1:18 pm
. . .

To be sure, the desperate, multiple and ongoing efforts to shift the blame away from the TV NETWORKS' total complicity with the 9/11 hoax have been relentless over the years. Here are a bunch of them, listed in random order:


- RICHARD HALL'S HOLOGRAM THEORY:
"The planes that eyewitnesses reported seeing hitting the towers were, in actuality, holograms."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

- JUDY WOOD'S DEW-DUSTIFICATION THEORY: "The absurd top-down / pyroclastic tower collapses we all saw on TV can only be explained by the use of exotic / classified weapons (turning the towers into very fine dust). This would also explain the gigantic smoke cloud engulfing Manhattan for the entire day."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired only real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

- JIM FETZER'S NUKE-DUSTIFICATION THEORY: "The absurd top-down / pyroclastic tower collapses we all saw on TV can only be explained by the use of mini nuclear weapons (turning the towers into very fine dust). This would also explain the gigantic smoke cloud engulfing Manhattan for the entire day."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired only real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

- ACE BAKER'S ONLY-FAKE-PLANE-INSERTS THEORY: "The absurd imagery of the sim-hits (the poor animations of "Flight 175" hitting WTC2) was stealthily inserted into (composited on top of) authentic aerial sceneries of Manhattan shot by the TV NETWORKS that morning."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired only real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")
- ANDY TYME'S HIJACKED-TV-FEED THEORY: "The absurd imagery of the sim-hits (the poor animations of "Flight 175" hitting WTC2) was stealthily inserted into the feed beamed to people's TV sets by a clandestine entity - completely unbeknowst to the unwitting TV NETWORKS."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired only real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

Good grief - what will they come up with next? ...
And when will they give us an effing (as opposed to commercial) break?

******
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...W-0MeBOU#t=239
Matt Lauer: "here we go to the tape!"
Katie Couric: "we have the tape!"




http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...91914#p2391914

The most that Wood can claim is that the towers were brought down by some other means than regular controlled demolition with dynamite (the method of literally ALL other controlled demolitions of buildings) because of the so-called bath-tub they were built on which may have flooded all of Manhattan if destroyed. She is a fraud who has not even DONE STEP #1 of all proper criminal investigations: AUTHENTICATION OF EVIDENCE. She has not authenticated EVEN ONE SINGLE IMAGE of the hundreds she uses as a base and foundation for her absurd fear-mongering beam-weapons theory.

The so-called beam weapons are promoted to manipulate people's emotions through FEAR and WONDER

1) Fear monger and scare the shit out of everyone as in "if THEY, the usurocray, have these weapons, then we're all screwed."

2) Marvel-monger and give people the FALSE HOPE that, like Santa Claus and Jesus returning, FREE ENERGY will absolve all of us of all of our individual responsibility for the state of our culture and the state of our usurocracy-shafted and polluted minds and man-made environments.


















Lots more proof that ALL or the VAST MAJORITY of the images related to the 9-11 false-flag PsyOp have been falsified, fabricated or been acted in, including those of the building demolitions and the faked and simulated "victims," over here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224648

or directly on Clues Forum:

"TOUR GUIDE" to the September Clues research by Simon Shack

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477

Quote:

Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible. Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a "virtual" news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a battle that would exist in "effect" though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or "morphed" endlessly to produce any effect chosen. This moves well beyond traditional military deception, and now, perhaps, "pictures" will be worth a thousand tanks. [...]

Excerpt from Professor George J. Stein's 1995 essay "Information Warfare"

http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resource...cles/stein.htm

"Wyndham Lewis was the person who showed me that the man-made environment was a teaching-machine, a PROGRAMMED teaching-machine. Earlier, the Symbolists had discovered that the work of art is a programmed teaching-machine, it's a mechanism for shaping sensibility. Well, Lewis simply extended this private art activity to the corporate activity of the whole society in making environments that basically were artifacts or works of art and acted as teaching-machines upon the whole population." -- Marshall McLuhan

"The essence of lying is in deception, not in words; a lie may be told by silence, by equivocation, by the accent on a syllable, by a glance of the eye attaching a peculiar significance to a sentence; and all these kinds of lies are worse and baser by many degrees than a lie plainly worded; so that no form of blinded conscience is so far sunk as that which comforts itself for having deceived, because the deception was by gesture or silence, instead of utterance; and, finally, according to Tennyson's deep and trenchant line, a lie which is half a truth is ever the worst of lies." — John Ruskin ["Of Vulgarity," 1887]




September Clues – (2008) – Simon Shack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE

September Clues II (Addendum) - (2013) – Simon Shack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD_IgCKpNrY


https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=224648

https://ia801208.us.archive.org/35/i...icles%2012.mp3

https://archive.org/details/@negentropic

Last edited by synergetic67; 18-11-2016 at 02:52 AM.
Likes: (2)
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2017, 03:52 AM   #18
king octopus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 127
Likes: 16 (11 Posts)
Default

Does anyone else remember how there were no videos of the planes hitting the towers untill a few days after the event? Even thought they had a live stream of the towers immediately after the first plane hit they claimed that they had no footage of the planes hitting the towers untill a few days later when they received their first video that showed one of the towers being hit by a commercial airliner.
On that day it was the first time I saw a clip and said "oh there's the commerical airliner they were talking about'. This was before I had read any of David's books I would go on to read my first soon after but at that point I was still oblivious to what was happening.
On September 11th 2001 I was a freshman in highschool and our teachers immediately stopped our classes and all day in every classroom all we did was watch the live feed of the towers. In 2nd period the 2nd' plane' hit live while we watched and at first nobody knew what to make of it. My teacher exclaimed 'did you see that!' and the news reporters said ' it's looks like another plane has hit the other tower, but we'll have to wait to get a confirmation on that.' Seems kind of stupid that they would need confirmation to report something they had seen with their own eyes but years later I finally understood why. The plane I saw hit the 2nd tower live that day did not look like the plane in any other video I have seen since then, and they never replayed the footage I saw at that moment.
The plane I saw was smaller, like a personal aircraft of some kind and there were mixed reports that it was a personal aircraft as well as commercial ones, nobody knew which for sure, but what I saw on that day was a smaller aircraft, what might be described as a drone years later. (This was before drone technology had gotten popular)
That along with the fact that they never played that or any footage of a plane hitting the towers untill a few days later even though ALL the cameras in NYC were pointed that direction convinces me that it was not actually a commercial aircraft that hit the towers but a smaller plane or missle with wings. I believe the videos they show all the time have been edited with some kind of photoshop and that there was no 'hologram' to disguise the missle because if you saw it happen at the very moment it happend you would have seen what I saw. This would not be possible for the first plane unless you were in the city. Also the diffrent weather in alot of the videos is more proof in my opinion that they have been doctored.
My question is how could nobody have any footage of the actual object? Did they turn it into the media and have it altered without saving any of the originals? I'm just glad I was paying attention that day, even though I didnt realize it at the time, it's probably the most important day of my or anyone in my generations lifetime.
Likes: (1)
king octopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2017, 05:47 AM   #19
oz93666
Senior Member
 
oz93666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 7,476
Likes: 3,607 (1,955 Posts)
Default

Some good points in syn's post ... particularly the two photos of the buildings , one 39 the other 59 beams wide , lol ... I can't believe they can be that sloppy , they want to be caught ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by synergetic67 View Post
The most that Wood can claim is that the towers were brought down by some other means than regular controlled demolition with dynamite (the method of literally ALL other controlled demolitions of buildings)
For a start dynamite is NEVER used on steel frame demolitions , it's always thermite/ thermate , and thermate residue was found in the dust of 9/11 ... beyond doubt it was used to 'bring down ' the towers ... Wood agrees and is suggesting exotic weaponry was used to dustify the towers as they fell. she is an excellent source.


Quote:
Originally Posted by king octopus View Post
On September 11th 2001 I was a freshman in highschool and our teachers immediately stopped our classes and all day in every classroom all we did was watch the live feed of the towers. In 2nd period the 2nd' plane' hit live while we watched and at first nobody knew what to make of it. My teacher exclaimed 'did you see that!' and the news reporters said ' it's looks like another plane has hit the other tower, but we'll have to wait to get a confirmation on that.' Seems kind of stupid that they would need confirmation to report something they had seen with their own eyes but years later I finally understood why. The plane I saw hit the 2nd tower live that day did not look like the plane in any other video I have seen since then, and they never replayed the footage I saw at that moment.
The plane I saw was smaller.....

Interesting post octopus .. noticed all classes were stopped , and kids were watching over and over 9/11 .... this would makes shure the event had maximum trauma impact on young minds...

What we know for sure is the official commercial jets did not impact the towers ...a 1000 pilots have said it's not possible for them to perform the maneuvers!!

Also glaring inconsistencies in the footage shows the planes were airbrushed in latter ..

Why would they have anything impact the tower??? Much easier to let off pre planted explosives at 'impact' points.

Perhaps the small plane you saw hit on that day was an early attempt by the news agency at fabrication , which they later withdrew and replaced by a better one ... they know they can get away with anything ... most people are half asleep!
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2017, 09:36 AM   #20
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,834
Likes: 986 (538 Posts)
Default

Richard D Hall provides a very good answer to the alleged video fakery and shows how fakery wasn't used. As he said, it would've been impossible to collect every single piece of video footage from members of the public without one slipping through the net. Far too many people would've surely seen a physical-looking aircraft approach the towers. And yes I know the media reporting can help play tricks on the minds of people by false memories by thinking they've seen a plane when really it's the news story and the images shown on TV that makes you think that's what you saw. But it wouldn't work with everyone who was there that day.

Staying with the hologram thing here, but from watching Richard Hall's new show, I got the impression that they used some kind of hologram over the top of a physical missile. The reason I think this is because of the explosion/debris after the "plane" hits the towers. Yes this could've been timed with an explosion inside the tower to make it appear that it was the plane's impact, but I personally (at this moment in time anyway) think this was impact of the missile that was disguised within the hologram plane. As Richard's guest said, a hologram (or hologram on its own) couldn't hit a physical building only dead air. It's possible that the missile was projecting the hologram off of it. Sounds science fiction, but who knows what technology they have.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.