Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
National Security Alert - Pentagon Video
-
16-06-2009 10:49pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The lampposts are alongside one of the main highways in Washington. A plane coming in with that trajectory and speed isn't going to be able to bank away from the pentagon no matter how much the video suggests it did. How many witnesses, out of the hundreds, saw the plane fly away? How many witnesses saw the plane arrive at or fly over the international airport?
I actually dont think you have watched the video either buddy!
The flight path which the (reliable) witnesses corroborate makes it doubtful that the lightpoles were hit by it so they (CIT) postulate that the poles were downed by someone else. I can't see that happening without someone noticing.
Overall its a good video. Well presented, altough I do believe the narration could have held back on drawing conclusions, because thats when people look the other way or disregard it.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is a discussion forum, not a video watching forum. Honestly for any observer who wants to be neutral watching these videos is really hard going. There are leaps in logic all over the place. Stuff like the taxi driver isn't a reliable witness then relying on some select eyewitnesses to place the planes position in the sky. Ignoring completely what doesn't fit the story they are peddling. I like documentaries but I really have trouble with ones that are nothing short of propaganda.
So since this is a discussion forum why don't we address specific points, the nitty gritty an' all that.Hang on a sec now, I don't have it in front of me but I'm pretty sure I read eye witness accounts saying they saw the plane knocking down the lampposts. One of the lampposts hit a taxi, a taxi which was next to other cars on a busy highway, how the hell could you fake that?
I think what we're discussing here is the video. There is probably tons of contradictory evidence out there, but none of it is showing up here in this thread. Aside from that, the taxi driver is being shown to be unreliable because he claims to be somewhere else at the time. I'm with Nick on this, they should have left him alone. It looks like they're trying to embarrass the poor guy. Or make out he has some knowledge of a conspiracy. Although he did hint that he had some knowledge of things. HArdly a reliable witness though imo. Maybe he's the mandatory dis-info agent here.
Nick_oliveri wrote:Someone would have noticed them on the ground that morning or the night before im sure. It is weird that all except for lightpole #1 are "out of the way" but they are still visible.
If the south parking lot witness that saw the plane after the explosion saw it over this parking lot it would mean that it continued to bank right and went towards/near the Airport. Hypothetically..of course.
Having spent some time in the States over the years, I personally wouldn't be surprised if nobody had seen poles on the ground prior to the incident. America is noticeably short of footpaths. From some of the pics of the scene there don't appear to be any footpaths in the area, but plenty of armco barriers everywhere. These are not easy to see over from the average car.
edit: I googled "i saw the plane hit the pentagon" and this was the top result.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
I have no idea if its a "truther" site or not, but some of these eye witness accounts make interesting reading.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
So, I decided to give this video a shot.
Hi bonkey,
I discovered this forum while doing a search to find feedback on this documentary. It seems like it has been rather well received by the people here who have viewed it so I feel compelled to reply to your "shot" at a debunk. Please don't take offense as I have not joined for the purpose of being confrontational.
Let's be clear that you have chosen to limit your response to "chapter A" that has been clearly titled "A prima facie case for deception".I'll skip the preamble, and go straight to the content, which starts around 1:20.
The description for "prima facie" on wikepedia is as follows:
So in other words, none of the information that you have addressed was presented as conclusive or irrefutable, and as clearly stated in the "preamble" that you chose not to address, the producers were merely going over some of the general information that inspired the initial questions and suspicions, which they explain is why they launched their independent investigation uncovering the actual evidence presented in the body of the film, which is all that they cite as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a deception. The evidence that you have made a conscious effort to not view.Prima facie (pronounced /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃiː/, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight.
Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.
Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: at this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial.
But I will address your partial and inappropriate attempt to rebut the prima facie case presented anyway.
I'm sorry but I don't find the logic to be "ass-about-face" in the least.
1:24 : "Unlike the attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon was not broadcast on live television"
The first attack on the World Trade Center wasn't broadcast live either. The second attack was broadcast, only because the cameras were there as a result of the first tower being struck. Surely the producers have their logic ass-about-face here? Surely it have been suspicious if someone was set up at the Pentagon, broadcasting live, telling us that a plane was about to hit the building?
The normal state of affairs is that the Pentagon is not covered on live television. That it wasn't being shown on live telecision when it was attacked is, therefore, not suspicious, but rather perfectly normal.
1. While it's true that the 1st attack on the WTC was not caught on live tv it was captured on camera by an independent source, the Naudet brothers.
2. The filmmakers did not claim that there is reason to believe that the Pentagon attack should have been caught on live tv. What they claimed is the lack of footage and images of the attack left what happened mired in mystery and debate. Surely you aren't questioning this claim are you?
So the message I got from this claim in the documentary is that the lack of clear or independent footage/images of the attack only fueled initial questions and suspicions. Whether or not you personally experienced these questions or suspicions or whether or not you consider such questions warranted, I don't think you can successfully argue the notion that these suspicions did not exist.
Again this goes back to the clearly stated "prima facie" context within which this was mentioned. The producers did not make this claim as conclusive or irrefutable "proof" of anything whatsoever nor did they state the single page of the document shown over the narrative consisted of the dozens of confiscated videos referenced.1:30 : "In fact, within the first hours of the attack. the FBI had confiscated video from dozens of locations, the vast majority of which has never been released".
This is accompanied by a screen shot showing that 5 videos were recovered from "post-attack Pentagon crime scene" (undated). An additional 13 videos are listed as being received on the 25/9, one of which is noted as containing Pentagon footage. An additional 8 are listed from 11/10, with no information other than that they were from a search of a residence in Avanel New Jersey.
The list shows an additional heading of material from 15/10, but no additional content.
So the author is claiming that dozens of videos were seized within hours, but shows a document which lists five videos seized. Maybe dozens were seized, but the producer is providing no evidence of such, and is instead showing evidence that contradicts their own claims.
To be honest, it sounds like a rehash of this old claim
So unless you are arguing that there were NOT dozens of video tapes confiscated you really have no point at all.
But let me save you the time from bothering to try to make this argument by providing you with a source for the rest of pages of the document shown:
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu1.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu2.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu3.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu4.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu5.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu6.jpg
While you may have a technical point here, it does nothing to address the evidence presented in the documentary for a deception nor does it detract from the overall point the filmmakers were trying to make for a "prima facie" case.1:42 : All of the images that the public does have were taken in the aftermath of the event
Untrue...or at least misleading. There are two videos which show the event as it happens - the Pengaton gate-camera videos.
The security gate video wasn't officially released until 2006, was not provided from an independent source, nor is it clear footage of the attack or initial physical damage. Most feel that it has only fueled questions and suspicions rather than solving them which holds entirely true to the point the producers were making. If you are arguing that this isn't the case and that the government controlled and provided security video has cleared up all questions regarding the physical nature of the attack, you might have a relevant point here but I have a feeling you might agree that this would be a rather difficult argument to make.
Agreed?
Actually that is exactly what the producers are saying here. There is absolutely nothing directly linking the image of the alleged black box OR the image of the alleged plane part with a serial # to Flight 77 or tail #N644AA.2:10 : None have been positively identified as belonging to flight 77 or tail number N644aa
Not even the black box, which was retrieved in a usable state?
Mark Roberts' site also has some information, including a pic of a piece of wreckage which clearly has a part-number on it.
I'll accept that there are people who don't accept that there has been positive identification, but that's not quite what the producers are saying here.
Indeed, both images were released by the Pentagon in their 2008 released book "Pentagon 9/11" without photographer credit. There is no way to tell that they were even taken at the Pentagon and even if they were, it is impossible to know when they were taken as it could very well have been years after the attack.
Again, the producers did not make this claim as conclusive or irrefutable "proof" of anything, but merely referenced it as one of the factors that helped fuel initial questions and suspicions. Whether or not you personally experienced these questions or suspicons or whether or not you consider such questions warranted, I don't think you can succesfully argue the notion that these suspicions did not exist.2:15 : No large fuselage sections, wings, or recognisable pieces of the tail, as is usually the case after a plane-crash
Well, yes, but a usual plane-crash doesn't involve a pilot deliberately smashing into a building at high-speed. Normally, we expect pilots to try and avoid crashing, and to do everything in their power to minimise impact.
This was not a usual crash, so suggesting that it does not exhibit features we normally see in a crash is, again, misleading.
Once again your argument is irrelevant to the "prima facie" context within which this question was raised. Furthermore the producers most certainly did show a composite image depicting the full extent of the damage at 1:52 and 2:37 as they made this point so it seems as though you are the one being misleading about what was presented.2:32 : the pre-collapse damage of the building seemed incompatible with the dimensions of the 757. .
Again misleading. There is no single image of the building pre-collapse which shows the entire width of impacted area.
Here is an example of a composite image, pre-collapse, which shows the full extent of the damage. Compare it to the relatively narrow focus of the images in the video.
I find it rather incredible that you would fail to watch the actual evidence for a deception presented in the video while focusing so much attention on the clearly labeled "prima facie" case.So...I've spent over half an hour, and managed to get a scant 2:35 or so into the video because I wanted to note what I felt was misleading or wrong about it...and half of that was the preamble that I just skipped over.
My opinion thus far is that its nothing new. At best, its selectively choosing what sources it has chosen to believe/use, but stating claims based on those sources as absolutes.
Maybe it has something worthwhile later on, but I have to be honest...if it does, one still has to ask why the producers are leading with such a poor opening.
So...can anyone who's watched it through, or at least further then me, give me a time-point that they feel is worth watching?
What's even more notable is how you created the impression of a thorough "debunk" of this prima facie case while actually failing to even address the two most definitive claims mentioned.
1. The conspicuous lack of damage to the foundation despite the fact that the ASCE Building Performance Report depicts at least half of the left engine burrowing into it:
2. The physics of flight when considering the final NTSB reported altitude of 699 feet above sea level combined with the final NTSB reported speed of 460 knots proving the required descent and pull up to hit the light poles and enter the building low and level as required by the physical damage to be mathematically impossible:
If you have an argument against this part of the prima facie case for deception I'd like to hear it, but even more importantly, I'd like to hear if you have an argument against the actual evidence for a deception provided in the body of the presentation.0 -
FalseFlagBurner wrote: »I discovered this forum while doing a search to find feedback on this documentary. It seems like it has been rather well received by the people here who have viewed it so I feel compelled to reply to your "shot" at a debunk.
I'm not trying to debunk anything. I was responding to posters who were advocating that people watch it, without making an argument why it was worth watching. I offered an explanation as to why, within the first few minutes of content, I saw nothing to convince me that this was worth watching through. I explicitly asked that someone who has watched it point me at some part they felt was worth watching.
I don't feel I can comment on the full content of the video at all, given that I haven't watched it. I can only say that the content I've watched thus far has not convinced me that the rest of it is worth watching. I appealed to those who were advocating a discussion on the video to point me at something they felt was worth watching, so that I could watch it and we could then discuss it.
I've tried to limit myself to commenting on the content that I've watched, which I've clearly indicated in terms of time. I've no idea how much further the authors continue to make their prima facie case, nor whether or not they include further content which makes my arguments redundant.Let's be clear that you have chosen to limit your response to "chapter A" that has been clearly titled "A prima facie case for deception".
Thats not entirely accurate.So in other words, none of the information that you have addressed was presented as conclusive or irrefutable, and as clearly stated in the "preamble" that you chose not to address, the producers were merely going over some of the general information that inspired the initial questions and suspicions, which they explain is why they launched their independent investigation uncovering the actual evidence presented in the body of the film, which is all that they cite as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a deception. The evidence that you have made a conscious effort to not view.
The case being made was prima facie. I don't argue for a second that the case which will be made in the entirety of "chapter A" should be complete. What I would argue is that the information presented, from which the case is built, should be clearly distinguished between fact and interpretation, assumption, argument, or basically anything that is not fact. Anything which is presented as a statement of fact should be uncontestably true. Anything which is not uncontestably true should, in a perfect world, be dealt with as part of the argument once it is moved beyond the stage of "prima facie".
At least we're agreed that the claim made was inaccurate....thats a good start1. While it's true that the 1st attack on the WTC was not caught on live tv it was captured on camera by an independent source, the Naudet brothers.
2. The filmmakers did not claim that there is reason to believe that the Pentagon attack should have been caught on live tv. What they claimed is the lack of footage and images of the attack left what happened mired in mystery and debate. Surely you aren't questioning this claim are you?
As for the video content resulting in the issue being mired in mystery and debate...the attacks on both towers were, as you say, captured on film. To argue that a lack of video resulted in mystery and debate, I assume your position is that there is no mystery or debate regarding the towers and what happened to them?
The claim made was that within hours dozens of video tapes from various locations were seized. This claim was made specifically regarding the attacks on the Pentagon.So unless you are arguing that there were NOT dozens of video tapes confiscated you really have no point at all.
But let me save you the time from bothering to try to make this argument by providing you with a source for the rest of pages of the document shown:
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu1.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu2.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu3.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu4.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu5.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu6.jpg
My argument - which is backed up by the document shown in the video (and which you've been so kind as to link to here) - is that this claim is both false and misleading. It is false, in that the "dozens of videos" were not seized within hours of the attacks, unless you redefine "hours" to mean "weeks". In addition, of the videos identified, it is clear that most do not related to the Pentagon attack at all.
Had the authors wished to stick to fact, then they should have said that within weeks of the attacks, dozens of videos were seized, an unknown quantity of which were related to the Pentagon attacks in some way. Of the five videos identifiable as having being seized on the day, four have been released.
Compare that to what they said, and it should be clear why I feel they're doing more (or less) than merely presenting information./
Not having watched it, I'd not presume to comment on whether or not it does anything to address the evidence presented. My point, rather, is that for the purpose of a discussion forum such as this, I didn't see sufficient merit in the first few minutes to just buy into the contentless "watch the video" arguments presented thus far.While you may have a technical point here, it does nothing to address the evidence presented in the documentary for a deception nor does it detract from the overall point the filmmakers were trying to make for a "prima facie" case.
I would additionally agree that an individual point such as this does not detract significantly from whatever argument it is contributing to in a larger context. The problem is that - for me at least - it wasn't an individual point. Rather, it was one of a litany of such points....which when taken together begin to suggest that what is being presented as "information" is not - strictly speaking - limiting itself to fact.
I'm agreed that the security tape was officially released.The security gate video wasn't officially released until 2006, was not provided from an independent source, nor is it clear footage of the attack or initial physical damage. Most feel that it has only fueled questions and suspicions rather than solving them which holds entirely true to the point the producers were making. If you are arguing that this isn't the case and that the government controlled and provided security video has cleared up all questions regarding the physical nature of the attack, you might have a relevant point here but I have a feeling you might agree that this would be a rather difficult argument to make.
Agreed?
Frames from it were originally leaked from an independant source, but either which way...the argument is independence is moving the goalposts. No argument was made in the video (at least in the portion that I have addressed) about the importance of independence.
Similarly, I'm not suggesting that the video has cleared up all questions. I'm merely suggesting that the statement made in the video was false.
Given that you stressed that this was a prima facie argument yourself, I'd like to remind you of that. I'm not saying that the argument is incomplete....I'm saying that the information presented on which the argument is based is inaccurate.
The black box of the plane which was recovered as part of the wreckage is positive identification.Actually that is exactly what the producers are saying here. There is absolutely nothing directly linking the image of the alleged black box OR the image of the alleged plane part with a serial # to Flight 77 or tail #N644AA.
Indeed, both images were released by the Pentagon in their 2008 released book "Pentagon 9/11" without photographer credit. There is no way to tell that they were even taken at the Pentagon and even if they were, it is impossible to know when they were taken as it could very well have been years after the attack.
The pictures provided by the Pentagon are positive identification.
It is only when one moves the argument to say that when we exclude all information released by official sources and disregard all positive identification from official sources, that there has been no positive identification. This, however, is not what is claimed in the voiceover. It is, therefore, inaccurate, It is presenting a claim as a simple fact, when in fact, its far from same.
With respect, I'd like to refer back to exactly what was said:Again, the producers did not make this claim as conclusive or irrefutable "proof" of anything,
None have been positively identified as belonging to flight 77 or tail number N644aa.
That is worded as being conclusive. It is presented as a simple fact, when the reality is that the fact is the diametric opposite. The authors could have made the argument that they do not accept any of the positive identification which has been made...but they didn't. They claimed it hadn't been made, period.
I'm not trying to argue any such notion. I'm addressing what the authors presented as information (rather than as argument, or as being conditional in some form) and showing that it is not accurate.I don't think you can succesfully argue the notion that these suspicions did not exist.Furthermore the producers most certainly did show a composite image depicting the full extent of the damage at 1:52 and 2:37 as they made this point so it seems as though you are the one being misleading about what was presented.
The image presented at 1:52 and 2:37 is a computer-generated image. It is not in any way identifiable as being composed of images of the relevant part of the building taken at the time. It may be, it may not be. The actual photos of the building taken from the day, as presented in the video between those two time-points, are all of far closer shots, shots obscured by smoke, or (in one case) are faded out as they zoom out.
I would again refer you back to the last comment in my post, which you seem to have overlooked.I find it rather incredible that you would fail to watch the actual evidence for a deception presented in the video while focusing so much attention on the clearly labeled "prima facie" case.
I watched a short part of the intro, and found it to be very poor. I'm not saying that the rest of the video is poor...I'm saying that the start of it is poor enough that I amn't interested in watching eighty-something minutes of it. In particular, my interest is in the discussion, but as you can see, there's hardly a humming discussion going on, and only one person (before you) was interested enough to provide me with any sort of an idea as to what to look at. When I get time (which I would have had this evening, had I not been replying to you, ironically), I'll look at that part, and see if it changes my opinion.
I certainly intended no such thing. I stated at the end of that post my conclusions from having watched that short snippet were, and in my followup to Nick further clarified my position. In this post, I've gone out of my way to stress this point...I'm "debunking" nothing. I'm pointing out that what was presented as fact is often misleading and/or inaccurate. If I haven't addressed something in the same timeframe of the video, its safe to assume its because I didn't have any major issue with what was presented or how it was presented. If I haven't addressed something from a later point in the video, its safe to assume its because - as I stated - I stopped watching.What's even more notable is how you created the impression of a thorough "debunk" of this prima facie case while actually failing to even address the two most definitive claims mentioned.I'd like to hear if you have an argument against the actual evidence for a deception provided in the body of the presentation.
Again, I haven't watched the video, because I found the quality of argument in the first two and a half minutes to be very poor. I'm not inclined to sit through 80 minutes to find out if teh quality improves.
If you'd like to suggest a section that I could look at, I'm more than willing to look at it, either to see if my initital judgement was in error, or to discuss the points raised in that section.
Alternately, you could give the short version of the evidence presented in written form and we could discuss the argument, rather than the video.
I wouldn't expect everyone to be able to quote chapter and verse from the NCSTAR reports, nor to have read them from start to finish, for example, to be able to voice an opinion on the NIST investigations, findings, nor indeed the collapses of WTC 1, 2 or 7. I believe they're a valuable source of information, and can be a useful reference to link to in a discussion....but only for someone willing to make the argument themselves, rather than just say "go read NIST".
Similarly, I don't believe that it is absolutely and positively necessary to watch a video before being able to discuss the arguments made, unless the person/people you're discussing with are unwilling to make those arguments themselves. Maybe I'm odd in that way...many people here seem to be "watch the video, then we'll discuss it", whereas I'm more of the opinion of "lets discuss the topic, and your argument might compel me to watch the video".
There are too many videos out there, and virtually all of them have someone who fervently believes in the brilliance of it. Most of those videos, however, are not worth much if I'm honest...so I tend to find the "discuss first, watch later" to be a very good way of filtering signal from noise.
To repeat...I haven't watched much of the video. I have a sketchy idea of the argument I think it presents. I've found no-one willing to discuss the content in enough detail to convince me that its worth watching. I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching it...but nor would I endorse it in any way.0 -
-
Again, I haven't watched the video, because I found the quality of argument in the first two and a half minutes to be very poor. I'm not inclined to sit through 80 minutes to find out if teh quality improves.
Fair enough, but as stated in the presentation, that was not the evidence presented for a deception, it was merely a prima facie case simply meant to highlight initial suspicions and what inspired further investigation that led to the actual evidence presented later.
Since you didn't even finish addressing the most significant part of even the prima facie case, I request that you do that and let me know if these two things at least convince you that there were enough questions to justify launching an independent invesitgation as the producers of this presentation have done:
1. The conspicuous lack of damage to the foundation despite the fact that the ASCE Building Performance Report depicts at least half of the left engine burrowing into it:
2. The physics of flight when considering the final NTSB reported altitude of 699 feet above sea level combined with the final NTSB reported speed of 460 knots proving the required descent and pull up to hit the light poles and enter the building low and level as required by the physical damage to be mathematically impossible:
Again, I am not asking if you think these two points are CONCLUSIVE or IRREFUTABLE evidence since they were only presented as part of a prima facie case for deception.
My question is simply this: do these two things at least convince you that there were enough questions to justify launching an independent investigation as the producers of this presentation have done?
Ok great.
If you'd like to suggest a section that I could look at, I'm more than willing to look at it, either to see if my initital judgement was in error, or to discuss the points raised in that section.
That would be chapter C: The North Side Approach Evidence
and chapter
The Flyover/Flyaway Evidence
Because these are the chapters that present the evidence.
No problem. Nick just summed it up pretty well.Alternately, you could give the short version of the evidence presented in written form and we could discuss the argument, rather than the video.
Basically the premise is that all confirmed firsthand witness accounts with the most critical vantage points of the final moment of the flight path unanimously corroborate each other regarding the general placement of the plane as being directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former citgo gas station.
This fatally contradicts all official reports, data, and the physical damage making it impossible for the plane to have hit the building.
You can read about why this is so critical in this short article here:
Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?
In most cases I would agree with you but in this case the evidence presented is in the form of firsthand eyewitness accounts filmed on location.Similarly, I don't believe that it is absolutely and positively necessary to watch a video before being able to discuss the arguments made, unless the person/people you're discussing with are unwilling to make those arguments themselves. Maybe I'm odd in that way...many people here seem to be "watch the video, then we'll discuss it", whereas I'm more of the opinion of "lets discuss the topic, and your argument might compel me to watch the video".
Since eyewitness accounts are ONLY evidence if they are documented firsthand it is imperative to watch their interviews in order to view the evidence. Listening to someone discuss their interviews would amount to you making a decision based on hearsay, and obviously that is not scientific or logical.
Viewing the evidence is imperative for all scientists to make a decision on that evidence.
Agreed?
Agreed but this one is different.There are too many videos out there, and virtually all of them have someone who fervently believes in the brilliance of it. Most of those videos, however, are not worth much if I'm honest...so I tend to find the "discuss first, watch later" to be a very good way of filtering signal from noise.
Please watch from 15:10 to 59:30 in order to view the evidence and let me know what you think.
Thanks for participating!0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement