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

Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

Options
13567…95

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    To you this may sound ridiculous but since we know nothing about the man who found the passport. Why are we ruling out he was involved in the plot? This helps the story finding a hijacker passport at the scene! It very convenient to find a passport for the authorities.

    Because we aren't suspecting a plot and working backwards from there

    But I'll take a risk here and look at the potential possibilities

    Possibility 1. Quite a few items survived the impact and were found, one of these happened to be the passport of one of the attackers, which is quite a coincidence, but these things happen (another hijacker's passport was also found from flight 93). Neither were critical to identifying the hijackers as the investigators knew from countless sources and pieces of evidence who the hijackers were. The ticket data, tracing their movements in the US, their origins, witnesses who met them, people who worked with them on their training. CCTV footage.


    Possibility 2. To theorise (which is dangerous on this forum) that the passport was planted. It means that someone knew exactly who the hijacker was, they knew exactly when the attacks were going to happen (no evidence supports this) On top of that, for some bizarre reason, they decided to create an absolutely perfect copy of one of the hijackers passport, then on the day "hand it in". For what? it didn't achieve anything. The investigators easily identified the hijacker from the reams of other evidence they had pointing toward him.

    Why would they take the risk and effort of blowing their cover just to create a "coincidence" of one of the passports being found? It doesn't achieve anything, all it does it create additional pointless risk.

    It's highly implausible, there's no evidence it was planted, it's make little or no sense - and in context of everything we know, it's a bizarre line of reasoning
    How does a passport fly out of a pocket or a bag it doesn't make any sense that would occur. Once the plane smashes into the tower on the outside of the shell of the plane would explode and fireball would be present.

    This question has been answered several times now. The fact that items survived, some made of paper, other's perishable, proves this.

    Unless you want to put forward that they were all planted?


  • Options
    #63
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    His playing dumb

    If he said aliens did it, would you believe aliens did it?

    Why would he say that? maybe he has dementia? who knows

    Again, he should be pointed out that he is being badgered by conspiracy theorists who have the sole aim of extracting something, anything from him that is "weird" in another to discredit him and thus discredit the case
    A lot of the eyewitnesses accounts differ many saw a plane, a small jet, a small airliner. People forget another jumbo jet was flying over Washington before the attacks, some eyewitnesses could be confused and saw this

    The vast majority of witnesses saw a plane or close enough.. which is consistent with what happened


  • Options
    #64
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    To you this may sound ridiculous but since we know nothing about the man who found the passport. Why are we ruling out he was involved in the plot? This helps the story finding a hijacker passport at the scene! It very convenient to find a passport for the authorities.

    How does a passport fly out of a pocket or a bag it doesn't make any sense that would occur. Once the plane smashes into the tower on the outside of the shell of the plane would explode and fireball would be present.

    More ifs and why nots!


  • Options
    #65
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Because we aren't suspecting a plot and working backwards from there

    But I'll take a risk here and look at the potential possibilities

    Possibility 1. Quite a few items survived the impact and were found, one of these so happened to be the passport of one of the attackers, which is quite a coincidence, but these things happen (another hijacker's passport was found from flight 93). That aside, the investigators knew from countless sources and pieces of evidence who the hijackers were. The ticket data, tracing their movements in the US, their origins, witnesses who met them, people who worked with them on their training. CCTV footage.

    The passport itself was a nice bonus find, but it wasn't critical to the case because there were obviously so many other pointers to the hijackers. It's not like they tried very hard to hide their trail.


    Possibility 2. To theorise (which is dangerous on this forum) that the passport was planted. It means that someone knew exactly who the hijacker was, they knew exactly when the attacks were going to happen - all of that is pretty incredible. But on top of that, for some bizarre reason, they decided to create an absolutely perfect copy of one of the hijackers passport, then on the day itself, "hand it in". For what? it didn't achieve anything. The investigators easily identified the hijacker from the reams of other evidence they had pointing toward him.

    Why would they take the risk and effort of blowing their cover just to create a "coincidence" of one of the passports being found? It doesn't achieve anything, all it does it create additional pointless risk.

    It's highly implausible. On top of that no evidence exists that it was planted.



    This question has been answered several times now. Items survived, some of which were made of paper or flammable materials.


    What can you identify came from the plane (don't include engine parts) we know two planes hit the towers. Catalogue a list of items that I can look at as sure proof this was flight 175 and Flight 11!

    We talk about 93 later we just focus on twin towers and Pentagon for now.

    Again you have to remember if there was a plot the people in charge are going to have the resources and the power to manipulate events on the ground later.

    We have only got two pieces of video footage showing hijackers at the airport. We know the hijackers did dummy runs before 9/11. So where is that footage? Where is the footage of them walking around indoors in the airport facility? There is no video footage of the hijackers prior to 9/11 in America. No photographs, no videos of anything they did and visited. No new surveillance footage of them visiting a shop walking the street?

    They definitely were in America, I agree eyewitnesses saw them, but they don't know who they are connected with (working for) and what their plan was? We have to ignore, the CIA was tracking some of these guys when they entered the country and this information was not passed on as important? why were they not picked up when flagged as leading Al Qaeda operatives involving in planning a major attack against America?

    Origins of the hijackers are murky, we don't much only they are supposedly Saudis trained by Bin Laden group in Afghanistan.


  • Options
    #66
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Then there is the problem why 8 pilots (co-pilots) never radioed into FAA or closest monitoring station the hijack of their plane. Is like the communications were cut to respond? A distress code only takes a minute to punch in.

    Maybe they froze. I have never been in a position like that have you it is quiet possible. Security at that time were a lot more lax then they are now. Maybe the hijackers surprised them and they did not have time. Maybe they did not know the code. You seem to know a lot about procedures around this time can you let me know what the codes are and how you input them.

    Now given I have given you an answer to your question could you for me answer King Mobs question for me please.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The passport being found is a way to identify a hijacker a person involved in the attack. It builds a story for the media and public look we found a passport we caught one of them!


  • Options
    #68
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Wow, with that insight you'll soon have this Saudi/CIA/Israeli/Taxi Driver/lamp post solved in no time!


  • Options
    #69
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    martingriff wrote: »
    Maybe they froze. I have never been in a position like that have you it is quiet possible. Security at that time were a lot more lax then they are now. Maybe the hijackers surprised them and they did not have time. Maybe they did not know the code. You seem to know a lot about procedures around this time can you let me know what the codes are and how you input them.

    Now given I have given you an answer to your question could you for me answer King Mobs question for me please.

    All 8 of them trained in hijacking procedures forgot to communicate a hijacking. When the hijackers made their move there be screaming and panic this would have alerted the pilots and they would communicated this to the FAA. Even if the pilot left the door will be locked behind him. The cabin door is locked during a flight anyone who says differently is lying. They have mics to communicate position with the controller's navigation towers. I read about the code long time ago would have to look it up again.

    What question?


  • Options
    #70
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Ipso wrote: »
    Wow, with that insight you'll soon have this Saudi/CIA/Israeli/Taxi Driver/lamp post solved in no time!

    The CIA was well aware of the Pentagon hijackers prior to 9/11. To deny that is not knowing the evidence.


  • Options
    #71
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This is real journalism about 9/11 take your time to read it.

    http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Final%20PDF%20of%20CounterPunch%20article%20re%20Israelis%2001-29-07.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Hijackers trained at a flight school owned by an Isreali who had connections to Mossad and the Israeli army. Isreali spy a killer on board a plane on 9/11. Hijackers training at US military facilities.


  • Options
    #73
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Catalogue a list of items that I can look at as sure proof this was flight 175 and Flight 11!

    What you should be doing is addressing the items, which were very kindly and patiently (thanks) provided to you in this thread

    If you want a full catalog of items it's up to you to actually research that information, and to do so on non-conspiracy sites

    If you are having trouble, I can show you where to start


  • Options
    #74
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What you should be doing is addressing the items, which were very kindly and patiently (thanks) provided to you in this thread

    If you want a full catalog of items it's up to you to actually research that information, and to do so on non-conspiracy sites

    If you are having trouble, I can show you where to start

    Sure I look at your source, link whatever.


  • Options
    #75
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    All 8 of them trained in hijacking procedures forgot to communicate a hijacking. When the hijackers made their move there be screaming and panic this would have alerted the pilots and they would communicated this to the FAA. Even if the pilot left the door will be locked behind him. The cabin door is locked during a flight anyone who says differently is lying. They have mics to communicate position with the controller's navigation towers. I read about the code long time ago would have to look it up again.

    What question?

    There are plenty of questions here which you have refused to answers as no one was answering your questions so please do not play dumb.

    It is quiet possible all 8 could have froze. knowing procedure I dare say in a practice scenario is no where as scary as been in a real thing. We do not know what went up there and for you to say with certainty it points to a false flag is unreal. Yes we know that even before 9/11 that procedures meant doors should lock going in to cockpits does not mean it did always happen. From accident investigation we know that procedures are not always followed. Maybe they got in by surprising a steward/stewardess and letting them in first before all the screaming and panic set in.

    Ill be waiting for those codes and how they could be transmitted quickly and easily


  • Options
    #76
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    martingriff wrote: »
    There are plenty of questions here which you have refused to answers as no one was answering your questions so please do not play dumb.

    It is quiet possible all 8 could have froze. knowing procedure I dare say in a practice scenario is no where as scary as been in a real thing. We do not know what went up there and for you to say with certainty it points to a false flag is unreal. Yes we know that even before 9/11 that procedures meant doors should lock going in to cockpits does not mean it did always happen. From accident investigation we know that procedures are not always followed. Maybe they got in by surprising a steward/stewardess and letting them in first before all the screaming and panic set in.

    Ill be waiting for those codes and how they could be transmitted quickly and easily

    Pilots are cool-headed people not prone to panic. Maybe it's possible you're right it could have happened that way? I think it's unlikely though 8 pilots would have all the same reaction and forget their training and not notify the relevant authorities.


    Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.


  • Options
    #77
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Pilots are cool-headed people not prone to panic. Maybe it's possible you're right it could have happened that way? I think it's unlikely though 8 pilots would have all the same reaction and forget their training and not notify the relevant authorities.


    Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.

    You should look at programs that do airplane crash investigations pilots have been prone to a lot of things as I said a demo is 1 thing but I can tell you from a real thing happening is 1 thing.

    What happened to me is very minor but I had a certificate in first aid and was trained fully. A few weeks later I was at a place where someone fainted and guess what I panicked and forgot everything. Now that is nothing to do with a terrorist attack where my life is in danger. Just look at the guard that panicked in that school shooting in America (You say it was a false flag) was meant to be experienced panicked and fled.


  • Options
    #78
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring. You need to provide sources for the things you claim. Simply stating things as fact does not make them true.

    You have to provide a link from an unbiased trustworthy source to show that you simply aren't simply making things up like you did about SAM sites at the Pentagon.
    Unlike you and other conspiracy theorists, most people aren't going to blindly believe what they are told by some randomer on the Internet.

    So sources please for your claims that:
    That pilots have debunked the idea of open cockpits.
    That all pilots have the training you claim. That this training is as you say it is.
    That there was an Israeli assassin on one of the flights...
    That witnesses claim the plane came from a different direction that it did.
    That sam sites existed at the Pentagon.

    Otherwise, you can't really start throwing around accusations of lying. It makes you look a bit hypocritical.


  • Options
    #79
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    All you do is asking questions, you never explain what you think happened, this a sign of a person trying to deflect.

    King Mob has been involved in these 9/11 threads for at least 10 years. Where he gets his patience from, I don't know, but there have been a lot of threads on this topic in that time.

    You won't get away with throwing out nonsense, getting it debunked and then throwing out the next bit of nonsense. It's been done before. It's not new or original.

    But knock yourself out.


  • Options
    #80
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    martingriff wrote: »
    You should look at programs that do airplane crash investigations pilots have been prone to a lot of things as I said a demo is 1 thing but I can tell you from a real thing happening is 1 thing.

    What happened to me is very minor but I had a certificate in first aid and was trained fully. A few weeks later I was at a place where someone fainted and guess what I panicked and forgot everything. Now that is nothing to do with a terrorist attack where my life is in danger. Just look at the guard that panicked in that school shooting in America (You say it was a false flag) was meant to be experienced panicked and fled.

    Pentagon we talk about that.
    58 passengers 4 flight crew ( 2 air stewardess and 2 pilots) only two on board attempted a phone call. That's strange. People are going to try ring loved ones to find out what to do. The two phones calls are conversational also for a number of reasons.


    We got Lloyd Edwards describing his taxi hit by a pole was a staged event, it was planned.

    Flight 77 was not listed as flight prior to takeoff by the BST

    Flight 77 cruising around in the air for longer than was needed. Why did the hijackers wait where they waiting to hear about the strikes in New York first.

    Flight 77 disappearance for 40 minutes off the radar.

    Hani Hanjour circling the Pentagon to hit an area being redone. Why did he do that and not just come in hard nose on top of the Pentagon? And Hani Hanjour had no experience flying a commercial airliner anywhere that we know of.

    A commercial aircraft plane low to the ground at 530mph ( which is not possible by the way the max speed of 757 in 2001 was 493mph an hour? at that altitude the plane would break up on approach to hit the Pentagon.

    These are the inconsistencies there is more but I can't think of them off the top of my head right now.


  • Options
    #81
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful Spring. You need to provide sources for the things you claim. Simply stating things as fact does not make them true.

    You have to provide a link from an unbiased trustworthy source to show that you simply aren't simply making things up like you did about SAM sites at the Pentagon.
    Unlike you and other conspiracy theorists, most people aren't going to blindly believe what they are told by some randomer on the Internet.

    So sources please for your claims that:
    That pilots have debunked the idea of open cockpits.
    That all pilots have the training you claim. That this training is as you say it is.
    That there was an Israeli assassin on one of the flights...
    That witnesses claim the plane came from a different direction that it did.
    That sam sites existed at the Pentagon.

    Otherwise, you can't really start throwing around accusations of lying. It makes you look a bit hypocritical.

    I just gave you name for who said that but you obviously just ignored that, it not hard to look up this information yourself.

    All information I posted is verifiable and factual I have looked into this. May you do should since you think it all nonsense. If you find I am wrong is easy to quote were I am wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Pentagon we talk about that.
    58 passengers 4 flight crew ( 2 air stewardess and 2 pilots) only two on board attempted a phone call. That's strange. People are going to try ring loved ones to find out what to do. The two phones calls are conversational also for a number of reasons.


    We got Lloyd Edwards describing his taxi hit by a pole was a staged event, it was planned.

    Flight 77 was not listed as flight prior to takeoff by the BST

    Flight 77 cruising around in the air for longer than was needed. Why did the hijackers wait where they waiting to hear about the strikes in New York first.

    Flight 77 disappearance for 40 minutes off the radar.

    Hani Hanjour circling the Pentagon to hit an area being redone. Why did he do that and not just come in hard nose on top of the Pentagon? And Hani Hanjour had no experience flying a commercial airliner anywhere that we know of.

    A commercial aircraft plane low to the ground at 530mph ( which is not possible by the way the max speed of 757 in 2001 was 493mph an hour? at that altitude the plane would break up on approach to hit the Pentagon.

    These are the inconsistencies there is more but I can't think of them off the top of my head right now.

    I am curious, why don't you research the above on non-conspiracy sites?

    Also your random suspicions very quickly turned into assertions. That's what Alex Jones does. He's paranoid by default, he has a suspicion, 10 nanoseconds later it's become a "fact". He uses that "fact" to build on other faulty assertions and so on

    For example, research the bottom one about the plane maneuver on the Pentagon. Remember, non-conspiracy sites only, pilots forums, etc


  • Options
    #83
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    King Mob has been involved in these 9/11 threads for at least 10 years. Where he gets his patience from, I don't know, but there have been a lot of threads on this topic in that time.

    You won't get away with throwing out nonsense, getting it debunked and then throwing out the next bit of nonsense. It's been done before. It's not new or original.

    But knock yourself out.

    No offence to that guy but he only asks questions he does have information of his own to refute what I am saying. Less time asking questions, find out for himself, I have already done my homework.


  • Options
    #84
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Pentagon we talk about that.
    58 passengers 4 flight crew ( 2 air stewardess and 2 pilots) only two on board attempted a phone call. That's strange. People are going to try ring loved ones to find out what to do. The two phones calls are conversational also for a number of reasons.


    We got Lloyd Edwards describing his taxi hit by a pole was a staged event, it was planned.

    Flight 77 was not listed as flight prior to takeoff by the BST

    Flight 77 cruising around in the air for longer than was needed. Why did the hijackers wait where they waiting to hear about the strikes in New York first.

    Flight 77 disappearance for 40 minutes off the radar.

    Hani Hanjour circling the Pentagon to hit an area being redone. Why did he do that and not just come in hard nose on top of the Pentagon? And Hani Hanjour had no experience flying a commercial airliner anywhere that we know of.

    A commercial aircraft plane low to the ground at 530mph ( which is not possible by the way the max speed of 757 in 2001 was 493mph an hour? at that altitude the plane would break up on approach to hit the Pentagon.

    These are the inconsistencies there is more but I can't think of them off the top of my head right now.

    I have no idea in the whole world why you just threw all that stuff at me since that is not what our previous correspondences were about or what you quoted from me. Or are you just trying to fob me off.

    Given you have typed all that how about you show me some proof off all the above. Before you ask NO I will not answer the questions first. YOU YES YOU are making these facts and it's up to you not me to show proof of them and not just some conspiracy blogs or conspiracy youtube video's. Ill be waiting with baited breath


  • Options
    #85
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful Spring. You need to provide sources for the things you claim. Simply stating things as fact does not make them true.

    You have to provide a link from an unbiased trustworthy source to show that you simply aren't simply making things up like you did about SAM sites at the Pentagon.
    Unlike you and other conspiracy theorists, most people aren't going to blindly believe what they are told by some randomer on the Internet.

    So sources please for your claims that:
    That pilots have debunked the idea of open cockpits.
    That all pilots have the training you claim. That this training is as you say it is.
    That there was an Israeli assassin on one of the flights...
    That witnesses claim the plane came from a different direction that it did.
    That sam sites existed at the Pentagon.

    Otherwise, you can't really start throwing around accusations of lying. It makes you look a bit hypocritical.

    I just gave you name for who said that but you obviously just ignored that, it not hard to look up this information yourself.

    All information I posted is verifiable and factual I have looked into this. May you do should since you think it all nonsense. If you find I am wrong is easy to quote were I am wrong?
    No sorry, that's not how it works.
    You made the claim, it's your job to back it up.

    We'll start easy. Please post a source that shows that SAM sites existed at the Pentagon.
    If a link from a reputable source isn't in your next reply, I'll consider that you conceding that you made it up.
    I'm kinda tired of chasing down basic questions.


  • Options
    #86
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    No offence to that guy but he only asks questions he does have information of his own to refute what I am saying. Less time asking questions, find out for himself, I have already done my homework.

    Then show us your homework it is up to you to show us the proof as you are the one to query it not anyone else


  • Options
    #87
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I am curious, why don't you research the above on non-conspiracy sites?

    Also your random suspicions very quickly turned into assertions. That's what Alex Jones does. He's paranoid by default, he has a suspicion, 10 nanoseconds later it's become a "fact". He uses that "fact" to build on other faulty assertions and so on

    For example, research the bottom one about the plane maneuver on the Pentagon. Remember, non-conspiracy sites only, pilots forums, etc

    I have actually I researched both sides version about 9/11.


  • Options
    #88
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    martingriff wrote: »
    Then show us your homework it is up to you to show us the proof as you are the one to query it not anyone else

    What part would you like me to provide proof of easier doing it that way? One part at a time I have got time to do this in one post.


  • Options
    #89
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    No sorry, that's not how it works.
    You made the claim, it's your job to back it up.

    We'll start easy. Please post a source that shows that SAM sites existed at the Pentagon.
    If a link from a reputable source isn't in your next reply, I'll consider that you conceding that you made it up.
    I'm kinda tired of chasing down basic questions.

    I answer you first. Her job was an Army administrative specialist

    She was there so we know she was at the Pentagon working on 9/11
    6034073

    She was asked about why a plane was not shot down?
    6034073

    If this is too big to read I try to crop it more?


  • Options
    #90
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    I try to address one more question before I go offline, next question?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    What part would you like me to provide proof of easier doing it that way? One part at a time I have got time to do this in one post.

    ALL OF YOUR ASSERTIONS PROOF DOCUMENTS VIDEOS ARTICLES


Advertisement