A video that has changed my life, on google :(

D

drone8888

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

Every time I watch this documentary, I get more confused and sickened. My friend here, just pointed me over to the Penn and Teller bullshit video, and that made me feel a bit better, because now I see what total assholes they are. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+teller+911

Just wanted to share this, and say my apologies to the closed minded who buy into whatever they're fed. I like to ignore this stuff as much as possible, but the video linked hits me very hard, considering I enlisted in the military in May 2001, and this really fired us all up in boot camp and still drives many today.

Also, take note,... the "Pilot" episode for "The Lone Gunmen", which aired in March 2001, made some sort of miraculous prediction. As the episode was about 9/11 before it happened. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4407426991277364460&q=the+lone+gunmen

So,... while I agree, there are many crackpots and nutbags out there, with horrendous conspiracy theories, I have to look at this documentary and feel true shame for the treachery that has occured. I should be getting out after this tour,... as this was my final straw.

Hope you watch it without bias and pride blinders on, and use your judgment. I figure there may be flames galore, but I'm hoping that some interesting debates arise, perhaps to counter my newfound perceptions.

:l
 
wtf aren't penn and teller magicians?? they really come off as huge assholes in that video

as far as the 9/11 conspiracy thing goes, I've seen tons and tons of unanswered questions regarding it and the governement refuses to answer them so I definitely think they're hiding something. How about the gov't just come out and put stuff out there so the conspiracy theories completely fall apart. How about the plane hitting the pentagon video???
 
The truth here is that we may never know the complete story. There has never in the history of the world been a building collapsed in such a fashion. The documentary that the OP linked is just as full of half-truths than the "official" documents they try to pick apart.

At some points in this documentary, I just had to laugh at what they were stating as fact. One of my favorite lines, when they were trying to explain how the building fell faster than it should they stated something like:

"In the real world, with the floors causing resistance, a pancaked building would loose speed, never would it gain speed."

What the heck do they mean, "the real world"??? Did the towers collapse in some fantasy-land? At this point, they seem to ignore an eyewitness that speaks later in the documentary who makes a brief statement that the floors were starting to collapse upon one another several minutes before the entire tower began to collapse, but they stated the tower all of a sudden collapsed in about 10 seconds.

Another time that kind of made me scratch my head about the bias of this documentary is when one guy said something like:

"...the only way this could have happened is if there were explosives placed..."

The "only way" is stated and presented as fact, and not opinion.

This documentary tries to offer an unbiased presentation of the mysteries surrounding the collapse of these buildings, but fails. The same questions are asked over and over, and the only expanations that are given are scientific facts that they fail to ellaborate upon, and the opinions of people who are unqualified to answer these questions.

Like, to justify the existance of sub-basement explosions, they take the words of a WTC janitor. A janitor felt explosions underneath him as he was leaving. So, if a janitor says it is true, then it must be.

The background music is meant to play upon your emotions, with several musical montages featuring angelic choirs singing as you are subjected to videos of the towers collapsing. They play upon the fact that when people see these horrible images, coupled with this music, the viewer becomes emotionally distraught, and is more subjective to the "facts" they present.

At one time they say something like:

"...these were no ordinary implosions..."

Everything about this event isn't "ordinary". It isn't "ordinary" for planes to fly into skyscrapers. I re-interate my statement again that nothing like this in the entire history of man has ever occured to this extent. No buildings this size have ever been collapsed this way. However, this documentary wants to compare this event with other buildings that have collapsed that we knew 100% why/how they collapsed.

However, this documentary continues to offer comparisons that make little to no sense. Like comparing the debris-filled smoke clouds to those caused by volcanoes. This really confused me here, cause I wasn't sure if they were trying to tell me that volcanoes collapsed the towers or what. Before they could offer anything else to explain this comparison, however, they changed topics and failed to complete their comparison.

While they don't come out and state who they think blew up the towers, they make several allegations towards Mayor Guliani, Enron, Pres. Bush's brother Marvin Bush, the buildings' owner, and I think Mt. St. Helens. Nowhere during this documentary do they mention the fault of the terrorists who ran planes into these buildings.

At the end of the documentary, they show some text like:

"The destruction...was conducted in broad daylight...Shock and awe," obviously a referance to the attack on Iraq and trying to play on people's belief that the Bush admin lied to us about Iraq, and are lying to us about the WTC destruction.

They also go on to state:

"Fearing worse and ignorant of scientific principles, the public mind was readily manipulated."

I laughed at that, because I wasn't sure if they meant this about the 9/11 attacks, or the production of this poorly-edited documentary.

And ultimatly, that's the real kicker of this documentary. It is poorly edited. Sure, I myself have questions about the 9/11 attacks, and lingering doubts about everything I have heard, but this documentary does not show the entire picture.

They mention the fact that the WTC towers are air-tight, but never question the importance air pressure played on the collapse. They mention that the building pipes in oxygen, but fails to mention that pure oxygen is very flammable. They say the fire never got hot enough to collapse the tower, then they said it did get hot enough but that was only because the bombers used some chemical called thermate to do it.

All in all, this documentary offers me nothing to sway my opinion that these buildings collapsed because 2 planes ran into them. It is my opinion that this documentary is poorly written, and even more poorly edited.
 
I am consistently amazed by the public's inability to accept the most simple and logical explanation for an event. The Kennedy assassination. Oklahoma City. 9/11.

Folks, it really isn't that complicated. Sometimes bad people do bad things. Those bad things can result in bad consequences for other folks. Good people are killed. Buildings fall. Things are destroyed.

There is not always a more sinister force at work. In fact, there rarely is. Some people need to believe that 19 terrorists couldn't have brought down two gigantic buildings. Guess what? They did. No explosives were in the buildings. The Government didn't fire any missiles. The Mossad didn't tip off the Israelis working in the Towers. Thugs flew two planes into the buildings, the buildings were never designed to withstand such an intense explosion and resulting fire. It really is that simple.

For those who still can't accept it, I suggest you check out the following book: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time.
 
Penn and Teller (Well Penn anyway, since Teller of course doesn't do much talking) do come off as assholes in their show a lot, but (at least in this instance) they're absolutely right.

Just remember, 1 out of every 4 people is retarded.
 
[quote name='dastly75']wtf aren't penn and teller magicians?? they really come off as huge assholes in that video

[/QUOTE]

Yes, in America the more entertaining you are the more clout your opinion has in discussing subject matter that you have absolutely no expertise in (politics, religion, remember Rush Limbaugh the sportscaster?)
 
People don't like Ocam's Razor when it relates to something so shattering. It makes people feel better when it's more complicated.

Then again, blindly trusting your government is never a good thing. How's that for fence sitting?

I do like the "THERMITE, A COMPUND USED BY THE MILTARY" *dramatic shots of Army*
Yes, thermite WAS used by the military. In WWII. It's also VERY easy to create as a civillian. Want to make Thermite? All you need is rust, almuinum shavings, and a magnesium ribbon or something equivalent to ignite it. It'll cost you about 10 bucks to melt a car.
 
My favorite is the idiot who claimed that if you fold a $1 or $20 bill a bunch of times, you can "see" the 2 towers burning. What a pathetic douchebag.
 
Anyone who believes that our government is functional enough to pull off a massive conspiracy like this is out of their minds. A lot of wisdom has been spoken in this thread, particularly from Reality's Fringe and sgs89.

I am consistently amazed by the public's inability to accept the most simple and logical explanation for an event. The Kennedy assassination. Oklahoma City. 9/11.

Folks, it really isn't that complicated. Sometimes bad people do bad things. Those bad things can result in bad consequences for other folks. Good people are killed. Buildings fall. Things are destroyed.
Click to expand...

This is overwhelmingly true. People don't want to believe that a relatively small band malicious individuals could commit such atrocious acts against a powerful nation, and thus they go searching for something deeper and more complex just as RF mentioned. What happened on 9/11 was obvious progression of the "jihad", and perhaps a necessary wakeup call for U.S. policymakers to break free of the Cold War mindset. It is tragic, yes, but I am further annoyed by those who want to insult the family members of those lost in the Twin Towers, and those lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, by proposing these riduculous conspiracy theories. I wish people would stop cheapening the lives of those who died throughout these series of events by turning it into a big joke.
 
Hmmm i dont know what to think really. The explosion didnt look quite natural and their arguements of how a plane should not have been able to down the towers make some sense but they seem to quick to jump agianst bush and other "evil" americans. Why couldnt the terrorists have planted some explosives in tower to supliment the arial attackes? I dont know what to think really but i am looking forward to part 2 to see what they have to say atleast. I hope that more reaseach is being done by the Untied States Government on what happend excactly but this might go down in history as one of thoes things that will never be totally explained.
 
One of the problems with the argument of the Towers being able to withstand plane impacts is that there is really no way to test that until it happens. Secondly, no one seems to have a definition for this "ability to withstand a plane crash". What kind of plane? At what speed? From what I understand, when a building is constructed to withstand high impact from planes, it is typically referring to the smaller personally owned airplanes that would inadvertently collide with the buildings rather than commercial jumbo jets. Additionally, as recounted in Age of Sacred Terror, a novel by two former Clinton administration government officials, the second jet was traveling at such a high speed (something in the mid 50o MPHs IIRC) that had it not collided with the tower, it probably would have broken apart.

All of these factors combined make for a HIGHLY unanticipated set of circumstances that don't fit with what I believe are the typical thoughts when implementing "plane collision" safety features in skyscrapers.
 
theybestealinmybucketseis3.jpg



EDIT: They had a sale on seal pictures at target.
 
[quote name='Richlough']Who watched the whole video ?[/quote]
I didn't watch any of the video, I just think all this 9/11 conspiracy shit is retarded.

Thus it gets the animal pic treatment.
 
[quote name='T234']I didn't watch any of the video, I just think all this 9/11 conspiracy shit is retarded.

Thus it gets the animal pic treatment.[/quote]Didn't watch it either. If anything, the seal pic changed my life.
 
[quote name='Z-Saber']Didn't watch it either. If anything, the seal pic changed my life.[/quote]

I'm updating that cat pic thread by the end of this week. I swear on my honor as a member of the Kentucky Moonshiners Association!!!
 
I saw a video on Google that changed my life, and it did feature 2 giant, flaming objects, both with giant, phallic shaped objects. It's obviously a cover up though, no way you could *insert gay sex joke here* all the way in.
 
Hmm, after the amount of crap surrounding the 9/11 theories I begin having second thoughts about JFK. Because the theories about 9/11 are obviously crackpot, so what means that JFK ones are not:( I still want to believe that the governement was involved. The whole Jack Ruby thing is a bit too convenient and the bullet they found on the other cart and stuff and the losing the brain thing convince me that there was something going on. But then again, I might just be buying into teh bull.
 
[quote name='Pancake Rabbit']Anyone who buys in to the idea that our government had anything to do with the attacks is a weak-minded idiot.[/quote]That's what the Government wants YOU to think.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Folks, it really isn't that complicated. Sometimes bad people do bad things. Those bad things can result in bad consequences for other folks. Good people are killed. Buildings fall. Things are destroyed.[/QUOTE]

You hit the nail directly on the head.

People are always looking for more and more things. They try and psychoanalyze situations and materialize something out of nothing.

And of course, if you ever try and reason with people like this, they're probably brainwashed already to the point where they'll just give you some memorized retort along the lines of, "sorry, I can't just sit back and be another mindless sheep drone that ignores the travesties of our government."
 
[quote name='Pancake Rabbit']Anyone who buys in to the idea that our government had anything to do with the attacks is a weak-minded idiot.[/QUOTE]

I just find it shocking that people have so much faith that our government, who is so inept and detached in so many situations, can pull off something so massive and intricate without any official leaks. Oh well, whatever.
 
[quote name='Diiz']I just find it shocking that people have so much faith that our government, who is so inept and detached in so many situations, can pull off something so massive and intricate without any official leaks. Oh well, whatever.[/quote]That's why the US government didn't do it. Bush can barely tie his own shoes, how the hell could he plan something as intricate and in-depth as the destruction of 2 buildings?
 
First of all I don't believe the government directly caused 911 and I highly doubt they indirectly caused it or allowed it to happen when they knew about it in advance (though that is possible). That said, I know next to nothing about the conspiracy theories as my connection is too slow to watch these videos without frequent stutters. Here are some of my opinions on 911 conspiracy theories however.

1. If they government were involved who's to say that those killed were in on it, or not really killed (what those who say these theories insult the dead must mean). If they did plan 911 they probably killed all of those people without their knowledge or cooperation. The government has been known to disregard the lives of its citizens for the "greater good' before one similar example would be the nuclear test done near a town without the residents consent or knowledge to test the effects of radiation on a population, or germ filled light bulbs placed in a subway to test the spread of contagion. These were presented in class once as examples of government cover ups that were latter admitted to, but I suppose these could be fake as well since I don't have a source.

2. The government could have permitted the terrorists to complete their goal or even provided them help to create "another pearl harbor" to further their foreign policy goals.

3.The government certainly profited from these attacks, in their mind at least.

4.They also blew the attacks out of proportion, they were committed by what was then a small group of individuals in America not by some huge conspiracy that threatened the nation as a whole. More vigilance with regards to security at home would have, and still will, prevent terrorism more than military involvement in nations loosely tied to the attacks. They then used this as an excuse to invade two countries, and counting, one of which had no involvement at all. To me terrorism is a law enforcement issue and to react in this way is the same as invading the state the Oklahoma City bomber came from because they sponsored a terrorist.
 
[quote name='miker8']First of all I don't believe the government directly caused 911 and I highly doubt they indirectly caused it or allowed it to happen when they knew about it in advance (though that is possible). [/quote]

The warnings were there, they just weren't fully understood or taken seriously. Prior to this current 'War on Terror', non-state actors haven't been a major issue in international politics, therefore they garnished little attention. The U.S. policymakers have been vaguely aware of a growing threat from radical islamists from as far back as the early 1980's. Bypassing further events, bin Laden himself declared jihad against the West, and more specifically the United States in his 1998 fatwah.

2. The government could have permitted the terrorists to complete their goal or even provided them help to create "another pearl harbor" to further their foreign policy goals.
Click to expand...

The goals and objectives of U.S. foreign policy took a drastic turn after 9/11, as was even outlined by the overwhelming adoption of a large portion of the recommendations posed by the 9/11 Commission. This mess we are in hardly constitutes a desired goal. We have alienated our allies with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the leaked NIE estimate indicated that the U.S. occupation is creating even more terrorism in the form of insurgencies. At this point, we have to hope that Iraq can eventually stand on its own and serve as a strong sovereign ally. It looks hopeless now, but this task is a task of generations that will hopefully work in our favor.

To me terrorism is a law enforcement issue and to react in this way is the same as invading the state the Oklahoma City bomber came from because they sponsored a terrorist.
Click to expand...


Ummm... no. Invading the state of Oklahoma because of the OK City bomber would be nothing like the invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban in Afghanistan was harboring al Qaeda, and supporting their actions, thus they needed to be removed. Afghanistan was a failed state, devastated by 17 years of war from ghe Soviet aggression, and the Taliban stepped up to fill the void. They were not elected, and they imposed many ridiculous laws... but they provided some form of stability and thus were tolerated.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Folks, it really isn't that complicated. Sometimes bad people do bad things. Those bad things can result in bad consequences for other folks. Good people are killed. Buildings fall. Things are destroyed.
[/quote]

That sum's up the topic for me.

[quote name='T234']
theybestealinmybucketseis3.jpg

[/quote]

I can't believe there wasn't a cat pic that could be woven into this thread instead.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Folks, it really isn't that complicated. Sometimes bad people do bad things. Those bad things can result in bad consequences for other folks. Good people are killed. Buildings fall. Things are destroyed.
[/quote]

That sum's up the topic for me.

[quote name='T234']
theybestealinmybucketseis3.jpg

[/quote]

I can't believe there wasn't a cat pic that could be woven into this thread instead.
 
Personally I loved the Lone Gunmen. It was a simpler time back then when the internet was at 56K and people used the word Cam Corder, Celluar phone, and Camera instead of Digital Camera and Moblie/Cell Phone.

I also remember that I would go to "gba conspriacy" which was a really great Videogame consparicy news site that made alot of sense. Like how there is a certain amount of car dealerships, celluar phone companies, and more intresting allways three game companies. They also spoke of a group which was or related to these events. Then the website got seized by the goverment and converted into a a cookie cutter webpage that was nicely done but it had .gov at the end. With absolutely no new news at all. This was the time when the ISDA was not merged with the FCC. They had articles on how a guy got sent to man jail just for talking on a cell phone for free which they traced( which means they can trace you also).

On he topic of the Lone Gun men there is such a thing as the water car. a guy did in the seventies or eighties. Basically you can easily convert a regular car into a water car.

Then what really hurts is how the Lone Gun Men died. After that it was jsut the super spy woman and the rich clear minded dumb guy. I mean why did they have to end it like that.

Also on the topic of the Twin Towers falling with over thousands of people missing and more lives lost then any American war, and the fact that there is missing parts of the building and peoples belongings missing. The thing is how the hell do you not fight back in a Plane hijacking. Everybody must have been super wuss on the planes or something else. I mean was the passengers so helpless that they could not have fought back against a couple of guys using box cutters. That does not make any sense.

Also looking at the pictures of the Pentagon and the missing tapes which there was alot of tapes snatched from surrounding areas. Also think about Bush and OJ now. Is it not ironic that Bush was not in the White House and then the plane made a u turn to camp david or wherever he was reading books to kids. Again the plane ran out of fuel.....( Right)

Again don't you think the evidence was too conspiciously laid out when they raided the homes. Could they still be alive in Alaska, Hawaii, New Zeland, Japan, Russia, or Egypt. I mean there is like a thousand people like them.

Also why so many UFO sightings yet could this just be testing or something else? Maybe it is a bunch of crazy NASA Cow tippers doing all that ubducting.
Lets not forget that farmers are paid to grow less on purpose. So why is the world starving?
 
They say that since the Empire State Building survived a US Bomber running into during WWII, the Trade Center was designed to withstand one too which is clearly wrong. The only reason why the Empire State Building was able to survive the impact was mainly because the Empire State building is incredibly overbuilt. When it was built in 1930-31 the engineers were overly cautious and reinforced the hell out of everything.

This whole thing basically preys on people who don't know anything about how things work and comes up with believable (but wrong) explanations to perpetuate their moronic conspiracy theory.
 
[quote name='RegalSin2020']The B-25 bomber is a small plane compared to a Airline carrier that can hold over 100 passengers.[/QUOTE]

You are correct. A B-25 Mitchell is maybe 1/4 the length of a Boeing 767 and the 767 overall is considerably bigger. Additionally, the 767 would be fueled with jet fuel as opposed to gasoline which the old B-25 would be fueled with. Jet fuel burns at incredibly high temperatures which aided in the melting of the steel frame of the buildings.
 
[quote name='gofishn']You are correct. A B-25 Mitchell is maybe 1/4 the length of a Boeing 767 and the 767 overall is considerably bigger. Additionally, the 767 would be fueled with jet fuel as opposed to gasoline which the old B-25 would be fueled with. Jet fuel burns at incredibly high temperatures which aided in the melting of the steel frame of the buildings.[/quote]
He might be referring to the B-52. Which is a GIANT aircraft IIRC.
 
[quote name='CitizenB']I'm not touching this thread. I think it needs to be locked. This will just turn into a 20 page flame war.[/quote]
It needs to be moved to the vs. forum.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']It needs to be moved to the vs. forum.[/QUOTE]

That would work as well. Thats the place for flame bait like OP link.
 
Quote:
Also on the topic of the Twin Towers falling with over thousands of people missing and more lives lost then any American war, and the fact that there is missing parts of the building and peoples belongings missing. The thing is how the hell do you not fight back in a Plane hijacking. Everybody must have been super wuss on the planes or something else. I mean was the passengers so helpless that they could not have fought back against a couple of guys using box cutters. That does not make any sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More lives lost than any American war? The current war in Iraq's American casualties has now surpassed that of the number who died in 911. The death counts in Vietnam, Korea, WWI & II and especially the civil war all individually are many, many many times the number who died on September 11.

As for the people on the planes being wusses, I don't think that is the case. Almost anyone who thinks they are going to die would fight back rather than be run into a building. They probably believed that they were going to be flown to an airport and held hostage or that the plane was being used to escape the country. I don't think the attackers said "ok, stay calm, were going to run this plane into a building." Also once the pilot was dead, the planes would have crashed anyway unless someone on board knew how to fly.

Quote:
The goals and objectives of U.S. foreign policy took a drastic turn after 9/11, as was even outlined by the overwhelming adoption of a large portion of the recommendations posed by the 9/11 Commission. This mess we are in hardly constitutes a desired goal. We have alienated our allies with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the leaked NIE estimate indicated that the U.S. occupation is creating even more terrorism in the form of insurgencies. At this point, we have to hope that Iraq can eventually stand on its own and serve as a strong sovereign ally. It looks hopeless now, but this task is a task of generations that will hopefully work in our favor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never stated that the mess we were in was a desired goal. I think everyone pro and anti-war wanted a quick victory and a democratic Iraq. What was desired was the patriotic fervor that gave the president and his cronies a blank check to invade any country he wanted as long as he invoked freedom, democracy and 911. As for staying in Iraq, it is hopeless, we just have to decide how many people have to die for the mistakes of the past. Yes, Iraq will be in chaos and a haven for terrorists either very soon if we allow the current civil war to be fought out or ten or so years later with many more American lives lost if we continue to stand between two rival sects trying to kill each other. One positive thing that can be learned is that wars rarely solve our problems and inflame world opinion against us leading to future conflict. Of course no one will realize this and will blame the strategy we used or our lack of determination on our eventual failure not on the absurdity of using violence to prevent violence.
 
It just presented me with facts, or information that I was never introduced to. There are many inconsistencies with the government's final word. I did check out the links you guys put up, and they are just as interesting. Point is, I'm not looking for the reason I want to hear, but I always take everything into account before I make a decision.
The facts are laid out, but the U.S. hasn't really answered to the conspirators and the scientists who oppose their theories.

I'm headed to Iraq soon, so it would be really shitty if me or my friends die over there, and then Bush or whoever say, oh, the owner was pulling an insurance scam, or some shit. It's not as though there aren't bad people over there who don't deserve to be punished,... but there will always be bad people. Even if we nuked the terrorists there, more would pop up from some other country.

So, policing the globe would be fine if there was a centralized country controlling all of the terror, but there's not. If going to the middle east was based solely on the plane crashes, and they turn out to be something more than we have been told, then everything would have been in vain, as it truly is the Middle East's problem.

Imagine we produced oil like them.... America wouldn't even know where Iran was.

Thanks for the links and such :) It's helping me out a bit in the confidence field.
 
For anyone that is interested in this kind of thing, there are many excellent resources to find information for putting the pieces of the puzzle together. People seem to want to treat 9/11 as an isolated incident and analyze it as such, when it clearly isn't. sgs89 summed things up pretty damn well in a simple and elegant fashion.

Conspiracy theories can be fun in the same way that science fiction can be fun. It allows someone to explore wildly fantastic "what if"s, but I really wish people could look at all angles instead of letting one crappy "documentary" change their lives.

The government hasn't come out and refuted every nonsensical accusation about 9/11, thus they are hiding something? That doesn't make much sense to me. Just because someone chooses not to address ridiculous claims doesn't mean they are witholding information.

I advise anyone who wants a good read on 9/11 to read the 9/11 Commission. If you are interested in the lineage of jihad and the radical Islamist threat, Age of Sacred Terror, The Crisis of Islam, and Future Jihad are all very good reading as well (although Walid Phares seems to get a little nutty at the end of Future Jihad.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Jeebus, people...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html


They argue that a plane should not down a building like that.

What, they have empirical evidence?[/quote]
Exactly. Even if someone did remember an incident involving a plane hitting a building it's considered anecdotal evidence. And since anecdotal evidence usually stands out in our minds it should be considered bias. If they want to complain that a plane shouldn't take out a building like the way on 9/11 they should conduct some experiments.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Yes, in America the more entertaining you are the more clout your opinion has in discussing subject matter that you have absolutely no expertise in (politics, religion, remember Rush Limbaugh the sportscaster?)[/QUOTE]
Mmmmmhmmmm, as opposed to the absolute scientific authority inherent in YouTube videos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top