9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

The Truther Challenge
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject:

pepik wrote:

Quote:

You're going to tire of this before me you know

I can absolute concede that point, your ability to evade far exceeds my interest in making you admit you were wrong. As I said before, my point has been proved long ago, the only point remaining is precisely how much of a dishonest, evasive, cowardly little weasel you are.

Quote:

the issue at hand is whether the plane could fly level in the Pentagon as shown in the CCTV footage

I thought it was the flight path? Or at least it was one post ago. Soon it will be free fall speed and the hijackers who are still alive. And did you know Silverstein admitted that he had them pull WTC7?

"The issue" is changing rapidly as you dance around what anyone who is reading this thread can plainly see: the Pentagon is not well hidden and is not a well built up area. You made a claim but cannot back it up, and no matter how blindingly obvious it is you absolutely refuse under any circumstances to admit it. In your strange thinking if you never admit you are wrong, that, in some bizarre way, is the same thing as being right.

Quote:

Pepik is obsessing about my single phrase because he is comfortable with it, as it enables him to Google scenic tourist shots and claim massive debunking.

Your single phrase is a single lie. The Pentagon is not "well hidden in a built up area". Why do you consider it irrelevant whether or not the things you say here are actually true?

Quote:

I'm still waiting for you to post a decent photo. Aerial photos don't really show us anything do they, you really need a photo more like this.

This photo does not show the Pentagon to be well hidden in a built up area. Perhaps you can try again?

Ho hum, here we go :-

Quote:

What I want you to do is prove that Flight 77 could actually hit the light-poles, fly horizontally into the Pentagon at almost ground level without touching the ground and then cause the damage as shown. As you know this actually happened, how hard can it be to prove it. Feel free to use the real topography of the area. Now I don't think you have any interest in doing that. You wouldn't want to prove me right by not answering would you?

This is what I wrote a couple of pages back. You haven't even attempted it, yet you throw the insults out like the King of Tourette. Just make an effort, hell you can even look up "topography" in the dictionary.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject:

NorthernSoul wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Nice avoidance of the FDR issue as well.

Well I was trying to keep the focus on the "built up area" issue which you still havnt proved to be true. But right on schedule you've changed the subject.

A recurring theme in this thread has been changing the subject, we've gone through at least 6 different issues and the Truthers have given up on each.

As for the FDR this is one of the funniest claims ever.

You are saying the flight data recorder, found in the wreckage of the pentagon, couldn't be in the pentagon?

So either the FDR was beamed down from Flight 77 Star Trek style

or it was planted there with the wrong information by super secret NWO agents? Why would they plant it there with the wrong information!?

You have no idea do you? What exactly is the claim about the FDR that you find so amusing?

I am actually doggedly sticking to my original challenge to pepik which was

Quote:

And so far he is proving me right ........

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject:

And just to show I can stoop as low on the scale of pathetic as pepik here it is again as he keeps missing it :-

Quote:

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject:

YAWN. If you're going to spend your Friday nights at home doing this stuff KP you should at least make a proper effort, not just further humiliate yourself!

weasel coward wrote:

I am actually doggedly sticking to my original challenge to pepik which was

No the original question was how is the Pentagon "well hidden in a well built up area". That was the question even before I joined this thread. So tell us, how is the Pentagon well hidden in a well built up area? All the photographs provided so far show exactly the opposite.

Evader Olympics Team 2008 wrote:

This is what I wrote a couple of pages back.

Yes, and if you go back a little farther than that you will find your statement that the Pentagon is "well hidden in a well built up area". You know, the one we are all waiting for you to back up.

You demanded evidence that it wasn't well hidden and in a built up area. I answered, so did Bushwhacker. Then you demanded more photos, because you didn't like the first one. Then you changed the subject and started demanding I answer other questions. All the while you absolutely refused all requests that you back up what you say.

So I get the part where you refuse to answer a single question and then demand everyone else answer question after question, ad infinitum. I'm sure you think its quite clever (by your standards).

Anyway I'll be on holiday for two weeks, I hope by the time I get back you can show us how the Pentagon is "well hidden in a well built up area". (Hopefully with bold, italics, and underline, you won't "accidentally" miss it this time).
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject:

pepik wrote:

YAWN. If you're going to spend your Friday nights at home doing this stuff KP you should at least make a proper effort, not just further humiliate yourself!

weasel coward wrote:

I am actually doggedly sticking to my original challenge to pepik which was

Evader Olympics Team 2008 wrote:

This is what I wrote a couple of pages back.

Now you do know everyone can read this thread and the order that things were written don't you? You'd have to be really dumb otherwise ....

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Now you do know everyone can read this thread and the order that things were written don't you?

anyone reading the thread can also see how critics prefer far away areial photos, although they prove the pentagon has not got much around it interms of buildings, they do not reflect how possible it is for a low flying plane hitting the pentagon. from above you do not get to appreciate the height of things, trees/barriers etc.

it comes across as though critics avoid this for a reason, though i don't know if thats the case.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:38 am Post subject:

marky 54 wrote:

it comes across as though critics avoid this for a reason, though i don't know if thats the case.

You expect them to get out there with a tape measure?

From the photos and videos that I have seen taken of the pentagon on the day and since, I strongly doubt that the official flightpath would be impossible to navigate or inconsistent with the fragment of footage that exists of the crash. If it was, surely the loose changers or 'Pentacon' boys would have pointed it out YEARS AGO!

KP50 has an allegation, which they are perfectly entitled to pursue. But it is not true just because they suggested it. KP50 clearly has nothing in the way of actual evidence to back up the allegation - if they do then why not come forward with it?

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:54 am Post subject:

thats very nice. but it dos'nt change the way it looks. KP50 asks for photo evidence, critics all link images that are very high and far away, none of them show the height of anything in the surrounding area. areial photos are good for showing what is around the pentagon, but useless in showing the height of what is around the pentagon. yet the issue seems to be wether the plane could of flew at low level close to the ground. so height is the basic issue not what things look like from far away and above.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:06 am Post subject:

marky 54 wrote:

Fair enough. I'd be happy to look at any photo or video from any angle if it would help us solve KP50s little conundrum. I don't think it's fair of you to assume that anyone is being selective about what photos they display.

One memory from watching the Pentacon video is that a lot of the footage was taken from the other side of the main road, and the witnesses were able to point directly at the side of the pentagon that was hit in 2001 from there without any major obstructions being present. Looking at overhead shots and side shots, i just don't see where these obstructions could be on the map - I also don't see how the pentagon is significantly lower than where the lightpoles were hit.

I would also question KP50s assertion that the plane was travelling at a level altitude when it hit the pentagon. I think there's simply no way to be able to tell from the footage.

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:11 am Post subject:

Quote:

I don't think it's fair of you to assume that anyone is being selective about what photos they display.

i don't assume it. it is just the impression you get when you read the thread.

i bet you missed this.

Quote:

it comes across as though critics avoid this for a reason, though i don't know if thats the case.

which i said in my first recent post.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:14 am Post subject:

marky 54 wrote:

Quote:

I don't think it's fair of you to assume that anyone is being selective about what photos they display.

i don't assume it. it is just the impression you get when you read the thread.

i bet you missed this.

Quote:

it comes across as though critics avoid this for a reason, though i don't know if thats the case.

which i said in my first recent post.

Fair comment. I should have thought more about that - you didn't assume anything I agree.

TimmyG
Validated Poster

Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:08 am Post subject:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514 please read and explain to me how the official story is tight and conclusive. _________________ "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

TimmyG
Validated Poster

Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject:

Quote:

"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.

"It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."

- Ted Olsen
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

Jonnolad
Minor Poster

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:57 am Post subject:

TimmyG wrote:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

please read and explain to me how the official story is tight and conclusive.

It's good that you post in Critics Corner as it allows for balance.

Now, first off, I'd certainly contest a main premise of that article, which is:

"Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11"

I'd say it wasn't a "central pillar of the official account of 9/11" (specifically the Pentagon strike). Much more important evidence for me would be:

- All witnesses saw a plane
- Plane / body parts present after impact
- All researched academic computer modelling shows the damage caused is consistent with the exact same plane impact
- Missing plane and passengers (i.e. if they didn't strike the Pentagon where are they now?)
- CCTV (of what there is) is consistent with the plane strike

Comparing that with the evidence that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon:

- Nothing
- Zero
- Nil
- Zilch
- Naught

If you would like to contest that evidence, then please feel free to provide any evidence you have that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Now bearing all that in mind, a much much more likely explanation would be that CNN or Hannity and Colmes published incorrect information with regard to the phone calls (believe it or not the media don't get all details correct all of the time) and perhaps the FBI got their information incorrect in either of the two cases - I'm guessing in their collated information presented during the prosecution of Moussaoui - it was after all a very very minor piece of information in the case and certainly wasn't crucial to a prosecution - in fact I'd say it was irrelevant considering the mountain of other evidence.

As to the conclusion of this piece:

"Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington."

Just think about that statement clearly for a moment. Why would the Barbara Olson call even be evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington? A phone call could be from anywhere - there doesn't seem to be any mention of location in any of the calls (even if it did that would of course be difficult to ascertain without landmarks - the phone calls were, after all, made way before the impact with the Pentagon). If the official evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington had consisted entirely of this then the critics, not just the truthers, would be questioning it. Don't you think that the body/plane parts in the wreckage were slightly more evidence than a phone call?

It appears you are blindly believing these conspiracy sites without even applying a modicum of logic. Engage your brain once in a while - it won't hurt you and you won't be duped quite so often!

Quite forgetting the complete lack of evidence that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon of course Very Happy

TimmyG
Validated Poster

Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject:

i'm not blindly believing in things. because i haven't concluded anything.. other than i don't believe the official story is correct and i suspect elements of the state to have a hand in making it happen. it seems barbara olsen's alleged call is the main piece of evidence supporting the hijackers-with-boxcutters element of the official story. if the call was never connected then that changes things quite a bit. _________________ "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject:

marky 54 wrote:

thats very nice. but it dos'nt change the way it looks. KP50 asks for photo evidence, critics all link images that are very high and far away, none of them show the height of anything in the surrounding area. areial photos are good for showing what is around the pentagon, but useless in showing the height of what is around the pentagon.

yet the issue seems to be wether the plane could of flew at low level close to the ground. so height is the basic issue not what things look like from far away and above.

Your open-mindedness does you credit (usually .. mind it doesn't get so open your brains fall out*) but the Pentagon is on the flood-plain of the Potomac river. It's extremely flat around there (rising slightly towards the top right of this photo). And not at all "built up" along the approach of AA77 :

Go to work on Google Earth if you want the actual elevations, but you'll find it's stunningly *flat* in that manor, squire. A bit like most of Essex Wink

The impact wall is the one facing directly up in that photo -- towards open country.

* with apologies to Carl Sagan

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject:

as usual a critic misses the point and avoids the point. the land may be flat and there may well be no buildings in the area of the pentagon, but does your photo show the height of what IS around the pentagon to demonstrate the plane could fly in at low level without major obstructions? no. its to far away to tell how high the things are that ARE around the pentagon (again).

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

pepik wrote:

Quote:

You are very predictable - I find that comforting in a changing world.

Nice weather we're having today. Mmmmm. Anyway, how is the Pentagon "well hidden in a well built up area"?

Quote:

As you well know and I will not tire of repeating, I asked you to prove something for once.

Mmmm. How is the Pentagon "well hidden in a well built up area"? Can you show us please?

Quote:

And all you have done since then is evade and post aerial photos.

Yes, I provided aerial photos showing that the Pentagon is not "well hidden in a built up area", you provided... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Therefore I'm evading and you're not. Welcome to trooferland!

Quote:

You haven't even pointed out the flight path yet, which is all we are interested in. Maybe you don't know the flight path? Is that it?

Oh suddenly that's "all" (since when?) "we're" (who?) interested in. I know the flight path, and the photos Bushwhacker and I have provided show all possible directions. The photos you have provided... oh wait you didn't provide any photos. You haven't provided a single thing to back up your claims, and not only do you continue to refuse to do so, you are actually trying to find a way to make it out to be a principled stand.

Keep digging KP. Or show us evidence that the Pentagon is "well hidden in a well built up area".

I'm still waiting for you to post a decent photo. Aerial photos don't really show us anything do they, you really need a photo more like this.

Then we can start look at the difficulty of hitting the almost the foot of the building while flying level.

see this picture gives the opposite impression. i look at your picture then this one, and then wonder what your trying to avoid and why you purposily miss the point.

something this close in(or simular) that shows it possible for a low level plane to hit the pentagon is all that is needed to prove your point. far away photos do not prove your point, they avoid the point.

just incase you forgot what the point was i'll remind you.

the point was a low level plane being able to hit the pentagon, the issue therefore is height, which only a ground level or near ground level photo can show.

yet the examples seem to be getting ferther away, what next a picture from space? or a photo that is close enough to tell the height but shows the wrong side?

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:15 am Post subject:

Marky wrote:

critics all link images that are very high and far away

So Bushwhacker's first photo was very high? LOL! Oh Marky, its so obvious you are just making up excuses. And not putting much effort into it!
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject:

marky 54 wrote:

----
just incase you forgot what the point was i'll remind you.

the point was a low level plane being able to hit the pentagon, the issue therefore is height, which only a ground level or near ground level photo can show.
----

My bolding.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The topography of the area is a given fact and well known. There are contour maps of the area. The buildings, lampposts etc are also well known and documented. It doesn't require a photograph at all. All it requires is a few calculations, and not even the CiT team doubt that a similar plane could make the approach (and in their case, then climb to miss The Pentagon)

Did you look on Google Earth as I suggested? As you move the pointer around the elevation above sea level is shown on the screen. For example (as I recall) The Potomac river is 2m, the Pentagon lawn is 9m etc etc.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject:

i never said the plane could'nt hit the pentagon. i was merely pointing out critics photos are not clear enough and do not do their points justice. but a critic with a ego on is like trying to communicate with a woman with PMT, so if critics think they have proved their point better to let them think it i reckon rather than point out how it actually looks.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject:

marky 54 wrote:

i never said the plane could'nt hit the pentagon. i was merely pointing out critics photos are not clear enough and do not do their points justice.

I agree that photos can be deceptive, though obviously you must accept that most photos do clearly show that there is nothing particularly high around the Pentagon. If you look at the post above Sam explains irrefutably why KP50's allegation is wrong.

I have never heard a single truther other than KP50 make the allegation about the trajectory from the lamp-posts being impossible - the suggestion is basically that this incredible conspiracy could plant the entire wreckage of a plane and bodies, black boxes and phone calls, and fake witness accounts and collisions with lamp-posts, but didn't fake a believable trajectory. I don't buy it in theory or practice - it is a provably wrong accusation. And you seem to agree. Let's move on.

Quote:

but a critic with a ego on is like trying to communicate with a woman with PMT, so if critics think they have proved their point better to let them think it i reckon rather than point out how it actually looks.

I suggest you are arguing the toss. And resorting to silly insults. I don't see how critics could go any further to proving their point other than taking you to the actual site.

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject:

Apologies if you have answered this else where, but do you have an explanation for why the data from flight data recorder appears to make the theory that the plane collided with the lampposts impossible http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7112

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

Apologies if you have answered this else where, but do you have an explanation for why the data from flight data recorder appears to make the theory that the plane collided with the lampposts impossible

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7112

I'm going to assume you're addressing me, Ian. I think the short answer, from my point of view, is that it's a damned complicated area and I can only defer to other's responses. Here's a recent thread on it from jref that sums up some of the responses to pft's allegations, and the general state of the debate.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109066

I think the general point I would make, that comes out of almost everything I've read about FDRs, is that the data does not simply explain where the plane is at a point in time - it is a much more complex job to analyse all the different parameters that an FDR can produce, and that these parameters are also somewhat prone to error. In that way it may be a rather circular debate I fear, based on subjective interpretations of the data.

Unfortunately I haven't seen a definitive discussion elsewhere of KP50s specific theory that the plane would be unable to level out enough to satisfy the CCTV images of the crash.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:08 am Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

marky 54 wrote:

i never said the plane could'nt hit the pentagon. i was merely pointing out critics photos are not clear enough and do not do their points justice.

Quote:

I suggest you are arguing the toss. And resorting to silly insults. I don't see how critics could go any further to proving their point other than taking you to the actual site.

Well it is obviously a believable trajectory as you seem happy to believe it. My point is that the plane could not fly level from a distance away from the Pentagon (bearing in mind the alleged speed of the plane we are talking just a few seconds here) so it must have been descending as it hit the light poles. Thus leaving it not enough time to level out before hitting the building.

And it did have to fly in level - no marks on the ground but the plane totally swallowed up within the lower levels of the Pentagon where there are no "rings" but just continuous building. It could be remarked as strange that the plane managed to hit a building built like the Pentagon with no plane visible outside of the building. If you were going to fake a plane collision and fake the light poles then this is precisely where you would have faked the collision. If a plane that size had really hit the Pentagon, we wouldn't be having this discussion I expect.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:17 am Post subject:

sam wrote:

Go to work on Google Earth if you want the actual elevations, but you'll find it's stunningly *flat* in that manor, squire. A bit like most of Essex Wink

The impact wall is the one facing directly up in that photo -- towards open country.

Yes correct wall but you may need to draw in the actual alleged flight-path for us.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:53 am Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

---
It could be remarked as strange that the plane managed to hit a building built like the Pentagon with no plane visible outside of the building.
---

I don't understand this remark. There are plenty of photographs of plane debris outside the building.

Perhaps you could explain?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:37 am Post subject:

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

---
It could be remarked as strange that the plane managed to hit a building built like the Pentagon with no plane visible outside of the building.
---

I don't understand this remark. There are plenty of photographs of plane debris outside the building.

Perhaps you could explain?

In the immediate aftermath, as photographers were snapping. Any later photos could be anything at all.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:54 am Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

---
It could be remarked as strange that the plane managed to hit a building built like the Pentagon with no plane visible outside of the building.
---
In the immediate aftermath, as photographers were snapping. Any later photos could be anything at all.

Here's a small sample. I'm astonished you're even asking.

_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Here's a small sample. I'm astonished you're even asking.

You sort of made my point there - no recognisable plane except a part which mysteriously flew free and landed some way away. If you didn't know what happened, would you say "plane crash"?

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum