Jonathan Elinoff busts a sheriff??

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Jonathan Elinoff busts a sheriff??

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 7th, 2011, 2:39 am

http://www.wearechange.org/?p=10942

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... RrInYPfzQA


Do I need to explain how bullshit this is to anyone? It does make me curious who this Pat Sullivan guy is.
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm

Re: Jonathan Elinoff busts a sheriff??

Postby nonhocapito on December 7th, 2011, 12:51 pm

[I moved this topic to the appropriate forum]

(The story is obviously bullshit. "Investigating alone", please.)
Thing is, I am starting to worry myself that you might be on a vindicative path, CryptoAnarchist, or even that you are promoting these guys in a twisted way. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think at this point anyone is really interested in this Elinoff guy and what he does with his fake life -- unless it is something related to what we investigate on this forum. It feels like you are trying to give us this false target to hate, and I don't think we have any use for it.
It would be great if you could show us you can discuss other topics as well -- such as the vicsim research.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jonathan Elinoff busts a sheriff??

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 7th, 2011, 2:45 pm

nonhocapito wrote:[I moved this topic to the appropriate forum]

(The story is obviously bullshit. "Investigating alone", please.)
Thing is, I am starting to worry myself that you might be on a vindicative path, CryptoAnarchist, or even that you are promoting these guys in a twisted way. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think at this point anyone is really interested in this Elinoff guy and what he does with his fake life -- unless it is something related to what we investigate on this forum. It feels like you are trying to give us this false target to hate, and I don't think we have any use for it.
It would be great if you could show us you can discuss other topics as well -- such as the vicsim research.


Elinoff is close to home for me, as I'm quite familiar with him. I don't know why people wouldn't be interested in Elinoff or Rudkowski because they are active perps - continuing to spread the lies. I've hung out with the guy on several occasions and witnessed who he coordinated with and how he operates. You have to understand, when I go through these forums and see the mountains of evidence that has been found on Elinoff and Bermas and Jones, I get chills because I've partied with these people. They know me personally. I sold silver to Alex's boss, for christ's sake. It's easy to condemn these people from afar - much different to accuse them in the same room with them.

This particular story is chilling because it shows the truthling is now being elevated by the powers that be from conspiracy theorist to credible investigative journalist. Not even Luke or Alex has been given this kind of airplay, so its very significant. I still live in Colorado and I'm sure the Freemasons know exactly where I am and can butt rape me whenever they want, so seeing someone I've been publicly outing get this kind of media promotion is not just worrisome, but on a deeper level - really depressing.

I posted this here to get feedback on it from real people, since here in Colorado if you talk about Elinoff being a shill, you'll get shouted down. The vast majority here, like anywhere else, are total sheeple that believe the official story. Out of the doubters, the vast majority look up to Elinoff simply because he is propped up and the fake cred from these kinds of stories are enough for them. When Elinoff debuted his Core of Corruption BS in Denver, I was the ONLY ONE to walk out of the theater 20 minutes in (20 minutes too long imo), while the rest of the truthers actually bought into that shit. There are definitely others like myself who have figured out he's a scam, but I'm really the only hardcore no-planer that I know of in Colorado.

I'm not leaving America. I'm not even leaving Colorado. I can't sit on my computer from far away and hope someone else deals with this criminality - I have to do it. So yes, I'm gonna post these kinds of things not as a personal vendetta or vindictiveness - but because this is CRIME. I want JUSTICE. I want the REAL TRUTH. I don't want to live here in some false reality. "False target to hate"?? WTF are you talking about? I'm not asking anyone to HATE Elinoff - he's actually a pretty pathetic guy (weak and strung out on adderall) - I'm asking for additional info. Maybe someone will see something in this story that I'm missing. Maybe someone knows something about his connections that I don't. I want to know more about how he fits into the larger picture. I'm trying to get feedback on him

Additionally, please explain how any additional vicsim research gets this anywhere. All I need to know is that they made the people up. From what I can tell, they used alter egos of the actual perps, did some photo shopping, threw in a nice human interest story and viola! I think Simon and the rest of you have done an amazing job of proving this. I don't need any more proof of it, and I think anyone who looks at the evidence and still thinks the victims are real are either hopelessly brainwashed or disingenuous. Hell, maybe someone here who HAS done more extensive vicsim research will find an Elinoff alter ego in there.

I'm more interested in connecting the perps together. Elinoff is THE primary shill in Colorado. He's the Luke of the west. You're not interested in getting to the truth if you're not interested in investigating him.
Last edited by CryptoAnarchist on December 7th, 2011, 3:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm

Re: Jonathan Elinoff busts a sheriff??

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 7th, 2011, 2:46 pm

I shouldn't have to explain myself, btw

This may or may not be of interest to anyone, but this was the dialogue we had over email. I cut and pasted so you have to start at the bottom. I quoted out the sections that were copied into email replies to make it easier to read. Phil Anthropy is the name on Jonathan's email. I was lucky to still have this exchange, as the actual emails both in my inbox and sent boxes disappeared, but luckily I had already forwarded it to other emails :) Yes, Jonathan, they can still be linked to you :P

(before someone here brings it up, yes, I still bought into Richard Gage at the time. Beat with a cane for my naivete, ok?)



From: xxxx@gmail.com (ME)
Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: 911 Enlightening The Shadows (Best Evidence Of Fake Planes)
To: Phil Anthropy <xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>


I don't concern myself with the social issues of who's who. I just look at facts and evidence and make my own decisions. I don't see how this is "ruining" the movement. That's silly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Phil Anthropy <xxxxxxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't need to start anywhere, I saw all this shit before your ass. You need to start a lot of places elsewhere and learn where the "no planes" shit started. You have to know, because it was spouted out by people who tried to ruin the movement 4 years ago. Pretty big point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:09:12 -0700

From: xxxxx@gmail.com (ME)
To: Phil Anthropy <xxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 911 Enlightening The Shadows (Best Evidence Of Fake Planes)

Start here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6368831731





the plane did not travel at over 500 mph, it traveled much slower than that, aluminum can cut through anything with enough momentum, you are wrong about that, physics explains it no problem. Richard Gage doesn't believe in the no planer theory he believes planes struck the towers.


No, aluminum can't just cut through anything with enough momentum and surely not through steel I-beams at 200mph. The plane woulda blown up on the outside of the building like a car would if hit the building at the same speed. And a car's front end is a lot tougher than a plane wing. Oh, and slice, cut, break, same difference. I like slice because if you slow down the phony footage you see that areas where the wing appeared to go thru the building seem to heal up afterwards, kinda like the pentagon, or exactly like the pentagon.


1. Aluminum wings can't slice steel I-beams at any speed.
-They didn't, look at the footage. They knocked out the sections that were bolted together, GIVE ME A FUCKIGN BREAK!!! NO one ever said they sliced through steel, you are making SHIT UP!


They cut through the beams. Slice, cut, whatever. It can't happen that way.

2. The plane was depicted going over 500mph, which is impossible at that altitude.

Where are you getting these #'s? The plane was traveling at much lower speeds and that is in official and non-official accounts. Your facts are MADE UP!!!!


Every account I've seen is over 500mph, including radar. However, I can't say that I have personally calculated the speed from the video evidence and a quick Google search shows that there is some debate on this issue, but most people are going with the 500mph+ speeds


Pure speculation. I am not discrediting you, I am quesitoning your information because you have NO SOURCES but your own damn self. It doesn't work that way, you need PHYSIC behind you by having someone in physics state the case, not YOU who doesn't know shit about physics. I don't see your credentials on it so why do you claim to be the expert? Your facts are misleading, speculative and all interpreted by you and your counter argument to people who question you is more bullshit projected theories about what "I must be saying if I don't agree with you." ALso known as "Card stacking," that is what propagandists do when they can't argue the points. Your facts are MADE UP!!!


I don't make anything up. Check this site out with an open mind:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=9 ... crash_myth


-J

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Couldn't find Jonathan's reply email to this, but I apparently copied it into my reply above

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:11:18 -0700

From: xxxxxx@gmail.com (ME)
To: Phil Anthropy <xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 911 Enlightening The Shadows (Best Evidence Of Fake Planes)


On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Phil Anthropy <dolphinwolf1234@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't know where to start with all the innacurate claims, blanketed statements, and ridiculous confidence you have on speculative information, which is not fact.

Most importantly, if you are going to argue fact, don't lie about the evidence. You might not be aware of the facts so I will give you the benefit on this one that you might just be lacking serious knowledge and research into the subject. But for your information, the outer walls of the WTC towers are NOT STEEL They are ALUMINUM siding! That is a fact. The steel columns are only in the center. The outside of the structure was extremely light weight aluminum and very easily penetrable.


Wow, dude you are so wrong. Go here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now you're being dumb. The outside of a skyscraper being composed entirely of aluminum? I wanna be there to see you say something like that to an architect like Richard Gage and watch him talk down to you like a 5 year old. Yeah, it had aluminum siding, what do you think it was attached to? They build steel grid first, and attach siding to it.


Most of the people in New York City witnessed the second plane hit the towers, that is a fact. I have been there, interviewed them and have much of the footage.


There were also tons of witnesses that said they saw a plane at the Pentagon, do you believe a plane hit there? If you know people who claim to have seen a plane, I'd like to talk to them and show you they are lying. Tell me one person you know who claims to have seen a plane. It doesn't even matter though because just as many eyewitnesses said there WASN'T a plane. Also, some people saw a missile and found it easier to believe the official story. That's just shock and something that happened too fast to make a good judgment on. History is filled with instances of eyewitnesses who selectively remember what they saw.

Like I said, watch "7 days in September."


I'll watch it, but it better not be like Fabled Enemies and filled with Fox propaganda.

Do you know how many people you are saying are complicit in the cover-up? Are you really assuming that some video which has a computer voice on it and no real author willing on backing up the claim is "fact?"


No, I'm saying I'm smart enough to know that planes don't act the way that they do on the 9-11 films. They don't slice through buildings, they don't fly at 500mph at 700ft. YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY THESE SIMPLE FACTS. Please argue the merits, not the source.

Not to mention credentialed or credible experts (who? you mean the Boeing engineer who said he knew right away the videos were fake?) coming to this conclusion, or even any populated truther support (if this is how the subject is treated, maybe they're just staying quiet), presenting blanketed statements (FACTS) and speculative (how?) information as fact is something you should be able to figure out. I don't need to show you evidence of the planes hitting, it is already out there. No, it's because you can't. You need to provide factual basis that planes didn't hit and that is not going to be accomplished by grouping the rest of the movement into some category by saying there are a ton of films out there and a lot of them are bullshit.


If you want to argue this, Jonathan, you have to explain how the plane was able to defy the laws of physics and travel at 500mph at 700ft, and how the light bent around the building, just to start. Then we can get into all the discrepancies from the witnesses. I've given you examples from my research that you claim I've done none of, and all you come back with is rhetoric, accusations, and a movie of all things.


You are presenting speculation as fact and are acting as though you are so confident of your conclusions that there is no other explanation so I quesiton your ability to be objective. I am not certain of what happened but I can tell you that I see a lot of certainty in a clearly specualtive, not to mention weak, argument presented on no planes, which most truthers don't believe.


Again, how does aluminum slice through steel, which clearly would have needed to happen. I don't care what truthers believe, I believe in physics. You can answer the phenomenon I've listed, or continue to sound like YOU'RE the discreditor.


With that said, no one with serious support or balls is going around pushing this no planes shit because it is too weak and too many people saw the planes in person. Again, WHO? Give me a break with this, dude, you can prove media complicity other ways and not resort to something based on really fringe speculation. Remember, 9-11 truth isitself fringe speculation to the mainstream media, why are you treating questions like the ones I've posted the same way a Wolf Blitzer would? I'm just saying that if you want to convince people of this no planes theory, you gotta present better arguments and you better be ready to back it up with some credible sources and fact, not speculation, otherwise you open the door to being discredited.


NO I DON'T. It's simple:

1. Aluminum wings can't slice steel I-beams at any speed.

2. The plane was depicted going over 500mph, which is impossible at that altitude.

3. Light can't bend around a corner to light up a wing.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO STUDY AND ANSWER THESE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS!



By the way, when you say you don't know who I am reffering to and that you don't care, you lose a lot of respect from me to see you as a "truther" if you go around spouting out the no planes shit not knowing sho said it first, their motives, when and why it was created and so fourth. You got to learn where this shit comes from to understand some other aspects of the no plane argument and if you don't care, then don't bother calling yourself a "truther" if you aren't willing at loking at who says this shit and where it comes from and not just assuming it is populated by believers or researchers, which it is not. And believe me, they (who is they?) have all looked into it and don't waster their time with speculative shit like that when it contradicts all the eyewitness testimony. A lot of the eyewitness testimony is that there was no plane.


It doesn't matter who makes the no planes videos any more than who made loose change. I don't care if Hitler made the No planes videos, they have REAL evidence in them that you can back up going to the actual network archives. If I'm not your breed of "truther", I couldn't care less.


----------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Phil Anthropy <dolphinwolf1234@hotmail.com> wrote:

I don't know where to start with all the innacurate claims, blanketed statements, and ridiculous confidence you have on speculative information, which is not fact.

Most importantly, if you are going to argue fact, don't lie about the evidence. You might not be aware of the facts so I will give you the benefit on this one that you might just be lacking serious knowledge and research into the subject. But for your information, the outer walls of the WTC towers are NOT STEEL They are ALUMINUM siding! That is a fact. The steel columns are only in the center. The outside of the structure was extremely light weight aluminum and very easily penetrable.
Most of the people in New York City witnessed the second plane hit the towers, that is a fact. I have been there, interviewed them and have much of the footage. Like I said, watch "7 days in September."

Do you know how many people you are saying are complicit in the cover-up? Are you really assuming that some video which has a computer voice on it and no real author willing on backing up the claim is "fact?"

Not to mention credentialed or credible experts coming to this conclusion, or even any populated truther support, presenting blanketed statements and speculative information as fact is something you should be able to figure out. I don't need to show you evidence of the planes hitting, it is already out there. You need to provide factual basis that planes didn't hit and that is not going to be accomplished by grouping the rest of the movement into some category by saying there are a ton of films out there and a lot of them are bullshit.

You are presenting speculation as fact and are acting as though you are so confident of your conclusions that there is no other explanation so I quesiton your ability to be objective. I am not certain of what happened but I can tell you that I see a lot of certainty in a clearly specualtive, not to mention weak, argument presented on no planes, which most truthers don't believe.

With that said, no one with serious support or balls is going around pushing this no planes shit because it is too weak and too many people saw the planes in person. Give me a break with this, dude, you can prove media complicity other ways and not resort to something based on really fringe speculation. I'm just saying that if you want to convince people of this no planes theory, you gotta present better arguments and you better be ready to back it up with some credible sources and fact, not speculation, otherwise you open the door to being discredited.

By the way, when you say you don't know who I am reffering to and that you don't care, you lose a lot of respect from me to see you as a "truther" if you go around spouting out the no planes shit not knowing sho said it first, their motives, when and why it was created and so fourth. You got to learn where this shit comes from to understand some other aspects of the no plane argument and if you don't care, then don't bother calling yourself a "truther" if you aren't willing at loking at who says this shit and where it comes from and not just assuming it is populated by believers or researchers, which it is not. And believe me, they have all looked into it and don't waster their time with speculative shit like that when it contradicts all the eyewitness testimony.


-j


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:48:42 -0700
From: xxxxx@gmail.com (ME)
To: Phil Anthropy <xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>; ronpaul-457@meetup.com
Subject: Re: 911 Enlightening The Shadows (Best Evidence Of Fake Planes)


Send me a video and I'll show you how it is a fake. There are tons of fake videos and opportunists making fake videos. Lots of videos doesn't make them true, especially when they contradict each other. TV fakery is an important part of the equation because it reveals the complicity of the media in 9-11. They were in on it for sure. Also, the media only has 5 live action shots, and I can disprove each of them. There are just too many issues.

As far as the no-planer movement, I don't know who you are referring to and I don't care. If there is a movement to discredit the 9-11 movement, no-planers are doing a pretty bad job because there arguments are sound. Discreditors are supposed to make ridiculous arguments to discredit. These are far from ridiculous arguments. I'm looking at facts. These are the FACTS:

There are no vortexes from jet engines in the fire and smoke from the building immediately after impact. Any pilot will tell you that vortexes remain for several seconds as long as a minute after the engines have passed through an area. If planes had hit the buildings, you would see vortexes in the smoke.

Plain and simple, aluminum can't slice through steel, period.

As far as the rock solid evidence goes - The lighting was messed up in the fake videos. As 175 supposedly just sliced through steel I-beams and cement, you can still see light reflecting off the wing. Impossible as it is entering the shaded side of the building. The sun wasn't hitting the east side of the south tower dead on that day - you can look it up - but on an angle that left a triangle shaped area of shade from the SE corner that would have been cast over the plane as it entered. Don't just say I'm being absurd, now you sound like Popular Mechanics. Instead, explain to me how light bent around the corner to light up that plane's wing as it struck the building. Make an actual point instead of just accusing me of being fooled or not doing homework. I'm not easily fooled hombre, and I know what I'm talking about.

Using the Harzhakani? video, 5 different organizations paced flight 175 at speeds in the 500mph range. Call Boeing and ask them if any large commercial airline can move at that speed at 700ft. IT CAN'T - period. It would literally shred the plane to pieces, but Boeing designs the planes to not even allow you to fly in such a way. Even if the pilot pushed the yoke all the way forward while cruising at 500mph, the plane would level off and even climb due to safeguards in the planes systems. Quite simply, it is IMPOSSIBLE to fly a large airliner at 500mph at 700ft.

I will get down to the poor computer animation soon, but let's talk about witnesses. who are these hundreds of witnesses? Go back and look at LIVE 9-11 coverage. No witnesses on the street as it was happening reported seeing planes. There are witnesses who reported seeing a missile, and said it sounded like a missile. One witness is on tape saying that there was no plane, that it was a bomb, and a newsguy is there saying, 'no, there were planes". When witnesses on TV would make no mention of a plane, in one station (I think Fox 5 NY) the anchor had to "correct" him and inform him of the "planes". I'd love to go over eyewitness testimony with you. Let's start with one of the first witnesses, Theresa Renault, wife of a filthy rich CBS exec. Right after the first strike, she was on with Bryant Gumble, no mention of planes had been made, and she said she didn't know what happened. She then screws up her story when she says "another plane just struck". Another media witness even said " a mi-, a plane" when describing the incident. It's clear from listening to the audio that he almost said missile.

Your videos and how they are fake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtavS6Dquc4 - The first thing that struck me about this video being an obvious forgery is one - the voice is the same voice on two other fake videos from different locations, and two, the obvious filter graying out the background. It was a clear sunny day and it looks like she is standing in fog. What is the weird black object that you see for a half second on the left of the screen? It's not a 747 dude. The light is behind the camera, the side of the plane should be reflecting light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y39HZ7bcqOE - There is no plane in this video. There is molten metal from thermite dissolving it, but no planes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4fy3tZ8h6g - Again, no plane


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K94NUtpGJw - Not even a real amateur shot, this is copied right from the "Massoui" video that was initially used on CNN. He just added a tree in front. Real clever! I love this shot because it is the most obvious forgery after the Fox 5 chopper film. All the other reports are that the plane went into a steep decline before impact, where this clip, in it's full form, shows a nice level steady approach. Oh, and the fiberglass and aluminum nose of the plane somehow shoots through all kinds of steel and concrete and comes out the other side. RIGHT! So if I drive fast enough will my car go through the Denver Mint?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v22meQ0dcbE - You gotta be kidding me with this one. Please tell me you don't think this is a legitimate shot of a clear sunny day. More like a filter to blend two shots together - one of a plane, and one of a missile hitting a building.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvmecjFmVyY - Again, no plane in this video. Aren't you trying to convince me there are all these videos of planes?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE - NO PLANE AGAIN. Your evidence isn't even trying here. I won't even waste time on the last one.


ALUMINUM WINGS CAN'T SLICE STEEL GIRDERS NO MATTER HOW FAST THEY WERE MOVING, AND THE PLANES COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE GOING OVER 250mph.

Don't believe me? Drive a corvette at full speed into a light post. If the 9-11 official story physics are correct, you should slice right through it. Let me know how that works for you.


------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Phil Anthropy <xxxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
that is and always has been the worst argument I have ever seen. You are getting duped, my friend. You gotta learn about how the "no planers" came into the movement. They are all disinfo agents, that was proven a couple years ago that it was bullshit info and trying to discredit the movement.

Apparently you are not familiar with the info and its background on this information. Do you really believe anything you are told? Do you have any idea how many witnesses and other videos are out there showing the planes hitting?

Watch "Seven days in September" and just give it a look, that is if you think you call yourself a "truther" who has analyzed everything on 9/11.

You know how many people have to be complicit in this theory? Have you looked through all the 9/11 footage? Have you gone out there and talked to all the people? How many 9/11 films have you actually seen? Have you ever read any books on it?

That was the furthest thing for rock solid evidence. If you think that is "rock solid" evidence. I got tons more videos for you to watch.

Hey did you know that Aliens were invovled in the attacks, I mean Elvis. C'mon dude, are you fucking kidding me with this shit.

Where did you ever think this was "rock solid" evidence?

I can go on and on about this, but I am just going to let you solve that one on your own dude. Do a little more research of your own into 9/11, seriously. I remember hearing a lot of bullshit about 9/11 and most people moved on from those days, you are still surrounded by tons of it. You need to read up on your truth info, bro.


here are a few videos on the plane, of the many I have seen. And I have hundreds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtavS6Dquc4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y39HZ7bcqOE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4fy3tZ8h6g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K94NUtpGJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v22meQ0dcbE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvmecjFmVyY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoyWAjVpZzY

-J

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:08:04 -0700
From: xxxxx@gmail.com (ME)
To: Phil Anthropy <xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
Subject: 911 Enlightening The Shadows (Best Evidence Of Fake Planes)


The media was complicit. Here is rock solid evidence of tv fakery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ROZEt0 ... re=related

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Phil Anthropy <xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
check it out:

http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=344

-J
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm


Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests