FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Pentagon - Eyewitnesses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7903

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm    Post subject: Pentagon - Eyewitnesses Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with eyewitness evidence about the attack
on the Pentagon --and analysis of their evidence.


-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting research from Dave McGowan.

Apparently there are a high number of gov't and media employed individuals among the eyewitnesses.

Makes em look bad if there was no plane. Makes em look good if there was...

Quote:


[...]

By combining the three lists, minus all the filler, I came up with a list of roughly 110 named individuals who have claimed, at one time or another, to have witnessed something flying near, headed towards, and/or crashing into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, nearly three dozen of these individuals held off telling their tales until long after the official version of events had thoroughly penetrated the American psyche, leaving roughly 75 people who claimed, in the hours and days immediately following the attack, that they had witnessed the event. With this more complete witness list in hand, it is time to return to the original question being examined here (as posed by Xymphora): "If the evidence of the crash of Flight 77 is so goddamn clear, why did the operators in the Republican Party feel the need to gild the lily?"

As it turns out, it was actually more of a 'bipartisan' affair, with operatives of both alleged political persuasions joining the lily-gilding party. Consider the following list of self-described witnesses: Gary Bauer, Paul Begala, Bobby Eberle, Mike Gerson, Alfred Regnery, and Greta Van Susteren. Many of them need no introduction, but let's run through the list anyway:

Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century.
Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire."
Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda.

Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff.
Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars.

Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.


I don't know if the Tattoo theorists are aware of this, but all of the people on that list share at least one thing in common: they are all professional liars. It is their job, individually and collectively, to lie to the American people. On a daily basis. They are, by any objective appraisal, propagandists for the state. So if all of them are selling the same story, in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, it is probably best to assume that they might not be telling the truth.

Let's take a look now at some of the other people that are hawking the same story: Dennis Clem, Penny Elgas, Albert Hemphill, Lincoln Leibner, Stephen McGraw, Mitch Mitchell, Patty Murray, Rick Renzi, James Robbins, Meseidy Rodriguez, Darb Ryan, Elizabeth Smiley, and Clyde Vaughn. And who are they? Allow me to handle the introductions:

Dennis Clem is a Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Penny Elgas sits on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Banking Policy, alongside of Jean Baker, who just happens to be the Chief of Staff at the Office of President George H.W. Bush.
Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
Captain (now Major) Lincoln Leibner is a communications officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Stephen McGraw is a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest.
Colonel Mitch Mitchell serves as a CBS News war spinner military consultant.
Patty Murray is a United States Senator (D-Washington).
Rick Renzi is a United States Congressman (R-Arizona).
James Robbins is a contributor to National Review, a national security analyst, and a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council (I, by the way, have decided that I should refer to myself as a Senior Fellow at the Center for an Informed America).
I'm not sure exactly who Meseidy Rodriguez is, but his name appears in legal filings concerning Dick Cheney's top-secret energy policy meetings, which probably isn't a good sign.

Vice Admiral Darb Ryan is the Chief of U.S. Naval Personnel.
Elizabeth Smiley is an intelligence operations specialist with Civil Aviation Security at FAA headquarters -- which means that she is one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because she was busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon.
Brig. General Clyde A. Vaughn is the deputy director of military support to civil authorities -- which means that he is another one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because he was also busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon.


Anybody see anyone on that list that they would want to buy a used car from? No? How about Colonel Bruce Elliot or Major Joseph Candelario? Or Lt. Cols. Stuart Artman or Frank "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head" Probst? Still no? Then how about Elaine McCusker, a Co-Chairman of the Coalition for National Security Research? Or retired Naval Commanders Donald Bouchoux or Lesley Kelly? How about Shari Taylor, a finance manager at the Defense Intelligence Agency, or Philip Sheuerman, the Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Air Force?

How about any of the names on this list: Bob Dubill, Mary Ann Owens, Richard Benedetto, Christopher Munsey, Vin Narayanan, Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter, Steve Anderson, Fred Gaskins and Mark Faram? Aside from claiming to have witnessed the attack on the Pentagon, what do these ten people have in common? We'll get to that in just a moment, but first let's hear from Mr. Faram, who is, it will be recalled, the gentleman who captured the two famous shots of the alleged aircraft debris that many investigators have inexplicably spent countless hours trying to match up with images of various American Airlines aircraft fuselages:


I hate to disappoint anyone, but here is the story behind the photograph. At the time, I was a senior writer with Navy Times newspaper. It is an independent weekly that is owned by the Gannett Corporation (same owners as USA Today). I was at the Navy Annex, up the hill from the Pentagon when I heard the explosion. I always keep a digital camera in my backpack briefcase just as a matter of habit. When the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion. I saw the piece, that was near the heliport pad and had to work around to get a shot of it with the building in the background. Because the situation was still fluid, I was able to get in close and make that image within fifteen minutes of the explosion because security had yet to shut off the area. I photographed it twice, with the newly arrived fire trucks pouring water into the building in the background ... Right after photographing that piece of wreckage, I also photographed a triage area where medical personnel were tending to a seriously burned man. A priest knelt in the middle of the area and started to pray. I took that image and left immediately ... I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash.


To say that Mr. Faram's account of his actions that morning strains credibility would be a gross understatement. Imagine this scenario: you are a reporter for a major news service, and you happen to find yourself, purely by chance, among the first on the scene of the most significant news story in decades -- one that would occupy all of the media's time for weeks to come. Would you be at all surprised to find a triage area already set up and staffed by medical personnel and a priest? And, more importantly, would you just take a quick look around, snap off a few quick photos, and then hurriedly leave the scene, because there was apparently something else to photograph on the other side of town -- like maybe a really important dog show?

Despite the dubious nature of Mr. Faram's account, he did at least provide us with some useful important information -- specifically, that USA Today and Navy Times are both part of the Gannett family of news outlets. Actually, if Faram weren't so modest, he would have noted that Gannett also publishes Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News. In other words, it's just your typical independent, civilian media organization.

Having established that, let's now take a look at who our group of mystery witnesses are (or who they were at the time of the Pentagon attack):

Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today.

Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett.

Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today.

Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times.

Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today.

Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today.

Mike Walter was a reporter for USA Today.

Steve Anderson was the director of communications for USA Today.

Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today.

Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy Times.


Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a pattern here?


[...]


From: nwsltr68E
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mona
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WOW!!

And this stuff doesn't get the attention it deserves. I've read gobs about 9/11 but never saw this. Good work, Jerry.
Back to top
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eric Hufschmid's page on Sam Danner:

http://www.erichufschmid.net/EyewitnessToFlight77.html

Alex Jones interview:

http://theshow.podomatic.com/enclosure/2006-07-20T15_35_15-07_00.mp3

The Sam Danner thread on LOOSE CHANGE where he recants his former testimony:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8567

I'm assuming all individuals naming themselves on the forum are being truthful...

This is a perfect example of faked eye witnesses coming forward as blatant frauds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

heiho1 wrote:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8567

I'm assuming all individuals naming themselves on the forum are being truthful...

This is a perfect example of faked eye witnesses coming forward as blatant frauds.


Agree, that would br Russel Pickering of www.pentagonresearch.com .
Ok analysis on the Pentagon, otherwise a bit flawed. But I agree with him on Sam Donner.

Counter-referencing with sites like http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm, saying that the pictures not showing Donner must be manipulated is, to put it mildly, a bit farfethed. I know that press photographs are faked or manipulated (latest in Lebanon), but I just don't buy this man's analysis. I do quite a lot of photo collage work myself, and I don't think the emergency photography outside the Petagon is faked. "Boosting" pictures is more common, full fledged collage/ composit is very rare. He may otherwise be a good photo analyst, but not in this case...

This man just has to be Donner, right? (red arrow) What, you can't see it...? Wink



Quote:
Having established that, let's now take a look at who our group of mystery witnesses are (or who they were at the time of the Pentagon attack):

Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today.

Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett.

Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today.

Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times.

Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today.

Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today.

Mike Walter was a reporter for USA Today.

Steve Anderson was the director of communications for USA Today.

Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today.

Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy Times.


Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a pattern here?


They're all in bold type? Wink No seriously, strange...

This man's photographs are claimed as fake in my reference above. Doesn't look like fakes... Question

Nice, JF..

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't help but feel that Dave McGowan is grasping at straws here. Should we really be surpised that the eyewitnesses in Washington DC, near the Pentagon, reporting their testimony to the mass media, include a high proportion of people with careers in politics, the military, or journalism?

Then he names all of seven USA Today people among the eyewitnesses. As if that didn't speak for itself (which, he's right, it doesn't), he goes on to claim, absurdly, "that nearly the entire staff of USA Today was loitering around the scene and calling in reports as well." Let's see, at least in 2006, the USA Today has an editorial staff of 515; three witnessed the Pentagon crash. Their total staff in 2006 is 1,970; seven witnessed the Pentagon crash. Dave's words, "nearly the entire staff of USA Today," along with "swarming" and "annual company picnic" , seem like, oh, a wee bit of an exaggeration.

But Dave isn't finished yet: "What are the odds that ten of the alleged Pentagon witnesses would be from the same news organization?" Well, considering that news organization, Gannett, publishes not only the USA Today but also (as McGowan courteously tells us) "Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News", I would be surprised if fewer than three of their reporters/journalists (not counting USA Today) witnessed the crash at the Pentagon. What does McGowan think, that Gannett is "just your typical independent, civilian media organization"? Those are his words, but somehow I thought he was being sarcastic.

In short, I don't see what the big deal is, and I don't think you have to be much of a "coincidence theorist" to not accept McGowan's extreme incredulity of the eyewitness accounts.

I could quote more -- such as McGowan's apparent surprise at the alleged fact that "local news immediately interviewed and broadcast eyewitness accounts of the plane going in" (oh, they did? why on earth would they do something like that?), or his claim that "no one initially seemed to know what had happened at the Pentagon" (which is easier to accept if you dismiss all the eyewitnesses, as I suspect McGowan would like us to do) -- but I really don't see the point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

macauleym wrote:
Well, considering that news organization, Gannett, publishes not only the USA Today but also (as McGowan courteously tells us) "Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News", I would be surprised if fewer than three of their reporters/journalists (not counting USA Today) witnessed the crash at the Pentagon.


Good point.

I quoted McGowan's research to highlight the fact that a large percentage of Pentagon eyewitnesses are either employed by the US Govt. or by a mainstream news organization.

These particular jobs presume a certain level of honesty in the recounting of factual testimony.

If these eyewitnesses were to be proven to be insincere, it would taint the organizations themselves as unreliable, and lend credence to 'alternative' theory and 'conspiracy' theory.

If these eyewitnesses were to be proven truthful, 'alternative' and 'conspiracy' theories would appear to be unfounded, even when supported by apparently overwhelming evidence.

I can neither agree nor disagree with his position on their alleged sincerity, as it is admittedly his own opinion.

While I unequivocally support the entertaining quality of McGowan's hyperbolic sarcasm, I cannot vouch for his conclusions or sincerity any more than I can any other internet blogger. I have, however, no reason to doubt them either, and I simply enjoy his style.

Personally, I have no idea whether or not these eyewitnesses are lying, however at some point in the future, I expect the issue to be resolved with some degree of certainty.

I am simply exploring the implications of what will eventually be either one scenario or the other.

Unless those eyewitnesses saw a hologram... Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
LuCidiTy



Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 229
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a pretty detailed analysis of the Pentagon eyewitness testimonies from Gerard Holmgren in Australia.

I've found it quite comprehensive and very useful and was wondering if you all have seen it, and if so, what you think of it. (In other words, have I been an idiot?!)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html

_________________
~that which is to shed light must endure burning~ victor frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:02 am    Post subject: Stick to the Rockabilly! Reply with quote

Quote:
(In other words, have I been an idiot?!)


Smile

Listen, if you made it to the end of that thing, you were probably in a coma.

I dunno if the Aussie shredder is simply confused himself or what, but his 'conclusions' or whatever are convoluted negations of the quality of hearsay evidence to support a theory about what happened at the Pgon, that was sort of a plane actually, but not really the plane. WTF?

Quote:

When I began this research, I was genuinely open minded. I wanted to solve the problem of the contradiction between the witness evidence and the photographic evidence. I was determined that if the eyewitness evidence was there, to find it and authenticate it. If it was fraudulent, to discover it and expose it. My search led me convincingly to the latter path. I am now convinced that F77 did not hit the Pentagon wall. If it was hit by a flying object, which seems to be the case, it was hit by a missile or a small plane, perhaps a drone military jet.


[...]

My conclusion is that there is no eyewitness evidence to support the theory that F77 hit the Pentagon, unless my search has missed something very significant. Given the strength of the photographic evidence that whatever hit the Pentagon could not possibly have been F77, I can see no reason for not stating this conclusion with a lot of confidence, unless and until contrary evidence emerges.

From: Blank
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness7.html


The fakes also make a big deal about saying that there's no way to dispute that the lack of conclusive evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what did not hit the Pentagon that day... unless better supporting evidence arises, that is.

Ok then... that clears the whole thing up.

It appears to be an incredibly confusing and misguided argument destined for ridicule or irrelevance, and contains many of the common misdirection memes. IMO, it's possible you have been punked. Wink

His guitar videos might be good, though...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
LuCidiTy



Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 229
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Damnit. A punked idiot, no less. Shocked

Thanks for the analysis, Jerry. Want to hear something funny? I've gotten so used to discarding anyone and everyone's actual conclusions, that I focused more on his links to eyewitnesss accounts and on the analysis of the same, barely even glancing at exactly the paragraphs you pulled out. Weird. I wish there was someone with some impeccable creds that has done the same kind of analysis on eyewitness interviews. I also admit I gave this a little weight based on how soon after the event it was put together. Back to the drawing board. I'm going to take a closer look at the other info posted in this topic, to start. Appreciate it.

_________________
~that which is to shed light must endure burning~ victor frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truthseeker



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 177
Location: NW U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:

While I unequivocally support the entertaining quality of McGowan's hyperbolic sarcasm, I cannot vouch for his conclusions or sincerity any more than I can any other internet blogger. I have, however, no reason to doubt them either, and I simply enjoy his style.


I'm with you, Jerry. I think highly of Dave's entertaining and witty writing, as well as the quality of his insight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:17 pm    Post subject: Pentagon Research Reply with quote

I don't think there was any missiles or Global Hawks involved. It was an internal demolition. Many eyewitnesses and reports of secondary explosions indicate explosives were planted in the building. I believe the plane flew over as the bombs went off, creating a sleight-of-hand deception. The plane flies through the explosions, creating the illusion that it pierced through the building. Eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly away on the other side would be fooled into thinking it was one of the 'second planes' later mentioned, so the 'second plane at the Pentagon' story was a cover story.

The missile theory looks to be a misdirection. The eyewitness testimony contradicts the theory of a missile, but some testimony indicates a smaller jet or a white plane. So, the flyover plane would have had some AA 757 characteristics, but was not a AA 757.

Now, for the flyover evidence. Four eyewitnesses, interviewed by the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT), placed the plane on the north side of the CITGO gas station, and not the south side.

*Edward Paike

*Robert Turcios

*Sgt. Brooks

*Sgt. Lagasse

(Names in order of pictures below)











The CIT claims to have searched for an eyewitness who contradicted the claim that the plane flew on the North Side, but could not find any published or unpublished accounts. The fact that the plane flew on the north side instead of the south side is a smoking gun that proves 9/11 was an inside job. How? Well, since the plane flew on the North side, it was impossible for it to cause the damage that was caused, or hit the Pentagon.

Robert Turcios stated that he saw the plane 'pull up' before impact. This is supported by the testimony of 'Skarlet' from punkprincess, who recalls the plane 'banking up' before impact. Forget about the size of the hole, it looks like the hole is in the wrong place! The only explanation for why it would pull up, and that damage would still be caused is a flyover+triggered explosions.

The light poles were planted. In one photo, it is evident that the light pole was dragged and planted on the ground, because of a small 'trail' that seems to have been created, by part of the light pole dragging across the ground, scratching it.

Two eyewitnesses look to be definite fakes. Lloyd England, who claims that a light pole pierced his windshield. His testimony contradicts the testimony of Paike, Turcios, Brooks, Legasse, and common sense. Look at this photo of his windshield:



It is physically impossible for a plane to hit a light pole while traveling at over 500 mph and have the light pole slam into a car, but damage only the window, and leave the hood of the car pristine. This alone is enough to prove Lloyd England to be an intell fake, as his testimony is impossible, therefore his car was damaged by other means (If you don't know what I'm implying, I'm saying that he did that to his windshield, but was obviously sloppy with the job, as the hood is undamaged.). However, there is even more compelling evidence that he is a fake. He supports the claims that no jetliner hit the Pentagon, but still says he saw one knock the light pole onto his car. This, and the fact that a David Icke book just happened to be visible in his car at the time, indicates that he is trying to be 'with the movement' to cover up the fact that his testimony is faked. He also reveals, in an interview with CIT, that his wife worked for the FBI.

Stephen Mcgraw was another suspicious eyewitness. He was former DOJ, and has ties to the secret Opus Dei Sect. He claims that in all of his years living there, he never knew that the building was the Pentagon, even though he was familiar with the 14th street bridge, and knew where it was, though he claims to have not known that the building was the Pentagon before the crash. His testimony also conflicts with Navy Times eyewitness Mark Farum, who says that he saw Mcgraw within 45 seconds of the crash, yet Mcgraw claims that he was there after approximately 10 minutes. The Opus Dei is a secret society with many interesting members, one of those being former FBI director Louis Freeh. By now it should be obvious that we have another fake on our hands, but if you're still not convinced, don't you find it strange that Mcgraw became a priest only 3 months before 9/11?

There was a large amount of USA Today reporters at the Pentagon that day. This was explained as them being on their way to work. However, why were they all within a quarter of a mile of each other, and why were they all going to work-and arriving late-at the same time. Also, Joel Sucherman said that there appeared to be 'heavier traffic than usual' that day. So why were all these people there that day, and why were the USA Today people all going to work late at the same time, within a quarter of a mile of each other? Perp alert. Mike Walters contradicts himself. He said in an interview with Bryant Gumbel that his view was obstructed by trees, but now he says that the wings folded back and the plane crumpled up like an accordian. If his view was obstructed by trees, how could he recall such details?

More on the fakes: http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm



Many eyewitnesses said there were bombs. A bomb-sniffing dog unit was on the scene, and two eyewitnesses said they smelled Cordite. There are many eyewitnesses to a bomb-like detonation wave. The inner ring punch-out holes match the exact type of damage that a Rapid Wall Breaching Kit creates. There were numerous reports of secondary explosions at the Pentagon. The evidence for bombs is very compelling.

So, bombs evidence+north side evidence & pullup evidence=Flyover.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.