tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post4918032050597995459..comments2023-06-29T23:58:03.749+10:00Comments on church of nobody: 911, No-Planes, and the arse-about meaning of If it Looks Wrong it is Wrongnobodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13067422372087431256noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-47037407903808865352012-01-20T15:17:07.862+11:002012-01-20T15:17:07.862+11:00Late to the scene and this will likely be read by ...Late to the scene and this will likely be read by nobody (at all). But it was a very interesting discussion which lead me to a thought. Why no planes? That's it!<br /><br />These agencies spend billions on false information & are not completely full of idiots. They must have known that this utterly ridiculous tale would come under scrutiny and that some movement would arise so they planned in advance to split it. Even the comments from Bush about seeing the first plane hit (before the video had been released) were likely controlled disinfo.<br /><br />I too thought the no-planes was entirely disinfo until I read Slozo's considered comments. Now I am a lot less certain.leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-64232204311014028342011-09-25T03:12:56.811+10:002011-09-25T03:12:56.811+10:00I thought that I'd add something to my previou...I thought that I'd add something to my previous comment. If "Flight 175" could go right through that building without any slowing, crumpling, resistance from the building, etc., then if you assign points on a scale of 1 to 10 for strength/resistance, then obviously, the "plane" would get a 10, and the building would get a 1, if not a 0.<br /><br />So, if that's the case, and the "plane" was so much stronger than the building, than what could have caused the "plane" to explode after it annihilated the outer wall, hmm? That's like using a sledgehammer to punch a hole through a wall, and after the head goes through the wall to the other side, the head disintegrates. WTF?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-80311072160323184732011-09-22T13:07:43.485+10:002011-09-22T13:07:43.485+10:00Gallier:
Don't do a disservice to yourself an...Gallier:<br /><br />Don't do a disservice to yourself and lump people with theories.<br /><br />It's exactly what disinfo agents dream of everyone doing . . . infighting, disagreeing with points not based on merit, but on personages.<br /><br />Theory #1:<br />No planes at all hit the towers. Complicit media coverup and ignoring, doctoring of videos, and a beautiful mindfuck reminiscent of people on the moon.<br /><br />Theory #2:<br />Planes of some sort hit the towers (variation of this is that only one plane hit the second tower, or maybe a missile). <br /><br />Theory #3:<br />There were no planes, and the buildings went down by laser beams a la Judy Woods et al.<br /><br />Let's keep it real folks. Talk about apples to apples, oranges to oranges, not shave an argument here or there by predetermining what argument includes what.<br /><br />we are talking planes and towers, let's leave it at that. <br /><br />And hell, for a flyer, why not let's actually talk it about it like sane and reasoned people?<br /><br />Just an idea.slozonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-2016352650562925602011-09-21T23:07:15.803+10:002011-09-21T23:07:15.803+10:00U all are fucking idiot's!!!U all are fucking idiot's!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-16657249516127178992011-09-21T22:30:29.122+10:002011-09-21T22:30:29.122+10:00Just a little reminder to define correctly the sub...Just a little reminder to define correctly the subject before discussing. We have to distinguish betwen 3 points and the comments here sofar tend to mix them up pretty consistently.<br /><br />Proposition 1 (John Friend and co): there were no planes at all, all pictures were altered.<br /><br />Proposition 2 (me and others): there were (remote controlled) planes at WTC1 & WTC2, the plane for WTC7 was shot down. There might or might not have been a plane at the Pentagon<br /><br />Proposition 3 (wrh): There were planes at WTC1 & WTC2, there was a plane at Pentagon and anyone saying otherwise is a disinfo plant.gallier2https://www.blogger.com/profile/04285836062429366578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-84096921592479100232011-09-21T21:01:09.449+10:002011-09-21T21:01:09.449+10:00Nobody, are you really defending those fake videos...Nobody, are you really defending those fake videos of 'boeings' penetrating through the steel encased WTC and emerging out the otherside intact? Couple that with the impossible speeds the object is travelling in the various films, ask any pilot, the boeing would disintegrate flying 500mph at sea level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-52666052394489708062011-09-21T19:06:38.356+10:002011-09-21T19:06:38.356+10:00Rather than using the footage of an F4 crashing in...Rather than using the footage of an F4 crashing into a wall (which is unscientific and is comparing apples with oranges) the no-planes theory would be better debunked by asking an alternative question: what went wrong on 9/11 that would explain the anomalies? <br /><br />Dave McGowan's explanation of the errors on 9/11 shows why there is no footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon and I would highly recommend that those who believe in the 'no-planes' theory check out his writing on this issue.<br /><br />http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr67.html<br /><br />"If the attacks had gone according to plans, in other words, Flight 77 very likely would have crashed into the Pentagon. There would have been physical evidence of the crash of a commercial airliner at the scene, and we probably would have been treated to endless replays of video footage of yet another spectacular plane crash. Instead, what we have is some very incriminating photographic evidence that strongly suggests that Flight 77 never made it to the Pentagon."Snakeynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-8919325712484604442011-09-21T06:54:01.379+10:002011-09-21T06:54:01.379+10:00Nothing original here, just low-brow sneering at t...Nothing original here, just low-brow sneering at the truth. There were no planes. Realizing this is critical for understanding everything about 9/11 ... especially its cover-up. It is therefore its most viscously defended secret. The fact that fake photos and videos were used reveals a vast network of news-media deception. If that deception were widely appreciated the news would lose its propaganda power. Therefore these fake "alternative" bloggers and "truthers" and Alex Jones types clamour on and on about 9/11 and they shout down anybody who brings up the whole story. Obviously these "alternative" clowns are just part of the charade. The filthy language that is suppose to convey a "raw" honesty is part of their gimmick. <br />No, the truth is out, and there were no planes, and 3000 people didn't die, and the "alternative media" is just as CIA controlled as the mainstream media.Bill Barrelmakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-20872362257692653922011-09-21T03:52:36.189+10:002011-09-21T03:52:36.189+10:00cont'd
I am crazy busy right now and would li...cont'd<br /><br />I am crazy busy right now and would like to write more about how blowing down paper tigers doesn't win your point for your cause, much like the official conspiracy supporters don't blow away any of us by easily dismissing theories of laser beams from outer space as ridiculous. If all you have truly is one article to damn . . . you really haven't looked, in which case, it just shows that you have already made your decision, and instead of investigative journalism have turned to simply trying to prove your pre-conceived notion.<br /><br />Seeing is not always believing.<br /><br />One can just as easily pose the question, <br /><br />"Why not use a plane for the pentagon?" and <br /><br />"Why not just crash that plane full of people into the ground in Pennsylvania anyways, why create the doubt with no real plane at the crash site?"<br /><br />"Why blow up the plane as it impacted the WTC (setting off explosives pre-demolition), if the plane was already going to kill everyone inside and cause a nice little explosion?"<br /><br />And further to that, "if there WERE no accompanying explosions as the plane impacted . . . where did its parts disappear to?"<br /><br />See, those questions are just as troubling and interesting as any of the questions you ask of the no-planers. It certainly doesn't dismiss any of the hard evidence and honest eye-witness accounts though.<br /><br />I think concentrating on videos where some adjustments may or may not have happened, and where it is totally unclear as a result of compression or bad video graphics . . . is 100% and totally missing the point of truly investigating the possibility of there having been no planes used, and at most, a small aircraft/dummy drone/missile used for the second building (which I think is a idstinct possibility).<br /><br />And you know what started me on this journey? Gallier, and an argument I had had with him earlier in a comments section from long ago. He made me re-think having pre-conceived notions, because I realised that I did indeed have them, and that he was - agree with him or not on everything - a good guy who is most definitely on our side. And he made me re-examine how the towers could have been brought down, and it led me to going over the planes themselves hitting the towers, and the live reports/shots.slozonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-66527229291365024262011-09-21T03:52:05.285+10:002011-09-21T03:52:05.285+10:00Wow. Quite the shit-fight this started, as I see y...Wow. Quite the shit-fight this started, as I see you wrote another piece already. Been busy, Nobody, so I didn't have time to post a comment . . . don't really have time now either, but here's what I quickly wrote at work.<br /><br />Nobody,<br /><br />I respectfully think you are prejudiced against the possibility of no planes for the WTC, just as I was beforehand. I can tell by the way you structure your point by point format, and the missing information which counters your thesis.<br /><br />I'll make some additions point by point.<br /><br />" WTC<br />- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage of wide-body jets striking buildings, exploding, and leaving plane shaped holes. Extensive media coverage.<br />- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage and seismic evidence of explosions leading to the unprecedented and complete destruction of three buildings involving the pulverisation of steel-reinforced concrete and the melting of both steel and concrete. No media coverage."<br /><br />Let's start with the jets and the footage<br /><br />1st tower to be "hit":<br /><br />- only one video of the first jet, shown only on the day after 9/11, I think later there was a second one, but the Naudet bros. video is the one that everyone is shown. And even on that video . . . you'd be hard pressed to convince yourself that a large wide-bodied jet is actually being flown into that building. I have yet to see an actual plane in that video.<br /><br />- there were not numerous and sundry witnesses to the first plane, actually. In fact, all of the main witnesses later turn up to be complete plants, or turn out to be false (could not have seen/heard the plane from where they were) or both<br /><br />- there were, however, many and sundry witnesses to explosions. Key in this is the live reports, the first reports . . . the ones that are never repeated, or clipped appropriately to fit the story.<br /><br />2nd Tower to get "hit":<br /><br />- one main video, first shown on FOX news, of the second plane. Later, many more show up, and years later, videos continue to come in. So, yes, lots and lots of videos. No good ones actually clearly showing anything to identify the plane, mind you.<br /><br />- a complete mixed bag of reports. Many reports of an explosion, many reports of a small commuter or fighter plane. The reports of a large commuter plane are full of witnesses like the one who says he can see the terrified faces in the windows . . . blowing by him at 300 km/hr at the altitude of 90 stories. Unh-hunh.<br /><br />FOR BOTH TOWERS<br /><br />- seimic activity disparity between when planes supposedly hit and were captured on video as hitting (important for editing purposes)<br /><br />- No wreckage of the planes is ever found, it all disappears supposedly (except for a seemingly planted engine blocks away, even though it is never actually seen to be flying out of the building at impact, even though it never injures or kills anyone in the busy streets of Manhattan, and even though there are no eye wtness accounts of it). No material debris field as plane smashes into building, just like a hot knife through butter. Black boxes never recovered supposedly. In the buildings, despite the actual impact holes being too small for the planes that supposedly hit . . . there is not a scrap of wing wreckage, not a scrap of those extremely dense and heavy turbine engines, no fuselage . . . nothing sticking out or visible in the buildings at all.<br /><br />So right from the start you don't seem to be representing facts here, Nobody - at least, not in fairness, as I can see it.slozonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-81928918669814233602011-09-21T01:21:10.619+10:002011-09-21T01:21:10.619+10:00OK, I'll admit to being a bit confused. Look, ...OK, I'll admit to being a bit confused. Look, I'll admit that a 767 could obviously cause damage to a building, but are you saying that you actually believe that "Flight 175" could hit a steel-framed building and go right through it like a ghost or a hot knife through butter?<br /><br />Without any compression or crumpling on the part of the "plane?" Without one piece of the "plane" or the building being blasted off in a quite spectacular manner? Without any explosion until the "plane" IS COMPLETELY INSIDE THE BUILDING?<br /><br />You're joking, I hope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-89780939043824738022011-09-21T00:01:49.700+10:002011-09-21T00:01:49.700+10:00Great read and well laid out Nobs.
I have to admi...Great read and well laid out Nobs.<br /><br />I have to admit having been quite taken in by the whole no-plane thing a couple of years ago but I came to my senses after a no-planer who shall remain anonymous for now bluntly told me, "Edo, if you don't believe that the jumpers were fake, just as the planes were fake, then you're a fake" - or something along those lines....<br /><br />That was a wake up call for me, and I quickly retreated away from the whole no-plane thing.Edohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04382069174934294077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-89193984797898921562011-09-20T18:56:34.318+10:002011-09-20T18:56:34.318+10:00Oh, and John, you're such a fucking puppet. Wh...Oh, and John, you're such a fucking puppet. When I said I'd blitz you unless you were inadvertantly comedic, that was a variety of challenge which I knew you couldn't resist. The thing is mate, we've done all this before. We've seen blokes like you come and go. You're so fucking predictable. You're scratching your head no doubt but don't worry, I'll lay it all out tomorrow. Oh, and it's BYO tumbrel mate. But only for you.nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13067422372087431256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-32604437771129617452011-09-20T18:51:45.040+10:002011-09-20T18:51:45.040+10:00Exactly! Freethinker, I thank you.
Mind you, I ke...Exactly! Freethinker, I thank you.<br /><br />Mind you, I keep an open mind. But that being said, I put all that stuff at the bottom of the list. If I'm talking to punters, it'd be the <i>last</i> thing I'd talk about. With coves like John Friend, it's the <i>first</i> thing.<br /><br />Anyway coming up soon, a very public execution. Bring a packed lunch and make sure you get there early or else all the good seats will be gone.nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13067422372087431256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-71093886655379151822011-09-20T18:22:16.836+10:002011-09-20T18:22:16.836+10:00Good article Nobs. I've never been terribly in...Good article Nobs. I've never been terribly interested in the planes - they were only window-dressing, an incidental; whether the planes were highjacked, drones or illusionary the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. I've tried to be open-minded towards the no-planers but as you said Nobs all you ever get is wild speculation based on grossly compressed Youtube vids. The evidence just isn't there.<br /><br />I came rather late to the truth party, but what convinced me was the simple, solid technical exposition by the likes of Antony Lawson on the free-fall nature of WTC7 and of the AE911 analysis of thermite residue found in the dust. Either of these is proof-positive of controlled demolition. If I had first come across the no-planers, no-vicsims, dustifying DEW, or pre-planted (at time of building!) nuclear bomb crowd that John Friend is so taken with I would have run a mile and forever written off the truthers as 'conspiracy nuts'.freethinkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-24685581899063806272011-09-20T10:52:44.186+10:002011-09-20T10:52:44.186+10:00gallier2, I agree with your statement regarding Op...gallier2, I agree with your statement regarding Operation Northwoods. Clearly, governments have schemed diabolical plots in the past and continue to do so, and have developed them all throughout history. Operation Northwoods clearly proves this. The point I was trying to make is that Operation Northwoods and 9/11 are two separate black op/false flag operations. We can make comparisons, and point Operation Northwoods out to people that otherwise wouldn't believe governments operate in this evil fashion, but that's about it.The Realist Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331636747072636125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-27361130350063460352011-09-20T00:47:22.908+10:002011-09-20T00:47:22.908+10:00John Friend said:
Hey Aangirfan, Operation Northwo...John Friend said:<br /><i>Hey Aangirfan, Operation Northwoods did have planes, but they talked about switching the planes, using drones, faking passengers deaths, ect. Besides, Operation Northwoods had nothing to do with 9/11. </i><br /><br />Which can perfectly apply to what was done on 9/11. <br />Mentioning Operation Northwood has the purpose to counter the claim that "government would never think about such a thing". The paper shows exactly that, that they have no hesitation in envisioning something like and we should not forget that this paper dates from the late '50s, early '60s, a time were government was supposed to be more virtuous than today.gallier2https://www.blogger.com/profile/04285836062429366578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-32062161074209566082011-09-19T23:04:16.453+10:002011-09-19T23:04:16.453+10:00Well, I'll be damned. First time I've eve...Well, I'll be damned. First time I've ever been censored here on blogger to my knowledge. Apparently, not the last time either, since this will be blitzed, too. I find that rather cowardly. <br /><br />I did click on your links by the way. You only had two or three in the entire piece anyways. Your characterization of Killtown's article was absolutely pathetic, and you know it. As you've said, I have made my points regarding the alleged Boeing 757s/767s on 9/11 (there were none), so I'll stop carrying on like a broken record. There is plenty of good info out there regarding this subject for anyone to look into anyways. <br /><br />You characterize me as:<br /><br />"I've seen this before you know - in hasbara Jews and pedophocracy disinfo scum."<br /><br />That's certainly a hell of a thing to say about me man. It's a good thing we're doing this over the internet, I'd knock your fucking teeth out if you said that to my face. If you can't tell what side of this struggle I'm on then you're clearly not paying attention. <br /><br />Hey Aangirfan, Operation Northwoods did have planes, but they talked about switching the planes, using drones, faking passengers deaths, ect. Besides, Operation Northwoods had nothing to do with 9/11.The Realist Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331636747072636125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-87794918070818662972011-09-19T21:00:32.131+10:002011-09-19T21:00:32.131+10:00From an interesting blog, there's this picture...From an interesting blog, there's <a href="http://labyrinthpsycho.blogspot.com/2011/09/not-everyone-was-shocked.html" rel="nofollow">this picture</a> which backs up P2P's pointjameshttp://www.winterpatriot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-72696241721440002162011-09-19T19:58:18.293+10:002011-09-19T19:58:18.293+10:00You know, I hadn't a lot to add to what you sa...You know, I hadn't a lot to add to what you said. You noticed may be that I introduced the moon picture link with <i>New photoshops of the moon ;-)</i> which is a dead giveaway of the fact that I don't think that they will be able to convince anyone not already convinced. When following the comments there, one can see exactly that.gallier2https://www.blogger.com/profile/04285836062429366578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-34736705352563011032011-09-19T17:31:49.051+10:002011-09-19T17:31:49.051+10:00And Aang, always a pleasure.And Aang, always a pleasure.nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13067422372087431256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-14733077924383183652011-09-19T17:27:36.865+10:002011-09-19T17:27:36.865+10:00...yeah.
Just back from statcounter and John... w......yeah.<br /><br />Just back from statcounter and John... well let me just say that when you posted those links at Kenny's I clicked on them and checked them out. And - do you know what I'm going to tell you now? Can you guess? - sure enough there you were in statcounter, a bloke who only seems to have one barrow, your 'no-planes' barrow, and you love that fucking barrow and you push it on everyone over and over till they're sick of it, it's like an <i>obsession</i> with you, in caps! <i>OBSESSION!</i> - can you see where I'm going with this? - and in spite of being <i>obsessed</i> with the whole no-planes thing, you arrived at this blog, to a post entirely devoted to no-planes, your favourite topic, and... wait for it... <i>you didn't click on a single link.</i><br /><br />Well. Fuck. Me. What sort of obsessed, one-trick-pony-riding bloke comes to a place and ignores everything that's connected with his obsession? I'll tell you - one who utterly lacks any curiosity about the subject he's allegedly interested in.<br /><br />I've seen this before you know - in hasbara Jews and pedophocracy disinfo scum. Pretence aside, neither of them is actually interested in the topic under discussion. There's nothing anyone can tell them about it that they don't already know. They're just there to push their barrow. Subsequently I don't even bother fucking around anymore, I just cut to the chase because as far as I'm concerned such an impossible incuriosity is a dead give-away.<br /><br />So, you can consider yourself burned John. I never trusted your glib bonhomie and flattery and I reckon your 'enthusiasm for the cause' is now laid bare. Enthusiasm be damned, you just weren't interested were you? If only you'd clicked on a link or two. Hell, just one! Anything. But you didn't did you? And it's too late now mate. Still you can keep it in mind for next time, eh? Chalk it up to experience.<br /><br />Now off you go to scream bloody murder in every blog you tirelessly frequent. I really don't give a rat's. Or maybe I do? Maybe I put you on the front page. It's a thought... it'd make for an interesting piece. I'll call it 'Incuriosity'. One word, punchy, not bad. But whatever, you'll troop on regardless, you and your rhinocerous hide, and you'll push your barrow and push your barrow and you'll keep going because that's what you do. That would be 'do' as in <i>What do you do?</i> as in <i>I'm a librarian</i> or <i>I'm a paramedic</i>. I'm sure you can dig it.<br /><br />Anyway that was most instructive. Thanks for stopping by. Oh, and no doubt you'll be in here for one more effort involving anger, disappointment, incredulity, you know, the usual. Let's hope it's unintentionally funny because it's getting blitzed otherwise. <br /><br />Bye John.nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13067422372087431256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-8925019720498423912011-09-19T17:26:25.093+10:002011-09-19T17:26:25.093+10:00Hullo John,
Like it says at the top of the page, ...Hullo John,<br /><br />Like it says at the top of the page, I do blitz comments occasionally but I always say who was blitzed and why. The 'why' in your case is because I've had with you as a broken record.<br /><br />You gave the killtown link at Kenny's and we all went and checked it out and I and several other people came back utterly unimpressed. Which you took as your cue to post it again. And then you came in here yesterday and posted it again. And then today, not satisfied with me posting that very link on the front page, you cut and paste <i> the whole fucking article</i>. God fucking spare me.<br /><br />You're like some wind-up toy, a Chatty Cathy, a parrot that only knows one sentence. One more time - we checked it out mate and it's a load of suppositional, what-if crap that he's pulled out of his arse. It's not based on anything.<br /><br />"What if they used drones?!"<br />"What if they used a yellow submarine?!"<br />"What if they used a midget on a fucking tricycle?!"<br /><br />Well, did they, or didn't they? Who the fuck knows? Killtown's got nothing. Nothing but his own say-so. Pathetic. What's wrong with fucking planes? There's heaps of youtube movies demonstrating that they could do the job just dandy, <i>and nothing to demonstrate otherwise</i>. So why on earth would anyone pick 'the otherwise'. Who the fuck would do that? And why?<br /><br />You can view those two questions as rhetoric if you like, or you can view them as fair questions about a situation that only makes sense as some variety of bullshit.<br /><br />I've had a thought. Back in a sec...nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13067422372087431256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-47820285733510046402011-09-19T17:25:42.897+10:002011-09-19T17:25:42.897+10:00John Friend wrote:
Dear nobody,
First off, I do...John Friend wrote:<br /><br />Dear nobody, <br /><br />First off, I do hope you address the points I made on your last piece.<br /><br />Second off, I'd like to address your characterization of the article you linked to in this piece written by the blogger Killtown, who has done a lot of very interesting research regarding 9/11. You write:<br /><br />-snip-<br /><br /><i>cut and paste from my article</i><br /><br />-snip-<br /><br />This is utterly ridiculous man, you've got to be kidding me. You must not have actually read Killtown's brilliant article, because the main bullets in the article are<br /><br />-snip-<br /><br /><i>loooong double-post cut and paste of entire killtown article to which I'd already provided a link and which still exists on the front page</i><br /><br />-snip-nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13067422372087431256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5842308776616107900.post-5630777553678696842011-09-19T17:01:28.478+10:002011-09-19T17:01:28.478+10:00Many thanks for this very detailed entry.
- Aangi...Many thanks for this very detailed entry.<br /><br />- AangirfanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com