Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The New Pearl Harbor
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 52 (223458)
07-12-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by cmanteuf
07-12-2005 5:43 PM


Crashfrog, if you read the link that Mr. Knight posted you would see it was not a government excercise. In the transcript, Mr. Power refers to it as "an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London".
And, just coincidentally, they trained in the exact time and place of the bombings? Four bombings, timed to the second, and there just happened to coincidentally be folks there training under the exact scenario?
Why on earth would I believe something so ridiculous? It shatters, not strains, credulity. Am I saying that the training was done to conceal the bombing? Not nessicarily; perhaps it was reversed, and the conspirators took advantage of the pre-existing cover of the training.
But it's certainly burying your head in the sand to refuse to see that an identical training scenario consists of the perfect cover to place and time explosives. I would have believed that Al-Queda was lucky the first time, on 9/11. The second time? No frickin' way. At this point the burden of credulity is significantly in your court, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 5:43 PM cmanteuf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 6:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 32 of 52 (223464)
07-12-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
07-12-2005 5:46 PM


Crashfrog writes:
How were they able to schedule their attack on the exact day that a scenario sufficiently similar enough to cause confusion was being wargamed?
Do you have evidence of any confusion? The General in charge of NORAD has testified that it took less than 30 seconds to transition from the exercise that NORAD was actually running (that was for bombers from the fUSSR and not about plane crashes) to the real thing.
Do you have any evidence that NORAD even knew of the NRO exercise? That the NORAD operators were aware of it? General Eberhart certainly didn't mention it in his testimony before the 9/11 panel. [1]
The NRO exercise certainly didn't cover, say, the Pentagon, nor did it cover hijacking aircraft, nor did it cover New York City at all. It covered a plane crashing accidentally, as planes have been known to do from time to time. Evidence, Crashfrog, that is all I am asking for. Provide some, please.
Crashfrog writes:
Coincidence? I would have believed it for 9/11 but not for both 9/11 and the London bombings.
Why? Beyond personal incredulity, do you have any evidence? You know, I am strongly reminded of the people who come here and argue from personal incredulity about evolution.
Chris
[1]
From: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
MR. ROEMER: General Eberhart, a question about our training posture on the day of 9/11. On page five of our Staff Statement, the FAA says at 8:38 in the morning, "Hi, Boston Center, TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York and we need you guys to -- we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there. Help us out." NEADS says, "Is this real world or an exercise?"
My question is, you were postured for an exercise against the former Soviet Union. Did that help or hurt? Did that help in terms of were more people prepared? Did you have more people ready? Were more fighters fueled with more fuel? Or did this hurt in terms of people thinking, "No, there's no possibility that this is real world; we're engaged in an exercise," and delay things? Or did it have both impacts?
GEN. EBERHART: Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews -- they have to be airborne in 15 minutes. And that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.
The situation that you're referring to, I think, at most cost us 30 seconds -- 30 seconds.
MR. ROEMER: That's what we have recorded. I just wondered if there was more of that down the line.
GEN. EBERHART: No, it became painfully clear, Commissioner, that this was not an exercise.
MR. ROEMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 5:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 7:47 PM cmanteuf has not replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 33 of 52 (223468)
07-12-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
07-12-2005 5:54 PM


Crashfrog writes:
Four bombings, timed to the second, and there just happened to coincidentally be folks there training under the exact scenario?
Crashfrog, please read the transcript. He never says any of this. He says that they picked the same *stations* (which is only three bombs, incidentally, the fourth was not at a station), but he mentions nothing about time. In fact, he is quite vague about time (just that they were holding an exercise at "half-past nine in the morning"). The bombs detonated at 0850 local, so you can't draw any conclusions from his statement.
Now, what I would be very curious about, and what Mr. Power never discusses, is how many bombs he was playing with. Given that AQ has demonstrated the ability to do 10 bombs nearly simultaneously (10 bombs in 10 minutes on 3/11) I would have chosen far more than three targets were I running such an exercise. So he could have picked 15 stations, and AQ picked three, and his overlapped with AQ's. I have no evidence for this, but I would be curious about it.
And you still have to explain why two private companies holding an exercise in London in some way implicates the US Government.
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 5:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 7:52 PM cmanteuf has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 52 (223484)
07-12-2005 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by cmanteuf
07-12-2005 6:17 PM


Do you have evidence of any confusion?
NORAD has specific procedures for hijacked aircraft that pose an immediate danger to ground targets. The fact that they weren't followed on 9/11 is evidence of that confusion (or of complicity, of course.)
It covered a plane crashing accidentally, as planes have been known to do from time to time.
Into a building. You seem to have left out that little detail. As you know, when the first plane hit it was not immediately obvious that an attack was underway. (Funny that you're prepared to explain the improbable timing of the attacks as simple coincidence, but apparently your credulity doesn't stretch so far that you dispute the idea that four such collisions on one day represents something more than chance.)
Evidence, Crashfrog, that is all I am asking for. Provide some, please.
I have done so. That you can wave away every piece of evidence with a mounting convergence of improbabilities doesn't diminish my argument. At the end of the day the least credulous position is the one that you're promoting; the one that requires the greatest degree of unlikely coincidence.
And your offhand remarks about Mrs. Olsen notwithstanding, you haven't even touched the evidence that numerous government officials seemed to have advance warning. Who called Willie Brown, and what did they know? That doesn't appear to be a question you're equipped to address.
Why? Beyond personal incredulity, do you have any evidence?
Do you have any evidence? If you're not prepared to accept my incredulity, I'm certainly not prepared to accept your credulity. You have no problem, apparently, with the idea of two terrorist attacks being so improbably successful as to appear to support an accusation of complicity by the organizations who unwittingly have them cover. Well, I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 6:17 PM cmanteuf has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 52 (223485)
07-12-2005 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cmanteuf
07-12-2005 6:33 PM


In fact, he is quite vague about time (just that they were holding an exercise at "half-past nine in the morning"). The bombs detonated at 0850 local, so you can't draw any conclusions from his statement.
Remember that the proposal is not that the excercise provided cover for the detonation of the bombs, but of their placement. The preparations for the excercise, which would have had to begin earlier than 0930, would have acted as cover for whatever agents were involved in the planting of those devices, as well as for the eventuality of their apprehension.
Now, what I would be very curious about, and what Mr. Power never discusses, is how many bombs he was playing with.
That's a great question. If they proposed bombs in every Tube stop in London, the odds seem a little more believable.
Moreover I'd be interested if there were any similar training situations involved in the Madrid attacks.
And you still have to explain why two private companies holding an exercise in London in some way implicates the US Government.
When did I say that it did? As far as I know the London bombing implicates only those who would have set the bombs, those who would have allowed them to occur, and possibly whoever set the time, date, and location of the excercise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 6:33 PM cmanteuf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by cmanteuf, posted 07-13-2005 9:53 AM crashfrog has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 36 of 52 (223496)
07-12-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by aristarchus
07-12-2005 1:58 AM


Re: Trust your feelings Luke
conspiracy theories don't hold water
supposing that bush knew something about the bombings, we have two options to explain why he or other gov't groups (cia etc) did not act:
1. some kind of vast conspiracy
2. gross incompetance and beaurocracy
which one sounds like our government to you?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by aristarchus, posted 07-12-2005 1:58 AM aristarchus has not replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 37 of 52 (223578)
07-13-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
07-12-2005 7:52 PM


crashfrog writes:
Remember that the proposal is not that the excercise provided cover for the detonation of the bombs, but of their placement. The preparations for the excercise, which would have had to begin earlier than 0930, would have acted as cover for whatever agents were involved in the planting of those devices, as well as for the eventuality of their apprehension.
Where did you propose this? And why? Do you have any evidence that the exercise did anything physical in these three tube stations?
Let me explain my experience with a corporate continuity management exercise; this might clear up some misconceptions between us. Everyone in my company was told "we have a mercury spill on a major nearby road" and so we had to evacuate the building and then work from home.
There was nothing done on Route 1 to simulate this: traffic flowed up and down the road quite normally, we simply declared it to be so, for the purposes of the exercise (actually we cheated a little bit, making sure everyone had their laptops with them, but that's a different story). Why do you think that a company of 1000 people with a consulting firm would actually do anything physical at a Tube station?
It seems a much more parsimonious assumption to me to believe that the exercise was 'declaring a bomb in the Tube stop for the purposes of this company exercise' and involved no 'placing simulated bombs in tube stops'- this isn't an exercise for first responders, it isn't an exercise for the Transport for London employees, its a private company doing a company-wide exercise. It was not supposed to be a London-wide exercise. And that is what actually placing "fake" bombs would be- it would turn it from an exercise involving just the employees of that company into an exercise for the entire London first response and transit systems- and no one has claimed that any such thing happened, just that a single unnamed company "of more than a thousand employees" was doing an exercise.
There is another reason to suggest that your interpretation of the event is not the most parsimonious one: you seem to believe that official cover for the bombs emplacement was provided to officials in TFL by officers of Visor Consultants. They told London Underground officials "Oh don't worry, we just need to put some fake bombs here" and under that cover installed *real* bombs. Why wouldn't some of those London Underground officials who were duped mention this to the press? I think that "Hey, some people were installing what they claimed were fake bombs here last night" might have come up from one of the many London Underground employees who would have known of the exercise as you portray it. Why hasn't anyone mentioned any physical emplacement of "fake" bomb materials yet?
Unless you are arguing that people in TFL were complicit (in which case no excuse would be necessary, it would be trivial for TFL people to plant bombs in the system) or that the Men-in-Black mind-eraser was used (ditto) I would expect someone who works for the transit system to mention such a thing.
And then you'd need to explain the detonation on the bus if the bombs were planted at the stations ahead of time. How did the bomb get on the bus?
If you any evidence that there was indeed "fake bombs" put in place as part of this exercise I would *LOVE* to see it. But I need evidence to believe that government people were complicit in this. I know government employees. Hell, I work for a government contractor. And that might also be why I'm skeptical of a government conspiracy.
(Sidenote: I find it is amusing that I, an Episcopalian who believes in God despite zero evidence, am asking Crashfrog for evidence to support his beliefs. Life can be kind of funny that way.)
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 7:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 07-13-2005 5:57 PM cmanteuf has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 52 (223643)
07-13-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by cmanteuf
07-13-2005 9:53 AM


Where did you propose this?
It's proposed in the article. You read it, right?
Do you have any evidence that the exercise did anything physical in these three tube stations?
Is that even necessary? I don't see why it would be.
It seems a much more parsimonious assumption to me
So, now, I'm supposed to accept not only your credulity, but your assumptions, in leiu of argument?
its a private company doing a company-wide exercise.
Then why were they at the Tube stations?
Why hasn't anyone mentioned any physical emplacement of "fake" bomb materials yet?
Apparently no one caught them at it, so they didn't need to use the excuse. At any rate I don't recall ever proposing that government agents planted any bombs, fake or otherwise.
I find it is amusing that I, an Episcopalian who believes in God despite zero evidence, am asking Crashfrog for evidence to support his beliefs.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth and then demanding that I support positions that aren't mine. Why don't you try supporting yours for a change? Or addressing arguments presented to you? For the third time, who warned Willie Brown, and how did they know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by cmanteuf, posted 07-13-2005 9:53 AM cmanteuf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by MangyTiger, posted 07-15-2005 1:18 AM crashfrog has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 39 of 52 (223840)
07-15-2005 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
07-13-2005 5:57 PM


Where did you propose this?
It's proposed in the article. You read it, right?
I read the article and it didn't seem even remotely proposed to me. Since it obviously did to you I dug around a bit more and found an entry on Wikipedia (not guaranteed to be accurate I know - but you can e-mail Visor Consultants yourself if really want to be sure).
There is a reproduction of an e-mail issued by Visor Consultants from which the following quotes are taken :
It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.
In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
So there were no people at the Tube stations (or more to the point on the Underground trains, since that is where the bombs were - none of the explosions actually happened at a Tube station), it was just a bunch of suits in a conference room doing "what if" exercises.
I suspect all of this became redundant when it was revealed the bombs weren't planted but were carried by suicide bombers from Leeds and Aylesbury (as opposed to Visor Consultants) - unless you think that's all somehow part of the conspiracy too ?
P.S. The conference room bit is artistic licence - they might have used people's offices

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 07-13-2005 5:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2005 7:36 AM MangyTiger has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 52 (223842)
07-15-2005 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 12:55 AM


The toweres fell due to the great weight of the above floors having a great downward impact which, once the stabilizing braceswarped and literally melted, caused an unstable side support system to buckle, causing a domino effect as the upper mass compressed floor upon floor. There is no mystery with building two, as a greater upper mass was involved and, perhaps, more concentrated jet fuel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 12:55 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 52 (223878)
07-15-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by MangyTiger
07-15-2005 1:18 AM


I read the article and it didn't seem even remotely proposed to me.
From the article:
quote:
The exercise fulfils several different goals. It acts as a cover for the small compartamentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise.
Now, I don't neccesarily agree that the bombing was carried out by government terrorists, but the excercise itself - despite having not actually occured at any of the bombing locations - still provides cover for the conspirators.
So there were no people at the Tube stations (or more to the point on the Underground trains, since that is where the bombs were - none of the explosions actually happened at a Tube station), it was just a bunch of suits in a conference room doing "what if" exercises.
That doesn't matter. The excercise itself still provides cover for conspiracy because they can always claim they were part of the excercise; how many people outside of the company would have been familiar enough with the details to immediately judge the veracity of such a claim?
I suspect all of this became redundant when it was revealed the bombs weren't planted but were carried by suicide bombers from Leeds and Aylesbury (as opposed to Visor Consultants) - unless you think that's all somehow part of the conspiracy too ?
The last I heard, one bomb was carried by a suicide bomber and the other three were detonated by cell phone. They did, after all, explode within seconds of each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by MangyTiger, posted 07-15-2005 1:18 AM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by cavediver, posted 07-15-2005 9:23 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 44 by MangyTiger, posted 07-15-2005 4:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 42 of 52 (223896)
07-15-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
07-15-2005 7:36 AM


The last I heard, one bomb was carried by a suicide bomber and the other three were detonated by cell phone. They did, after all, explode within seconds of each other.
What? Do phones work on the tube now? Awesome! That would be quite impressive on the Picadilly. Hey, can you believe I used to work at Russel Square tube station...
But no, the conclusion is that all four were suicide bombs. I think we've got biological evidence at all four scenes now...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2005 7:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2005 4:10 PM cavediver has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 52 (223951)
07-15-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by cavediver
07-15-2005 9:23 AM


But no, the conclusion is that all four were suicide bombs. I think we've got biological evidence at all four scenes now...
Huh, hadn't heard that. Well, good to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by cavediver, posted 07-15-2005 9:23 AM cavediver has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 44 of 52 (223957)
07-15-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
07-15-2005 7:36 AM


The last I heard, one bomb was carried by a suicide bomber and the other three were detonated by cell phone. They did, after all, explode within seconds of each other.
Then you heard wrong. All four are now confirmed to be suicide bombers. This from the BBC website:
  • MOHAMMAD SIDIQUE KHAN, 30, FROM DEWSBURY - detonated enough explosives on a Circle Line train to kill seven people
  • HASIB MIR HUSSAIN, 18, FROM LEEDS - boarded the No 30 bus in London armed with enough explosives to rip the double-decker apart, killing 13 people
  • SHEHZAD TANWEER, 22, FROM LEEDS - detonated a bomb on a Circle Line train between Aldgate and Liverpool Street stations which killed seven people, including himself, and injured over 100 more
  • LINDSEY GERMAINE, FROM AYLESBURY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE - thought to be responsible for the Russell Square Underground bomb, where 21 people have been confirmed dead and hundreds more injured
The 'thought to be responsible' about Lindsey Germaine seems to be because nobody yet knows much about him, but there is no doubt it was a suicide bomber.
quote:
The exercise fulfils several different goals. It acts as a cover for the small compartamentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise.
Ok I will own up to a mistake in my thinking here. You have been talking about evidence so much I was mentally substituting 'proposed' with 'proposed and backed up with some evidence'.
I will cheerfully concede it is proposed. I would maintain, however, that there is nothing in the transcript of the Peter Power interview (which in the context of what did or didn't happen on the morning of the bombings is the only thing with evidentiary value in that article) that backs up this idea.
The quote above is nothing more than the opinion of the person who wrote the article. As far as I am concerned it is no more or less valuable than the opinions you or I may put forward - but it has no real weight in terms of evidence.
On the other hand I quoted from an e-mail from Visor Consultants which explicitly said:
In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff)
In what possible way can a desk bound exercise involving a few people be a cover for the physical placement of bombs in the London Underground? Especially as we now know it was suicide bombers carrying bombs, not placing them and walking away. That just makes absolutely no sense at all.
The excercise itself still provides cover for conspiracy because they can always claim they were part of the excercise; how many people outside of the company would have been familiar enough with the details to immediately judge the veracity of such a claim?
This also makes no sense to me quite apart from the fact there was no physical side to the exercise. Maybe it's a difference in our cultural or legal frameworks but in the UK there is no way a private company could carry out such an exercise in a public place - it would be against the law (probably several). Saying to an offical of London Underground or a British Tranport Policeman "I'm part of an exercise being run by XYZ" isn't going to cut a lot of ice if you've just been caught doing something you shouldn't. An exercise based on doing something illegal isn't exactly a plausible cover story is it?
To forestall the obvious question about what law you would be breaking - the first one that leaps to mind is that it is illegal to do something which is likely to cause public disorder (carrying something which is or could be construed to be a bomb in the packed-like-sardines evironment of the London Underground would be a good way to be start a panic). That in itself would probably get you into reckless endangerment - a panic in the Tube could well result in people being crushed or trampled to death. People who are better legal eagles on UK law can correct me or offer 'better' offences.
Edited to add a quote box.
This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 07-15-2005 04:29 PM

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2005 7:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 07-17-2005 4:39 PM MangyTiger has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 52 (224253)
07-17-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by MangyTiger
07-15-2005 4:27 PM


Re: .wikipedia.org - useful but (Neutrality)
Well, you've successfully argued against conspiracy - aside from the utterly ridiculous conspiracy scenarios we could both devise - but I still don't see that coincidence is the explanation, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by MangyTiger, posted 07-15-2005 4:27 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by MangyTiger, posted 07-17-2005 7:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024