• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

9/11: The Smoking Gun

Fonebone said:
The missile was cloaked inside of a miniature Boeing 767 disguise. The missile payload was dispersed as a pressurized cloud of
whitish tan-gray dust that was ignited into the fireball after the time-delay set on the missile's barometric fuse. The carcass
of the missile was whole as it exited the WTC2 North-East bevel until it was overcome by the fireball. The size of the missile circumference
is hidden by the disguise of the quarter to half sized scale B767 costume concealing it. The height of every floor was exactly 12 feet.
The disguised missile entered the neat round molten entry hole between the floors and between the horizontal spandrel plates.
The spandrel plate steel belt is 4 feet high leaving a open 8 foot floor space for the missile, sans the B767 cloaking, to enter the tower interior
and exit whole until incinerated by the thermobaric fireball.
Click to expand...


You linked to a video frame of a 12+-foot diameter "nose" coming out the other side of the building. If only the missile sans the "cloaking" entered the 8 foot open floor space, how did a 12-foot "nose" end up on the other side?
 
"So here's the plan. We spend billions of dollars and years converting a missile into something that looks and behaves exactly like a 767 and nothing at all like a missile and which inflicts exactly the damage that would be caused by the impact of a 767 and nothing like the damage a missile would cause."

"Why don't we just use a 767?'

"Quiet Scotty, Daddy's working."
 
Since we're apparently talking missiles, I'm surprised this oldie hasn't been dragged back up...
DNNtjCT.jpg
 
Axxman300 said:
Cool, that would be a regular missile. Please tell us which type of missile. Be specific. Was it air-to-ground, or ground to ground? If it was ground-to-ground, who launched it?
Click to expand...
AGM-86D See post #228 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13955516#post13955516


I could ask why none of the 150,000 eye-witnesses never saw all of this incoming missile traffic, and why it is invisible on all video recordings, and why none of these warheads made any noise...but I won't. This claim is stupid.
Click to expand...
Dick Oliver, a well known and respected journalist, reporting from city hall park about witnesses to the WTC1 north tower "some people" said that
-quote-they thought they saw a missile -/quote-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmLoSt9qFKg&t=1338s


These two frames were extracted fron the Naudet video of the WTC1 "jet liner"












Do you see a Boeing 767 or a missile? Point out the 153 feet of wings in either frames.





Why not just hijack a pair of 767s and crash them into the buildings?...You know...Like Al Qaeda did on 9-11.
Click to expand...

This is the carcass of a bird that collided with the leading edge of a
aircraft wing.


Who are you and Yankee really working for?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

united states of America
 
Last edited:
Bird strike on a wing. This momentum the mass has with velocity now increase the velocity to about 530 mp and you have the wings cutting through steel beams.
Thanks for the example.
 
Fonebone, your atrocious misuse of formatting and tags really ruins your posts. Why do you do that?

Anyway:

Fonebone said:
Dick Oliver, a well known and respected journalist, reporting from city hall park about witnesses to the WTC1 north tower "some people" said that
-quote-they thought they saw a missile -/quote-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmLoSt9qFKg&t=1338s
Click to expand...

Go to the very beginning of that same video, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmLoSt9qFKg&t=0s

That's Dick Oliver and his crew right next to City Hall, and just a few blocks away from the WTC complex.
What you hear in the the first two seconds is the loud roar of one large aircraft, and a single bang.
After that, the North Tower is on fire.
There was no second destructive event.
The single event that Dick Oliver and team captured audio from resulted in the plane-shaped hole in the North face of the North Tower.

Explain that plane-shaped hole as the result of a single roar and a single bang as recorded by Dick Oliver, the well known and respected journalist!

I note with interest that this footage start under seconds from the first bang sound - and thus cuts off the roar that preceded the bang.
Take this clip - same footage, just starting a few seconds earlier:
- Discernibe Roar starting at 4 seconds
- Bang at 9 seconds
- Dick Oliver asks at 12 seconds: "The hell was that?"
- Assistant answers at 14 seconds: "[indiscernible] like a plane crash"

So, Oliver and hiw crew were witnesses, too. They thought is sounded like a plane crash!
Do you have an explanation for this?

Can you demonstrate that there exist missiles that would, from Dick Oliver's position, sound like the roar between 4 and 9 seconds?
No?
I thought so.

In the minute following the roar, Dick Oliver is trying to reach the people at his broadcasting company ("come to me! come to me!"), apparently trying to be put on the air with his breaking news.

At 1:12 min, there's a cut in that latter video, the footage has now captions on screen, marking that as footage aired live. The time is 8:48. The clock will turn to 8:49 at the 2:03 minutes mark of the clip, so at 1:12 min, the exact time of the footage on the broadcaster's clock was 8:48 and 9 seconds. The commonly accepted exact time of the "bang" into the North Tower is 8:46 and 40 seconds
The cut in the clip is 1:03 minutes after the bang, so at 8:47 and 43 seconds.
Dick Oliver is live on "NY Good Day" at 8:48 and 9 seconds, so we are missing only about 26 seconds of Oliver's complete recording in the clip I linked (perhaps someone can find a more complete clip).

Anyway, 1 minute and 30 seconds after the event, Dick Oliver, the well known and respected journalist, informs us:
"Jim, just a few moments ago, something, believed to be a plane, crashed into the South [sic!] Tower of the World Trade Center"​
Hmmm. How would Dick have come to this "belief"? I say: Because that is what he and his crew perceived, and the people around them. Funny, eh?

Ok, at 1:36 minutes he say "this could have been an aircraft, or it could been something internal" - but the latter can be ruled out, can't it, on account of the loud roar that preceded the bang, don't you agree?

Dick Oliver goes on specifying his own witnessing - 2:19 minutes:
We did hear what sounded like an aircraft, and then a tremendous boom.​
And that is indeed what we hear in the first few seconds, don't you agree, Fonebone?

Do missiles sound like aircraft?

Around 3:06, we get a decent glimps of the whole in the tower.

It's plane-shaped already.

---

So thanks, Fonebone, for bringing up and reminding us of Dick Oliver, the well known and respected journalist, for he is yet another "plane" witness.
 
The AGM-86D is an air-launched cruise missile. So where's the launch platform? Was is a B-52, B1-B, or a B-2? What do the USAF sortie records show for 911? What did the inventory for the cruise missiles record for missing weapons? What stockpile was utilized to pull these missiles for use? Who signed them out? Who loaded them. How many aircraft were involved? What are their tail-numbers?

Have you done a FOIA request for this information?
If not, why not?

You do understand that you must have answers to all of these questions, and your answers must have documented records to back them up.
 
Fonebone said:
united states of America
Click to expand...

No.

Why do you choose to use the low-resolution images instead of the proper resolution - which clearly shows the 767 strike the building?

Why do feel the need to lie? If your claims have any basis in reality, you should be able to use quality images. You do not, you choose misleading images hoping to fool people who are much smarter than you. Why?

Please explain why the damage from a bird-strike on an aircraft that is NOT A 767 somehow negates the physics of a 450,000 pound 767 moving at speeds over 400mph? On what world is this relevant?

Please calculate the force of a 767, and the energy expended upon impact. and then compare this with the energy from the warhead of a AGM-86D. Show us you can do that math.
 
Axxman300 said:
...damage from a bird-strike on an aircraft that is NOT A 767 ...
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what aircraft type.

Thing is: Bird-strikes are decent models to verify a plane can crash into a building.

First observation: In bird strikes, both bird and plane suffer severe damage (rare is the bird that survives), just like both the 767s and the twin towers suffered severe damage.
The bird, being the smaller object, suffers total damage, the plane only locally confinde. Just as the 767s were totalled by their strikes, the towers had damage locally confinded.

Few people understand that density (mass per volume) is an issue: Both birds and planes can swim on water - but a plane actually swims better than most birds. So birds are actually as dense,if not denser, than planes, and that is a major reason why they can penetrate into a plane - depending of course on where they hit (the leading edge of a plane wing, with its movable flaps and what have you, is probably denser than the nose of the fuselage). It's the same reason why traditional bullets were made of lead - not because lead is such a hard material (it's one of the softest metals), but because it is denser than e.g. steel armor. It's why depleted uranium is worked into modern munitions - because it is even denser than lead.
An office building on the other hand is much less dense than either a bird or a plane: It's 95% air, and the towers' density was only about 1/6th that of water; if you could have put then on water, only 17% of them would have een submerged with 83% being above the water level.
This low density is the main reason the planes, being less dense, penetrated the thin steel membrane so completely.

But of course I do not expect Fonebone to understand any of this physics. If he understood physics, he wouldn't be a Truther in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Doesn't matter what aircraft type.

Thing is: Bird-strikes are decent models to verify a plane can crash into a building.

First observation: In bird strikes, both bird and plane suffer severe damage (rare is the bird that survives), just like both the 767s and the twin towers suffered severe damage.
The bird, being the smaller object, suffers total damage, the plane only locally confinde. Just as the 767s were totalled by their strikes, the towers had damage locally confinded.

Few people understand that density (mass per volume) is an issue: Both birds and planes can swim on water - but a plane actually swims better than most birds. So birds are actually as dense,if not denser, than planes, and that is a major reason why they can penetrate into a plane - depending of course on where they hit (the leading edge of a plane wing, with its movable flaps and what have you, is probably denser than the nose of the fuselage). It's the same reason why traditional bullets were made of lead - not because lead is such a hard material (it's one of the softest metals), but because it is denser than e.g. steel armor. It's why depleted uranium is worked into modern munitions - because it is even denser than lead.
An office building on the other hand is much less dense than either a bird or a plane: It's 95% air, and the towers' density was only about 1/6th that of water; if you could have put then on water, only 17% of them would have een submerged with 83% being above the water level.
This low density is the main reason the planes, being less dense, penetrated the thin steel membrane so completely.

But of course I do not expect Fonebone to understand any of this physics. If he understood physics, he wouldn't be a Truther in the first place.
Click to expand...

So if a 767 weighs the same as a duck...:D
 
smartcooky said:
Then its ...a ...a ...a witch?
Click to expand...

That's about the level of truther logic.

"The remnants of the core moved sideways and down.

If I chop down a sapling it falls sideways and down.

Therefore ... shaped charges!"

They called that "the scientific method"
 
Gamolon said:
See image below.

Are you saying the warhead/missile impacted the perimeter columns where the red arrow points, ripped the steel plate in the blue oval away, and separated the aluminum cladding from the column pushing it in the direction of the yellow arrows?




How did the missile/warhead's wings not cut the aluminum cladding like it did the steel plates? How did it just push it aside?

That's one magic missile!!!
Click to expand...



Gamolon said:
Where's the missile's left wing damage for the first two columns (in the red oval) in the screenshot below?


You really didn't think this through did you?
Click to expand...



Robin said:
Yes, I think Yankee451 has demolished his own claim right there where he has to make the rest of the missile disappear leaving just the warhead.

All this stuff.
image.png
Click to expand...



Fonebone said:
[FONT=&quot]Maybe it was a missile designed to fly without wings.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I think Yankee is correct on one point and incorrect on a second point. The evidence indicates a cruise missile struck each WTC tower at a near perfect perpendicular angle in the X axis and created the center circular round 767 fuselage scars. The explosion of the cruise missile created the circular hole. The payload of the missile, Napalm II, created the JP4 fireball illusion. The fireball also served to camouflage the the two projectiles that created the plane wing scars seconds after the cruise missile impacts/explosions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A separate projectile struck the exterior column structure at an extreme oblique angle to create the illusion of a left wing impact. A second projectile, also launched at an extreme oblique angle' from slightly higher position was used to create the illusion of a right wing impact on both WTC towers. In both towers the left wing impact outline was elevated from left to right indicating the projectile[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]that created the impact scar illusion was launched from a position lower than[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the missile that was camouflaged as a Boeing 767 creating the center round[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]hole of the cruise missile. The combination of the cruise missile in the center and the two separate projectiles from oblique angles created the illusion of the aircraft complete with a pseudo dihedral appearance. Modern cruise missiles, circa 2001, had a target precision accuracy of several meters allowing the two projectile firing platforms that created the aircraft wing scar illusions[/FONT][FONT=&quot] could be pre-positioned beforehand. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Both WTC tower strikes were carefully staged and executed illusions that formed the basis of the Psyops .[/FONT]
Click to expand...



A magic trick is a little play, carefully crafted , detail by detail. It is devised so that everything is so obviously fair that the one or two small points on which depend the success of the deception may be slid over without attracting attention. _John Mulholland


This image is a candidate for the projectile that created the eastern half of the WTC1 plane scar illusion. This projectile meets the definition of a missile offered in post #168
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13929596#post13929596

and requires no wings to stabilize the flight path.
http://www.usarmymodels.com/ARTICLES/105mm%20Ordnance/Ammo/105mm%20Howitzer%20Ammunition%20M67%20and%20M1.jpg
3638163a742c81641e.jpg

The explosion of the projectile, a 105mm howitzer projectile, creates the illusion of the port-side engine hole to the left of the center fuselage hole created by the cruise missile. The starboard engine hole and wing illusion was created in a similar manner with a yet unnamed projectile launched from the west. Both oblique missiles that created the wing scar illusions were launched at the exact instant the cruise missile explosion and
hidden by the cruise missile fireball.
Note the howitzer projectile leaves no telltale vapor trail after being launched.
 
Last edited:
Fonebone, you post and run away without answering questions put to you.
What happened to the 4 aircraft and crew/passengers in those aircraft? There four hijacked airliners with people on board.
 
Fonebone said:
A magic trick is a little play, carefully crafted , detail by detail. It is devised so that everything is so obviously fair that the one or two small points on which depend the success of the deception may be slid over without attracting attention. _John Mulholland


This image is a candidate for the projectile that created the eastern half of the WTC1 plane scar illusion. This projectile meets the definition of a missile offered in post #168
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13929596#post13929596

and requires no wings to stabilize the flight path.
http://www.usarmymodels.com/ARTICLES/105mm%20Ordnance/Ammo/105mm%20Howitzer%20Ammunition%20M67%20and%20M1.jpg[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/3638163a742c81641e.jpg[/qimg]
The explosion of the projectile, a 105mm howitzer projectile, creates the illusion of the port-side engine hole to the left of the center fuselage hole created by the cruise missile. The starboard engine hole and wing illusion was created in a similar manner with a yet unnamed projectile launched from the west. Both oblique missiles that created the wing scar illusions were launched at the exact instant the cruise missile explosion and
hidden by the cruise missile fireball.
Note the howitzer projectile leaves no telltale vapor trail after being launched.
Click to expand...

Wow, your ignorance about missiles has been dwarfed by your your complete lack of knowledge of artillery.

You can't shot a HOWITZER without someone not noticing it. The 105 has to be towed into place, and has a crew of eight men. Where'd they shot from, Einstein? It's Manhattan, the place it stuffed with tall buildings. The 105 has a 65-degree elevation. The 105 is an area weapon, not a surgical strike munition.

Claiming 105s were used on 9-11 is not only stupid, it's insane. Get help.
 
So first it's a JASSM to explain those marks on the aluminium cladding.

Then it's a missile without wings to explain how it passed through the little gap without tearing off the cladding.

So now we back to explaining how it made those marks in the aluminium cladding.
 
I'm embarrassed for the guy.

He could go with:

1.Al Qaeda was actually working for the military industrial complex/CIA/Bush-Cheney/New World Order/Reptilian Glee Club/Illuminati/Boy Scouts of America/EIEIO/[insert your existential threat here].

2. The planes were secretly rewired to have their flight controls overridden by remote control, and the passengers and crew were knocked out with some kind of gas. The planes were then remotely flown into their targets. Their cockpit voice recorders either recorded in advance, or switched after recovery.

3. The planes were hijacked by right-wing extremists or Mossad to frame Al Qaeda.

But no, we get cruise missiles and artillery shells.

This is why 9-11 Truth has been the most pathetic group of conspiracy theorists in history.
 
Axxman300 said:
I'm embarrassed for the guy.

He could go with:

1.Al Qaeda was actually working for the military industrial complex/CIA/Bush-Cheney/New World Order/Reptilian Glee Club/Illuminati/Boy Scouts of America/EIEIO/[insert your existential threat here].

2. The planes were secretly rewired to have their flight controls overridden by remote control, and the passengers and crew were knocked out with some kind of gas. The planes were then remotely flown into their targets. Their cockpit voice recorders either recorded in advance, or switched after recovery.

3. The planes were hijacked by right-wing extremists or Mossad to frame Al Qaeda.

But no, we get cruise missiles and artillery shells.

This is why 9-11 Truth has been the most pathetic group of conspiracy theorists in history.
Click to expand...

Anything but reality.
 
How the perps faked the videos

Dropping by to check out the comments. As usual, the true believers can't get past the television show. So, for those of you who are critical thinking-challenged:

Have you ever seen the movie of the bank heist where the criminals put a photo of the bank vault in front of the security camera to dupe the guards into thinking the vault is okay, while it’s being robbed? The wily criminals simply hide their vault-cracking activities behind a photograph of a pristine vault. It works every time (at least in Hollywood). Shows like Hudson Hawk, Speed, and Mission Impossible, old and new, have used this camera-spoofing technique.
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes-of-the-world/
 
yankee451 said:
Dropping by to check out the comments. As usual, the true believers can't get past the television show. So, for those of you who are critical thinking-challenged:

Have you ever seen the movie of the bank heist where the criminals put a photo of the bank vault in front of the security camera to dupe the guards into thinking the vault is okay, while it’s being robbed? The wily criminals simply hide their vault-cracking activities behind a photograph of a pristine vault. It works every time (at least in Hollywood). Shows like Hudson Hawk, Speed, and Mission Impossible, old and new, have used this camera-spoofing technique.
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes-of-the-world/
Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing that people here have been fooled by a "television show" that you think worked on them because it worked in some movies you saw? I believe this is technically referred to as "an argument that disappeared up its own ass."
 
Steve said:
As usual, the conspiracy theorists cannot comprehend reality and substitute their rather bizarre fantasies.
Click to expand...

See, like this one. Anyone who doesn't buy into the television show, can't comprehend "reality."

Edward Bernays laughs and points.
 
turingtest said:
Are you seriously arguing that people here have been fooled by a "television show" that you think worked on them because it worked in some movies you saw? I believe this is technically referred to as "an argument that disappeared up its own ass."
Click to expand...

If you say so.
 
Fonebone said:
The explosion of the projectile, a 105mm howitzer projectile, creates the illusion of the port-side engine hole to the left of the center fuselage hole created by the cruise missile. The starboard engine hole and wing illusion was created in a similar manner with a yet unnamed projectile launched from the west. Both oblique missiles that created the wing scar illusions were launched at the exact instant the cruise missile explosion and
hidden by the cruise missile fireball.
Click to expand...

No such precision timing was needed.

It is very important to understand the timeline; none of the so-called “live” shots of flight 175 shows the impact, meaning all of the shots that were broadcast live depict what appears to be a plane flying behind the towers, followed by an explosion; but no collision. No one ever saw the impacts live on television. Anyone who says they did, is mistaken.

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/
 
If it wasn't on television, it didn't happen. If it was on television, it was faked and didn't happen.

Faultless logic. If only the evidence for what happened on 9/11 didn't consist solely of what people who weren't there recall seeing of it on their televisions. Alas, I guess we will now never know.

Next up: Titanic - not televised, so was it iceberg or missiles?

Extinction of the dinosaurs - asteroid or... No fossilised dino videotape has been found so I guess it's missiles again.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
If it wasn't on television, it didn't happen. If it was on television, it was faked and didn't happen.

Faultless logic. If only the evidence for what happened on 9/11 didn't consist solely of what people who weren't there recall seeing of it on their televisions. Alas, I guess we will now never know.
.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a trip.

The logic goes like this, if what was shown on the TeeVee depicted a real event, then the physical evidence would be consistent with it. Something cut the holes in the towers, but according to the physical evidence and physics, it wasn't what was shown on television. If you disagree, and believe that the physical evidence, the photographs of which we all have access to, is consistent with what was shown on the TeeVee, then by all means, please enlighten me.
 
yankee451 said:
No such precision timing was needed.

It is very important to understand the timeline; none of the so-called “live” shots of flight 175 shows the impact, meaning all of the shots that were broadcast live depict what appears to be a plane flying behind the towers, followed by an explosion; but no collision. No one ever saw the impacts live on television. Anyone who says they did, is mistaken.

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/
Click to expand...
What?? What silliness is this? :confused:

https://www.1001crash.com/aviation-...es-flight-175-crash-into-the-south-tower.html
 
yankee451 said:
Wow, what a trip.

The logic goes like this, if what was shown on the TeeVee depicted a real event, then the physical evidence would be consistent with it. Something cut the holes in the towers, but according to the physical evidence and physics, it wasn't what was shown on television. If you disagree, and believe that the physical evidence, the photographs of which we all have access to, is consistent with what was shown on the TeeVee, then by all means, please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

We get it. You've failed. You've wasted time and half-baked effort with your silly counter story of 9-11, and no one who is sane will buy into it. It's so frustrating for you.

The evidence shows two hijacked airliners crashed into the World Trade Center. That you choose, for whatever sad reasons, not believe it is your failure. You have shown zero credible evidence. You have demonstrated you lack any knowledge of cruise missiles, aircraft, the military, black ops, junior high school physics, and how things work in New York. We don't have to explain anything to you. You've never gotten past the fact that over 200,000 people saw the attacks in person, not on TV.

You fail.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
... by all means, please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

The nub of the problem is this. You are doggedly unenlightenable. This horse may well continue to be led to water again and again forever but it will never acknowledge the existence of the water let alone try to drink it.
 
yankee451 said:
Wow, what a trip.

The logic goes like this, if what was shown on the TeeVee depicted a real event, then the physical evidence would be consistent with it. Something cut the holes in the towers, but according to the physical evidence and physics, it wasn't what was shown on television. If you disagree, and believe that the physical evidence, the photographs of which we all have access to, is consistent with what was shown on the TeeVee, then by all means, please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

A futile task indeed. Would require a passing acquaintance with reality on your part.
 
yankee451 said:
Dropping by to check out the comments.
Click to expand...
And to try to change the subject from the questions you couldn't answer, I see.

You might explain why the fuselage and the rest of the structure of the missile magically disappears in your video.
 
yankee451 said:
Wow, what a trip.

The logic goes like this, if what was shown on the TeeVee depicted a real event, then the physical evidence would be consistent with it. Something cut the holes in the towers, but according to the physical evidence and physics, it wasn't what was shown on television. If you disagree, and believe that the physical evidence, the photographs of which we all have access to, is consistent with what was shown on the TeeVee, then by all means, please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone attempt to enlighten you when you stubbornly cling to a fantasy. What happened to the plane if it didn't hit the tower? What happened to the crew and passengers?
 
Robin said:
And to try to change the subject from the questions you couldn't answer, I see.

You might explain why the fuselage and the rest of the structure of the missile magically disappears in your video.
Click to expand...

....because the plane was just a laser hologram...?







...yes, that was sarcasm.
 
This link, titled :


NISTNCSTAR1-2B
Federal Building and Fir eSafety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster
Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the
World Trade Center Towers
Chapters1,2,3,4,5,6,7 & 8,


retrieves the official investigation and explanation of the WTC plane impacts
and resultant scars.

PDF is 294 pages long and takes a long time to load.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...d945e3cb8995ef55.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-29,528
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom