Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
MysteryX

If you were under 15 on 9/11 click here

1,212 posts in this topic

You gentlemen are saying that they weren't missing, they were simply untracked, and that because 60 years on, the accounting science and procedures in the Pentagon is in the dark ages, because within the outfit the software and computers are incompatible.

That is nothing new. There have been financial problems, but that was still no reason to fly an aircraft into the Pentagon.

Pentagon accounting problems 'serious': Treasury

(AFP)–Mar 9, 2011

WASHINGTON — The US administration is taking a hard look at problems in the Defense Department's accounting, after a report called its books unauditable, the Treasury said Wednesday.

Treasury assistant secretary Richard Gregg told a Congressional panel there were "serious financial reporting issues" at the Pentagon, which in the current proposed budget before the Congress receives $553 billion, or some 15% of all US annual spending. The remarks came after the US government watchdog the General Accounting Office (GAO) named problematic defense accounting standards as the primary reason it could not produce a full assessment of government spending in fiscal 2010.

The GAO cited "serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DoD) that have prevented DoD's financial statements from being auditable."Gregg said that Treasury, Defense, the GAO and the White House budget office have agreed a strategy to resolve some of DoD's "more significant accounting and audit weaknesses."The GAO report on fiscal 2010, released in December, said the auditor had no way of being sure if the defense department had the assets it recorded and whether they were in the condition claimed.

"As in past years, DoD did not maintain adequate systems or have sufficient records to provide reliable information on these assets," it said. "Deficiencies in internal control over such assets could affect the federal government's ability to fully know the assets it owns, including their location and condition."

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not worked for the Federal government, but I have worked closely with the FAA. Yes, I did 4 years in Army ROTC and 2 years active duty in Southeast Asia way back in 1970.

So basically you don't know what you are talking about.

No sir, I do NOT think technological advances are happening all over the federal government, and I am NOT an accountant, but I have a fair understanding how accounting works, having hired several of them during my days as a businessman.

Irrelevant because you do not how how out-dated the government's accounting systems are

I'm sorry to hear your computers are screwed up, but not surprised.

So you are not surprised that the computers the government provides are not top of the line and out-dated. Good

None of those facts explain what happened to those "untracked" funds. I am reminded of the "untracked" funds that Paul Bremer et al of the CPA experienced. Of course that was US Currency, not funds on books somewhere.

You are quite daft aren't you? Out dated computer systems DECADES old that are INCOMPATIBLE.

Do you even understand what those words mean?

I am sympathetic to your personal problems, I do not find your story particularly persuasive or even relevant to funds missing in the Pentagon from the 1990's.

My story was to get you to understand the relics we use in today's "modern" army. It is obvious you do not understand that at all.

Basically, you gents would have me believe that the excuse given by probably the most mendacious of federal agencies is valid and truthful on the surface.

I personally do not beleive you to even realize how ignorant you are when it comes to this topic. Your mis-trust of the government is a big reason why you are biased to all accounts. Nobody said we 100% beleive in everything the government says, based on other threads you have posted on, your classify us as being just that. I am assuming to discredit our input on the subject.

You are suggesting to me that the same folks that brought us Reynolds v. U.S., the Gulf Of Tonkin, the Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch stories, would not dissemble in a professional manner regarding missing funds.

What does that have to do anything regarding untracked funds?

While I find it most improbable that the DoD has a reputation for telling the truth, you would have me accept their word on funds missing. Sorry GI, no can do.

Again, we understand you have a mis-trust of the government. Fine. Stop using your bias and look at the facts.

I watched Rummy's performance that day, and I spent enough time in the US Army to know he was stonewalling and smirking for a purpose.

Apperantly you are qualified as a visual lie detector. Where did you learn that from? TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that excuse is facile, especially considering the source. I'm saying that missing funds are nothing new under the sun when it comes to the federal government, but you would have me believe this is simply an oversight, and that Rummy's testimony was honorable and above board.

So summed up, you do realize that missing funds are not new, but because Rumsfield said it, its all BS?

:blink::w00t::cry:

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

That you and Cz and Boo accept such a facile explanation for the 'untracked' funds demonstrate your uncritical assessment.

Are you trying to have me believe that the Pentagon accounting system is just super advanced and beyond the comprehension of civilian accountants, or should I believe that their system is completely in the Dark Ages, and incomprehensible even within the building? The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, sort of thing? Really? :lol:

Are you really that gullible?

Stoopid question, I know.. :hmm:

In the Air Force CURRENTLY they still use DOS based programs for most of the fiance and personnel stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not worked for the Federal government, but I have worked closely with the FAA. Yes, I did 4 years in Army ROTC and 2 years active duty in Southeast Asia way back in 1970.

No sir, I do NOT think technological advances are happening all over the federal government, and I am NOT an accountant, but I have a fair understanding how accounting works, having hired several of them during my days as a businessman.

I'm sorry to hear your computers are screwed up, but not surprised.

None of those facts explain what happened to those "untracked" funds. I am reminded of the "untracked" funds that Paul Bremer et al of the CPA experienced. Of course that was US Currency, not funds on books somewhere.

Though I am sympathetic to your personal problems, I do not find your story particularly persuasive or even relevant to funds missing in the Pentagon from the 1990's.

Basically, you gents would have me believe that the excuse given by probably the most mendacious of federal agencies is valid and truthful on the surface. You are suggesting to me that the same folks that brought us Reynolds v. U.S., the Gulf Of Tonkin, the Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch stories, would not dissemble in a professional manner regarding missing funds.

So you're saying that because the Govt (or specifically the DoD) says something, then it must be untrue?

Now, assuming that there was an enormous fiddle here, are you suggesting that the Govt. (and specifically Rumsfeld) were at a level of diabolical cunning enough to engineer an atrocity on this scale just to cover up financial shenanigans, even ones on an epic scale? (since I assume that the whole 9/11 plot must have been all a part of this plot, unless Rumsfeld did happen to have a plane [or a drone, or a missile] all ready having been prepared earlier just in case the opportunity arose, so they could conveniently blame it on Al Qeada?) And was this purely Rumsfeld and the Bush Admininstration behind this, amd if so how on earth did they manage to arrange it all so quickly, seeing as they'd only been in office nine months by that time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

You claim that you don't believe 100% of what the government says, yet at the same time you DO believe the suspicious excuse that the funds were merely 'untracked', whatever that might be, to the tune of $2.3 Trillion stretching over many years and at least 2 administrations. So it sounds like you believe that the Pentagon is so utterly incompetent and its systems so utterly ruined that they cannot keep track of where the $ is.

Considering we're talking about embezzlement and fraud basically, the theft of taxpayer dollars, that seems like a high level of gullibility you display, especially considering your claim to not believing 100%.

I wonder if you might offer an example of some government statement that you do NOT believe?

So far, your actions in making light of the missing (I mean untracked) funds strongly suggest that you believe 100% of a very flimsy and improbable excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So summed up, you do realize that missing funds are not new, but because Rumsfield said it, its all BS?

:blink::w00t::cry:

No sir, not just because Rummy said it, but because of the WAY he said it, and his scandalous behavior (as a Cabinet level officer) in stonewalling the investigation.

Do you understand what I mean in saying he was stonewalling?

Have you ever been deposed or observed others being deposed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frenat, thanks for the info regarding DOS based systems in the accounting dept. What did they ever DO before computers came along? :blush:

74

No sir, I'm not saying that 100% of government statements are inaccurate or true.

What I'm saying is that they are meant for the most part to manipulate the public perception. You know, they are SPIN.

Well that depends on which 'atrocity' you refer to. If you mean only the attack on the Pentagon, then yes, I think the Pentagon attack was included in the script for the day SO THAT the audit process would be stopped. But did that goal drive ALL the events of the day? I doubt it very much. The events at WTC were the main show, with the Pentagon just a side show with a convenient advantage.

Rumsfeld, just like Bush and every other swinging Richard involved, was just a player. A major player, to be sure, but just a player.

This was planned years in advance, is my best guess, and the planners and players number probably in the dozens. Rudy was in on it most likely. There was a reason he fought City Council for years to have the EOC put into WTC 7.

Some theorize the towers were built with their eventual destruction in mind. I'm neither engineer nor architect, but I would not be surprised if that were true. The truth will never be known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sir, not just because Rummy said it, but because of the WAY he said it, and his scandalous behavior (as a Cabinet level officer) in stonewalling the investigation.

Do you understand what I mean in saying he was stonewalling?

Have you ever been deposed or observed others being deposed?

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you implying that Rumsfield stole $2.3 trillion and used some of that money to bribe officials at American Airlines and then, use some of that money to hire government employees who were willing to give their lives for the sake of protecting Rumsfield and other government officials by hijacking and crashing American 77 into the Pentagon in order to blow up a government computer loaded with evidence on the west side of the Pentagon so that the impact would destroy all evidence on that computer?

Wouldn't it be more practical to simply steal that computer and throw the thing into the Atlantic Ocean instead of spending millions dollars to hire government suicide employees to fly an expensively modified B-757 full of passengers and crew into the Pentagon, which was acquired by bribing American Airline officials with additional millions of dollars?

For fifty dollars or less, they could have hired a guy off the street to throw the computer into the Potomac, which would have saved the government bandits millions of dollars and hundreds of lives.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

You claim that you don't believe 100% of what the government says, yet at the same time you DO believe the suspicious excuse that the funds were merely 'untracked', whatever that might be, to the tune of $2.3 Trillion stretching over many years and at least 2 administrations.

Of course I do not beleive that everything the government says is 100% true. We are not talking about other subjects just 9/11 and in this instance the UN-TRACKED money. I have experience with the way government systems work as I am still currently reserve duty and have several friends that work for DFAS so when Rumsfield says that the government's system where several decades of financing is stored has lots of incompatibilities. Which is in fact, whether you want to beleive it or not, is the truth.

So it sounds like you believe that the Pentagon is so utterly incompetent and its systems so utterly ruined that they cannot keep track of where the $ is.

Nobody said incompetant. Yes, for having old systems storing accounting information that is incompatible with other systems, that is reality.

Considering we're talking about embezzlement and fraud basically, the theft of taxpayer dollars, that seems like a high level of gullibility you display, especially considering your claim to not believing 100%.

Who said anything about embezzelment and fraud? That is your theory. Show me proof that the money was embezzeled. Show me proof that fraud happened.

You want to make these claims but you do not show one shred of evidence to support it.

So far, your actions in making light of the missing (I mean untracked) funds strongly suggest that you believe 100% of a very flimsy and improbable excuse.

I beleive because I have experienced the inconsistencies within the DOD. Which is more than I can say about your experience in this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody said incompetant. Yes, for having old systems storing accounting information that is incompatible with other systems, that is reality.

it is hard enough to keep track of everything within the same branch of the military. The Pentagon deals with all branches and each has their own proprietary and dated software.

I don't remember seeing anything that indicated the audit was stopped by the attack. One nice thing about computers in the military, no matter how old the system, they are usually backed up in multiple places.

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're getting a bit desperate, dude.

Or maybe I just was not clear enough?

Just quoting what you said dude. You made the claim not me.

But it is good to see that this thread is turning into the usual "spin the wheel" 9/11 conspiracy thread. What is it now? About the eight topic we've covered that has been discredited?

Time to spin the wheel again Babe. I don't think we've covered Mossad funding yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

I am more than happy to defer to your knowledge of current accounting practices within DoD. I was just a medic, not an accountant, and that was 40 years ago. I make no claims to being familiar with accounting practices. Never set foot in the Pentagon in my entire life.

My beef with Rumsfeld stems from many things, but for the purposes of this discussion, my beef is with the way he conducted himself in that portion of congressional investigation regarding those missing funds that I happened to see. That was a very small part of the overall investigation, but was most informative.

Watching his performance, I had the luxury of being able to view his body language. Obviously, we do not have that luxury here on the internet.

If one assumes that the SecDef has the best interests of government operation at heart, that day he set a terrible example, and appeared very much to be deliberately frustrating the process.

If one assumes that the SecDef is a conscientious public servant, and we would like to think that is part of his job description, then on that day he was the opposite. Maybe he just did not like Cynthia McKinney. Maybe his wife was witholding favors. Maybe he just had a bad day. I don't know, and I don't care, but he was stonewalling and frustrating every effort at accountability. So was his female assistant, who was also deposed.

Neither of them showed any effort to answer ANY questions as to just what became of these funds. Indeed, they both refused to answer certain questions. And the questions were not complex. Though I could not have answered the questions for obvious reasons, the questions seemed straightforward and not difficult at all for a person working in that office to answer. Either the SecDef himself or his assistant.

From his body language and his evasive tactics, he looked very much the part of the cat who swallowed the canary, if you get my drift.

Now, for whatever reason, you may not assign any meaning at all to his evasive behavior. I do.

You may consider it sheer coincidence and happenstance that the part of the building attacked was where the congressional auditors were working. I do not. Maybe that makes me more suspicious than you. Could be. Or maybe it makes you more gullible than I. Seems likely, all things considered.

It is a very lame excuse to offer, saying that "gee, we can't communicate with the floors upstairs because our computers are incompatible."

Maybe that's true, but I have a sneaking suspicion that common avarice was at work there, not a failure to communicate, and my suspicion is based largely on the proverbial 'big picture.' :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we've gone from "The guvmint shot down planes, demolished buildings, killed thousands of Americans, and covered it all up" to "I thought Donald Rumsfeld didn't give testimony in a cordial manner". That's a great progression of conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may consider it sheer coincidence and happenstance that the part of the building attacked was where the congressional auditors were working. I do not. Maybe that makes me more suspicious than you. Could be. Or maybe it makes you more gullible than I. Seems likely, all things considered.

Nice try at trying to discredit me by calling me gullible. Poor attempt at that since I know more about government systems than you do because I am still currently a DoD "employee".

It is a very lame excuse to offer, saying that "gee, we can't communicate with the floors upstairs because our computers are incompatible."

Nobody said it was not a lame excuse. To be quite frankly yes it is a lame excuse. That does not mean it is not the truth.

What part of that do you not understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that's true, but I have a sneaking suspicion that common avarice was at work there, not a failure to communicate, and my suspicion is based largely on the proverbial 'big picture.' :yes:

In light of the current state of affairs.

I will sum up your big picture:

1. No plane at shanksville

2. No plane at the pentagon (your excuse for the light poles going down were explosives)

3. Obama's BC is fake

4. 2.3 trillion dollars untracked where embezzeled etc etc (still waiting on proof)

Gah i could add a lot more but honestly, I am pretty sure people get the point on how silly you really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may consider it sheer coincidence and happenstance that the part of the building attacked was where the congressional auditors were working. I do not. Maybe that makes me more suspicious than you.

To imply the use American 77 to kill auditors in the Pentagon is simply ridicules. What was that suppose to achieve?

Considering we're talking about embezzlement and fraud basically, the theft of taxpayer dollars, that seems like a high level of gullibility you display, especially considering your claim to not believing 100%.

Let me get this straight. You say that he embezzled $2.3 trillion and afterward, reveals the problem with the $2.3 trillion? As a result, he orders American 77 to slam into the pentagon to kill auditors in order to cover-up the embezzlement. Couldn't you have come up with a better story than that???

Rumsfeld said:

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,"

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a more revealing quote as to the mindset of Rumsfeld: -

"We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack."

~Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

He was talking about low public support in the U.S. and Europe for the wars.

The correction for which, "is an attack".

Two ways to interpret: -

  1. The threat of an attack can be corrected by an attack.
  2. Public support for the wars can be corrected by an attack.

The first is self-defeating and illogical. The second is an entirely accepted consequence.

Rumsfeld and the other Neocons knew the benefit that an attack would bring alright. As did they in 2001.

The motive for them far outweighed any benefit that could be derived by bin Laden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw shucks, Q, Rummy & Co were a group of fine upstanding public servants who had ONLY the best interests of the country and its citizens at heart! You know that! Nothing but angels inhabit the Defense Industry. Ike was clearly as deranged in 1961 as I am today.

Our very own Guardian Angels are employed in the federal government, and they are looking out after us and ours. Never would they deceive the public or divert funds from the Treasury.

Never!

Right Raptor? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a more revealing quote as to the mindset of Rumsfeld: -

"We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack."

~Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

He was talking about low public support in the U.S. and Europe for the wars.

The correction for which, "is an attack".

Two ways to interpret: -

  1. The threat of an attack can be corrected by an attack.
  2. Public support for the wars can be corrected by an attack.

The first is self-defeating and illogical. The second is an entirely accepted consequence.

Rumsfeld and the other Neocons knew the benefit that an attack would bring alright. As did they in 2001.

The motive for them far outweighed any benefit that could be derived by bin Laden.

If they were so bold, and heartless as to orchestrate 9/11 in order to GO to war then why not actually carry out a few more attacks(small or large) in order to keep the publics continued interest/support for the wars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a more revealing quote as to the mindset of Rumsfeld: -

"We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack."

~Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

He was talking about low public support in the U.S. and Europe for the wars.

The correction for which, "is an attack".

Two ways to interpret: -

  1. The threat of an attack can be corrected by an attack.
  2. Public support for the wars can be corrected by an attack.

The first is self-defeating and illogical. The second is an entirely accepted consequence.

Rumsfeld and the other Neocons knew the benefit that an attack would bring alright. As did they in 2001.

The motive for them far outweighed any benefit that could be derived by bin Laden.

But which wars was he talking about? There weren't any prior to '01, at least, not if you don't count Kosovo, which was hardly American empire building. Were these the wars that the Neocons had already planned, which they were just waiting for an excuse to unleash, then? In that case, they seemed rather badly and hastily planned for something that had been in the pipeline that long, didn't they, and have they really achieved their aim, if it was their aim, to give the U.S. a strong and stable base for furtue empire building? Considering that they've already abandoned Iraq, and Afghanisatan sooner or later, and neither of them, well, would seem to be either strong or stable? So really, has the Project for a New American Century been, well, a bit of a flop really?

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were so bold, and heartless as to orchestrate 9/11 in order to GO to war then why not actually carry out a few more attacks(small or large) in order to keep the publics continued interest/support for the wars?

The political/media propaganda to pitch us into a continual state of war 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' style appears sufficient. 9/11 was required to kickstart the new strategy of the 'War on Terror' that has replaced the 'Cold War' pretext and the propaganda perpetuates it. Why go further than they had to when their roadmap was already on track. It turns out that new attacks were not needed after the upturn in military expenditure and the two invasions that were launched in the Bush administration's first term.

Still, the quote I provided shows the Neocon mindset (and more convincing that Rumsfeld's comment was never meant for public consumption). These very same people, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al, had been actively fabricating threats to shape public opinion to support of their military agendas since back in the 70s.

9/11 was everything they fantasised about over the decades come true - they now had a reality to boost their propaganda. Don't tell me they cared about a few thousand people next to their longstanding global vision for America (that many times more lives were sacrificed in the wars shows they did not). With their coming to the top table in 2001, the time was right to bring their philosophy to life... and they did too.

But which wars was he talking about?

The quote is from December 2006. He was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.

Considering that they've already abandoned Iraq, and Afghanisatan sooner or later...

Don't be so naive - they 'abandoned' nothing; the political layout of those countries is forever changed.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote is from December 2006. He was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well, even more so, then. How can something he said in 2006 be taken as evidence that a Foul plot was in hand five years earlier?

Don't be so naive - they 'abandoned' nothing; the political layout of those countries is forever changed.

they may well have done; but are they really an asset to the New American Century or a great big millstone around their necks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, even more so, then. How can something he said in 2006 be taken as evidence that a Foul plot was in hand five years earlier?

Rumsfeld's militaristic/political views were already well established back in the 70s... and as they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. What makes you think his philosophy would be different in 2001 to that he demonstrated in 2006? Of course his 2006 quote can be used to demonstrate Rumsfeld's ideals even in the years prior. Unless you believe Rumsfeld had an temporary change of heart in 2001, inconsistent with his 70s and 2006 views. I very much doubt that.

they may well have done; but are they really an asset to the New American Century or a great big millstone around their necks?

An asset if the pre-stated objectives are anything to go by - increased military spending and presence in the Gulf region along with regime change in those countries allowing improved control of energy resources. Whether the wars have had an unforseen adverse affect in other areas, this could not be known beforehand - not all plans work out perfectly.

There are a number of examples which show success of the aims. Follow this example/timeline for one: -

"I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

~Dick Cheney, Halliburton CEO, 1998

"One obvious route south [from the Caspian] would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the [oil] pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company."

~U.S. House of Representatives, 1998

Then 9/11 and the Afghanistan war occur, lo and behold...

"
An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan's unstable political situation.

With improved regional security after the fall of the Taleban about a year ago, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1,500-kilometre-long gas pipeline.
"

~BBC News, 2002

"'Since the US-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power,' reported Forbes in 2005, 'the project has been revived and drawn strong US support' as it would allow the Central Asian republics to export energy to Western markets 'without relying on Russian routes'. Then-US Ambassador to Turkmenistan Ann Jacobsen noted that: 'We are seriously looking at the project, and it is quite possible that American companies will join it.'"

~Forbes/New Internationalist magazines, 2005/2009

The project is expected to be completed by 2014 and will be a success for one reason: 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were so bold, and heartless as to orchestrate 9/11 in order to GO to war then why not actually carry out a few more attacks(small or large) in order to keep the publics continued interest/support for the wars?

Because they did not need to.

Because the events of 11 September were sufficient to achieve their immediate and long term goals.

10 years AFTER, the sitting President just signed a piece of legislation that nullifies Habeas Corpus.

Because their Mission was Accomplished some years back. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.