This skin was created by Cortez of the IF Skin Zone modified by JDX
All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org
Please click on the banner to read the mission statement of pilotsfor911truth.org

Create a free forum in seconds.
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Pilots For Truth. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


This Forum Is Now Read Only. New Forum Can Be Found Here. Thank You.


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Ted Olsen's Wife.."the Pilot"..singular, were both pilots in the back of AA77?
Robin Hordon
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 02:30 AM


Poster


Group: Guests
Posts: 99
Member No.: 274
Joined: 2-December 06



Does anyone find it interesting that Olsen's wife [Barbara?] used a singular "pilot" in her "alleged" phone call[s] to her husband?

And, how can I find out the time of that/those call[s] so that I can compare it/them to the earlier flight path of AA77 showing the odd turn to the north on the westbound leg.

NOTE: I do not think that the NTSB animation showed the little north turn, is that correct? Did the hard FDR data show it?

I believe that we know of this dogleg because of the FAA target data and tracking data made available on the first rounds.

Could it be that Burlingame remained in the cockpit and the first officer was "the pilot" moved to the back of the planepresuming Olsen's phone call was real? [which I don't]

No wild speculations here, I'm just trying to eliminate some scenarios...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Top
paranoia
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 03:18 AM


dig deeper


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 155
Member No.: 96
Joined: 16-October 06



im not 100 percent sure, but there a lot of graphs towards the end here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

which will hopefully be of some help.


speaking of barbara olsen, i find her question to be non-sensical in the context of a hijacked airplane, one where the pilot is in the back of the plane and obviously not in a position to do anything.

barb: what should i tell the pilot to do?
ted: tell him to say a prayer and hope for the best.

i mean wtf else can ted olsen tell the pilot to do, IF the plane is being controlled by the hijackers and all others onboard are "trapped" at the back of the plane. the only way her question makes sense is IF the pilot was in control of the plane and ted olsen somehow knew what was to be done next. even then its somewhat ridiculous, cuz surely if the pilot was "in on it", then he would already know what to do, so there would be NO need to ask ted olsen (a lawyer, not a pilot) what to do.


more:
i would like to see footage of barbara olsen at the airport passing through security. i really would. surely it should exist if she really was onboard 77 as they say. so i would like to see and compare it to the other released dulles security tape(s). not to say such footage would necessarily prove much, since there would be no way to tell when it was taken, and wether or not she (after passsing thru security) actually boarded a plane (if at all), and wether or not the plane she boarded was or wasnt 77. footage of her passing thru security would NOT answer for everything, but it would be a start. my personal guess is such footage did not and does not exist.


and one more thing:
if you have ever checked the flash presentation of the pentagon damage that was released at the moussavi trial, you will see that ms.olsen's dna/remains were found near the c-ring "hole". actually they appear to have gone past that wall. what i dont understand if she was in the tail section, and her physical remains were found all the way near (and slightly past) the c-ring hole, then where is the plane? how did her body clear all the way to the front? wouldnt the cockpit, seats, and entire length of plane be in her way? so if her body cleared that far, then where is everything that should have been in front of her? surely her body couldnt have broken down all those walls and pillars. so the hull of a plane had to do it. so if there was a physical mass solid enough to reach the c-hole, and ms.olsen's (partial) remains reached that spot, then there HAD to be a physical mass of crunched up plane in front of those remains.

dunno.gif

Top
biggahthebettah
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 10:11 AM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 183
Member No.: 412
Joined: 7-January 07



OMG. I had no idea her remains were found away from the plane. That brings up a lot of grisly alternatives on her death.
Top
UnderTow
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 10:59 AM


Extreme Poster
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,228
Member No.: 19
Joined: 28-August 06



Just quetion's I've always had about the DNA stuff.

What did they use to match the recovered DNA too?
Did they have a database of everyone DNA already. Did they ask for relative's DNA samples. Or what.

Where is the evidence that the DNA was recovered from the Pentagon?
Other then just saying it's was.

and many more..
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 12:34 PM


LGA Patriot
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,430
Member No.: 1
Joined: 13-August 06



"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."
CNN - September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
Top
paranoia
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 07:45 PM


dig deeper


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 155
Member No.: 96
Joined: 16-October 06



QUOTE (biggahthebettah @ Mar 7 2007, 11:11 AM)
OMG.  I had no idea her remains were found away from the plane.  That brings up a lot of grisly alternatives on her death.

just so its clear, this is where the gov. claims her dna was found:

user posted image

user posted image


it is worth noting that many of the numbers in that diagram actually belong to the same people. i dont have an exact count, but the dna of many of the 77 passengers is ABSENT in the above diagram.




correction:
earlier i stated her (partial) remains were found "slightly past" the punch out hole in the c-ring. these remains were actually found slightly BEFORE the c-ring hole, not after it. (refer to above diagram and see where it is labeled "punch out")

***

This post has been edited by paranoia on Mar 7 2007, 07:51 PM
Top
Sanders
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 09:27 PM


Extreme Poster
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,719
Member No.: 49
Joined: 13-September 06



You all know who her husband is, right? Not just the former Solicitor General, but Ted went to bat for Dick Cheney when the courts ordered him to release the minutes from his energy meetings that Ken Lay attended.

Seriously, what are the chances that a passenger's husband was Dick Cheney's official lawyer?
Top
Robin Hordon
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 10:19 PM


Poster


Group: Guests
Posts: 99
Member No.: 274
Joined: 2-December 06



The CN reports states "pilots"...plural..up front in the article, but further on down it notes that B. Olson asked her husband something along the lines of telling "the pilot" what to do.

Refer to Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline" at 9:20am and you can see that there is NO direct information from B. Olson that there were "pilots" in the back of the plane, only a singular 'pilot" was mentioned. It was Ted Olson that pluralized the discussion.

So, to me, its something to keep in mind...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Top
Robin Hordon
Posted: Mar 7 2007, 10:50 PM


Poster


Group: Guests
Posts: 99
Member No.: 274
Joined: 2-December 06



Paranoia...

I think that your concern about all the body parts having punched through the inner hole WITHOUT the body of the fuselage is a very, very good question indeed.

I could understand how the bodies would all slide forward as the aircraft would decelerate before the people would, and the bodies then would get jammed up front. The schemers would have easily thought this through and they would have had to place some body parts in the front part of the accident scene. I'm thinking through the body parts spread out in some perimeter places well to the side of the main passegeway created by the fuselage-wings". Its curious.

Eric Hufshmid's book "Painful Questions" shows the "punch through" on page 102 and this just adds to Paranoia's point...nothing to carry the body parts there!

Speaking of that photo, has anyone looked at what looks like a "gear extention strut" and a wheel hub in the photo for accuracies in matching them with a B757? Also, IF the fires were so significant as to "vaporize" the fuselage completely, why didn't the fires also "vaporize" all the rubble seen in this famous photo?

And for "biggathebetta", these folks are cold blooded killers as they have proven for decades, and IF AA77 didn't hit the pentagon, then it had to go somewhere, and then they had to do something with all those witnesses. So, that's gonna be pretty grizzly for sure. And then getting dna samples..ugh!

Sorry to get off track...but AA77 sure seems a hack job with so little that adds up...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Top
UnderTow
Posted: Mar 8 2007, 10:28 AM


Extreme Poster
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,228
Member No.: 19
Joined: 28-August 06



I guess there's some large paper somewhere I could read. But

What did they match the DNA against? Cause unless I'm mistaken, DNA itself doesn't tell you who a person is.
Top
Cary
Posted: Mar 8 2007, 02:21 PM


Ragin Cajun
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,558
Member No.: 5
Joined: 14-August 06



Well, here's a detailed analysis of Barbara Olson's "phone call."

http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm

QUOTE
Mother of All Lies About 9/11
Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77


Copyright Joe Vialls, 27 March 2002

        This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001.  For this was the little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population.

          Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the lie was so clever and diabolical in nature, it must have been generated by the “Power Elite” in one of its more earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission? 

          No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was flagged with a powerful political name, there was and remains no evidence to support the connection. Just like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal errors which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the work of members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had the methods and means.

          The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson.  Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built.

          Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day.  Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.

          And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other “terrorists” on the way. By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator in America was either spilling his guts about those “Terrible Muslim hijackers”, or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin Laden. “Oh sure, it was Bin Laden,” they said blithely, oblivious to anything apart from their television appearance fees.

          The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask yourself: What would most Americans have been thinking about on September 12, if CNN had not provided this timely fiction? Would anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government story about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy jets, then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns from the film of the same name?  Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama Bin Laden, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.

          This report is designed to examine the sequence of the Olson events and lay them bare for public examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance here, so if this report seems tedious try to bear with me. Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged calls, we first need to examine how CNN managed to “find out” about them, reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:

          “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.  Shortly afterwards Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon” … “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.”

          At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly.  If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of  “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel…”,  the passage would read approximately:-  Mr Olson told CNN, “My wife said all passengers and flight personnel…”  Whoever wrote this story was certainly not in direct contact with  US Solicitor General Ted Olson.

          Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse’s aircraft  had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on  individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.

          About the last thing on your mind [especially if you happened to be the US Solicitor General], would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a “scoop”. As a seasoned politician you would already know that all matters involving national security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.

          The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally launched a  full international newswire biography on obscure “killer” Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to check his world clock.

          It was still “yesterday” in New Zealand on the other side of the International Date Line when the biography was wired  from New York, enabling the  Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a story about Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas police.

          If the CNN story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he really had called them about Barbara on September 11, then he would most surely have followed the telephone call up a few days later with a tasteful “one-on-one” television interview, telling the hushed and respectful interviewer about how badly he missed his wife, and about the sheer horror of it all.

          There is no record of any such interview in the CNN or other archives. Indeed, if you key “Barbara Olson” into the CNN search engine, it returns only two related articles. The first is the creative invention on September 12 at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT], and the second is on December 12, about President Bush, who led a  White House memorial that began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center three months before. CNN includes this comment about Ted Olson:

          “In a poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson referred to "the sufferings we have all experienced." He made no direct reference to the death of his wife, Barbara Olson, who was a passenger aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon…”

          Regarding the same event, Fox News reports that, extraordinarily,  Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson then said Barbara Olson's call, made "in the midst of terrible danger and turmoil swirling around her," was a "clarion call that awakened our nation's leaders to the true nature of the events of Sept. 11."

          So Ted Olson avoided making any direct personal reference to the death of his wife. Clearly this was not good enough for someone somewhere. By the sixth month anniversary of the attack, Ted Olson was allegedly interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, with his exclusive story “She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane” appearing in that London newspaper on March 5,  thereafter renamed and syndicated around dozens of western countries as “Revenge Of The Spitfire”,  finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.

          I have diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an American newspaper but have so far failed.  The reasons for this rather perverse “external” publication of Ted Olson’s story are not yet clear, but it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged by a Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the story could not be used against him because it was published outside American sovereign territory.

          Regardless of the real reason or reasons for its publication, the story seems to have matured a lot since the first decoy news release by CNN early on September 12, 2001. Here we have considerably more detail, some of which is frankly impossible. In the alleged words of US Solicitor General Theodore Olson:

          “She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn’t using her cell phone – she was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,”  said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ ”

          "What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?

          But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

          It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network. Under these circumstances the passengers’ seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.

          Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.

        Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.

          Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were  nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling high “G’ turns in the process.

          Under these circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a phone, much less using it. Finally, the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links completely unusable.

          Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93  that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the “hijackers” allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:

          “Todd Beamer placed a  call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists aboard.”  Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.

          As previously stated it is the Barbara Olson story that really counts, a view reinforced by the recent antics of the London print media. The photo at the top of this page is a copy of that printed in the West Australian newspaper. You only have to study it closely for a second to realize its full subliminal potential.

          Here is a studious and obviously very honest man. The US Solicitor General sits in front of a wall lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court Arguments, with a photo of his dead wife displayed prominently in front of him.  Does anyone out there seriously believe that this man, a bastion of US law, would tell even a minor lie on a matter as grave as national security?

          Theodore Olson’s own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that  On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled “The Limits of Lying” by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.

          Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America,  US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."
Top
Robin Hordon
Posted: Mar 8 2007, 03:51 PM


Poster


Group: Guests
Posts: 99
Member No.: 274
Joined: 2-December 06



Cary,

Thanks for this connection!!!

I do not know how to extract anything from the "pilot's" website without printing 75,000 pages, so, if you can send it to me at my email listed below, that would be great.

I just KNOW that the HI PERPS are gonna have a hard time getting past AA77. This is why they are doing everything that they can to keep burying it. So, I am building a separate file on AA77 because I'm gonna be involved in the action as a controller. To this day NOBODY knows how important the "complete loss of radar contact, secondary and primary" is to unlocking this crime. Its in the same category of "where" the bunker got the information about the inbound aircraft that Cheney was told about several times. Find that facility, and you find out A LOT!

My "aviation-controller" end ofthings see that AA11 and AA77 are the problematic bookends to their cover-up. And, soon, after Dr. David Ray Griffin's new book: "Debuning 9/11 Debunking:An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" comes out, they will have some tough sledding on the AA11-NORAD story.

Then we get'm on the other three...and I'm gnna be all over AA77 until they show us the videos that they have impounded...and prove us wrong!

Also, I never knew about the New Zealand story on Oswald...and surely it's "methodology" ties into the latest information about the BBC-CNN news stories reporting that WTC7 going down 25 minutes before it happened.

Both of these stories are as though there would be no problem if someone came to the police department, said a bank was gonna be robbed in 30 minutes, and then it WAS robbed in 30 minutes, but the police didn't care much about who the person was that had told them ahead of time about the robbery...DUHHHH!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

robinhordon@juno.com
Top
Robin Hordon
Posted: Mar 8 2007, 03:53 PM


Poster


Group: Guests
Posts: 99
Member No.: 274
Joined: 2-December 06



Cary,

I'm a moron...you gave me the link...got it...thanks...

DUBBLE DUHHHH!!!!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Top
Cary
Posted: Mar 8 2007, 04:41 PM


Ragin Cajun
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,558
Member No.: 5
Joined: 14-August 06



Glad you noticed it pal. Glad to help out. Let's bust these criminals ASAP.
Top
andrewkornkven
Posted: Mar 8 2007, 07:43 PM


Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Member No.: 105
Joined: 17-October 06



QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Mar 7 2007, 07:30 AM)

And, how can I find out the time of that/those call[s] so that I can compare it/them to the earlier flight path of AA77 showing the odd turn to the north on the westbound leg.


Robin,

According to the government's evidence released for the Zacarias Mousaoui trial, Barbara made one phone call to her husband at 9:18:58 that lasted ZERO seconds. It should also be pointed out that there were supposedly four other calls made from the flight between 9:15 and 9:30 by "unknown callers," so it is hypothetically possible that she may have been one of those unknowns.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evi...calldetail.html

Then we have to ask ourselves, do we trust this evidence provided by the government? Keep in mind that the records for virtually all phone calls made in the United States are kept by a single company, AMDOCS, based in Israel.

Based on the many contradictions in his accounts of the story, and his suspicious position deep within the bowels of the Justice Department, I'd say Ted is lying about the whole thing. It appears from the evidence that the pilots on the other three flights were dispatched quickly and efficiently, probably with a gun as indicated by Tom Burnett's and Betty Ong's phone calls. Why do it differently on AAL77?
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | American 77 | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 












Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0579 seconds · Archive