The Donald Said The Towers Came Down From a Bomb in the Basement

Then there's this video of the area surrounding them where some type of event happened before the towers came down.

Even though the events of 9/11 had been previously planned most Americans believe that we were attacked by Al Qaida and that we had to use the whole military to bring him to justice by first invading Afghanistan and then Iraq and then ...

Operation Northwoods

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Share
up
21 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

stated Christine Whitman after people started questioning whether it was. But guess what? It wasn't. Not only for the first responders who searche for survivors, but for 10,000 people who lived and worked in the area.

Tens of thousands of people who lived or worked in the neighborhood at the time found themselves breathing in air thick with toxic fumes and particles from the pulverized, burning skyscrapers. Many have since become sick, many have died and new cases are still occurring all the time that are linked back to the poisons that were in the air around the wreckage. The latest example is a cluster of men who have developed breast cancer.

Here is what Whitman said 15 years after the event:

“I’m very sorry that people are sick,” she said. “I’m very sorry that people are dying and if the EPA and I in any way contributed to that, I’m sorry. We did the very best we could at the time with the knowledge we had.”

She added: “Every time it comes around to the anniversary I cringe, because I know people will bring up my name, they blame me, they say that I lied and that people died because I lied, [they say] people have died because I made a mistake.

A week after two hijacked passenger jets were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center, killing 2,753 people – 184 died in the Pentagon in Washington DC and 40 were killed when a United Airlines plane came down in a field in Pennsylvania – Whitman issued a statement. It said: “I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink.”

She has always maintained that as head of the EPA she was simply passing on what government scientists were telling her, warning those working at Ground Zero itself to wear respirators but dismissing concerns over the surrounding area, which was engulfed in dust and ash.

Three days after the attacks, Whitman, who had previously been the Republican governor of New Jersey, told reporters: “The good news continues to be that air samples we have taken have all been at levels that cause us no concern.

up
17 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

up
15 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

At 24 seconds you can see the object that hit it and see how low to the ground it was. Where is the wreckage you usually see after a plane crash! Shouldn't there have been luggage, seats and the engines from the plane?

IMG_2562.JPG

Why was the area hit the one where people were working to find the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld said was missing the day before?

IMG_2565.JPG

Guess what?

up
13 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

@snoopydawg  
and then vanished down the memory hole.

Where it languishes along with Carl Cameron’s four-part series about you-know-who . . .

up
12 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@lotlizard what you were referring to, so I looked it up.

I am starting to believe that everything we have ever been told in our entire lives is a lie.

up
12 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

Eagles92's picture

@gulfgal98

up
8 users have voted.
dkmich's picture

@gulfgal98

I then tried to post it on FB. I couldn't. All I got was an error message.

up
4 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

*donate to c99 *like us on Facebook *follow us on Twitter

gulfgal98's picture

@dkmich Because I just checked it from my link I posted and it is still good.

I would not be surprised if FB is censoring far more than we suspected.

up
1 user has voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

Granma's picture

@lotlizard on September 11, constantly for days I still have those videos, all labeled for date, time, and network. I would like to give them to someone who can make use of them. I kept them because I was aware the story changed and some of the material was not available publicly anymore.

up
11 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Granma

Having glued myself to the first 12-24 hours after events, I've discovered that there is an unbelievable amount of information that is spilled. Benghazi is a good example. Stunning even. The disappearance of MH370 is another. So much blurted, then silenced forever. Your tapes are a goldmine for someone.

In the case of the Pentagon, I had a good friend on the ground who was pulling in to the Pentagon to pick up his wife who worked there. He worked at Langley. Their car was packed full because they were heading to Walt Disney World for a meetup. He saw the plane come in flying horizontally a foot off the ground. His wife was already standing at the side entrance. I asked him, what did you do? He said, "I pulled up, she got in, and we didn't say another word until Atlanta. We both knew if we called in, they'd call us back. So, we turned off our phones and kept going."

up
3 users have voted.

If it is a monopoly, then it IS your government.

@snoopydawg
the plane was flying so low that it clipped a wing on the ground before it hit the building.

there are eyewitness accounts.

parts of the plane (engines, landing gear) were found (and photographed) within the building.

people rhetorically wonder where the plane went, if it hit the building (though there was indeed visible wreckage and first-person testimony of witnessing the strike and/or finding bits and pieces of the plane and the people on it). i've got a better question, one even more difficult to answer (impossible, actually, as it is founded on a counterfactual): If the plane didn't hit the building, where the fuck did it go? hundreds of witnesses have reported seeing the plane flying low as it approached the pentagon. i have found not one single witness, reliable or otherwise, reporting seeing the plane fly away from the Pentagon after not hitting it.

here is an example of a kind of thinking/discourse i would describe as conspiracy psychosis:

Major Douglas Rokke, U.S. Army (ret) adds: "No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn't make the turns with a 757. You couldn't fly it in over the highway. You couldn't fly it over the light poles. You couldn't even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence."

Other eyewitnesses reported seeing a large plane hit the Pentagon. Some reported seeing a commuter plane. These have not been vetted.

ya see that? hundreds of people saw that fucking plane fly right over their heads, and said so. the light poles were fucking clipped off, so he got that right, with delicious dramatic irony. this is a guy talking crazy talk, blabbing from the comfortable distance of his keyboard about what is and is not possible. "You couldn't even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence." Huh? You obviously can get it as close to the ground as you want, because one way or another, that's what's going to happen if you put it into a dive, so if he wants to make a bizarre statement like that, he's going to have to explain what would happen to a plane in a shallow dive at 500mph as it approaches the ground. Maybe he thinks it would just disintegrate, but since he's not a fucking aeronautical engineer, who the fuck is he to tell us what a Boeing 757 can and can't and will and won't do if you just point it at the middle of a 5 story building and gun it? Will it disintegrate and disappear before reaching its target? I guess that would conveniently explain the alternativist postulation of the otherwise inexplicable complete disappearance of the plane from our universe somewhere between the highway and the far side of the Pentagon -- though it wouldn't explain the presence of its engines inside the wreckage of the pentagon or its landing gear out in the courtyard. Meanwhile, the "expertise" of a retired Army officer having been presented as if it contained any meaning or significance, the many dozens of countervailing eyewitness reports are implicitly dismissed with the bland observation that "they have not been vetted".

that isn't skepticism. that isn't critical thinking.

this specific example is why i simply cannot sincerely respect 9/11 "conspiracy theorists": anybody who wants to talk to me about alternatives to the official story must begin by asserting, positively (not grudgingly), that American Airlines Flight 77 was destroyed after hitting the Pentagon. if you cannot accept that -- if you can seriously entertain any narrative in which Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon when and where it did -- then every other thing you have to say about the matter is tainted by the straightforward evidence of misfiring cognition. it happened. AA 77 hit the Pentagon. to choose to believe otherwise is to deliberately and willfully choose delusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/12/expertopinions.charlieport...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pent...
http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses....
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a675/2815396/

up
8 users have voted.

Sigh

boriscleto's picture

@UntimelyRippd To avoid magical thinking and conspiracy theories.

up
1 user has voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

https://youpic.com/photographer/boriscleto/

Big Al's picture

@boriscleto official government stories and propaganda. The best way to come to an opinion concerning what happened on 9/11 and why is to review all available evidence and information, including historical information. Cherry picking certain aspects like the Pentagon attack or WTC7 simply invites discussions like this where the evil term conspiracy theories is brought out to discredit opinions.

up
5 users have voted.

@Big Al
Which is why my floor for having a serious conversation about it is the stipulation that AA77 hit the Pentagon. If the other person will not accept that reality, then there is no point in discussing anything that might be less certain.

Thus, for me the statement "AA77 hit the Pentagon" is not a rebuttal of anything regarding the fate of the north and south towers -- it's a litmus test for whether I'm dealing with a person who is capable of rational analysis and debate about the fate of the north and south towers.

up
3 users have voted.

Sigh

snoopydawg's picture

@UntimelyRippd

This was broadcasted on CNN. So who knows what is true or a CT? I included the video. And who knows if what Trump said was true or not, but the part about the steel beams is true. The towers were built to withstand being hit by a plane.

Here are some articles that I found interesting. The war of terror wasn't the only reason for the attack.

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/the-100-horrible-truth/

http://www.spingola.com/Bush_Family_Project.htm

up
4 users have voted.

@snoopydawg
saw the plane hit the pentagon noted how astonished he was by how little debris there was on the lawn. he was entirely certain of both facts -- facts which you seem to think are mutually exclusive. nonetheless, there was debris, of which there is photographic evidence.

lots of people saw the plane hit the building. eyewitness statements notwithstanding, there are photos of debris on the lawn, and of the rolls royce engines inside the pentagon, etc etc etc. 100% of the "contrary evidence" consists of people insisting, without the benefit of any real science, that this or that or the other thing was simply impossible. one person says there was no debris on the lawn, and he becomes your guiding light. by contrast, the first first responder on the ground says that he picked up body parts of the crew, with their uniforms recognizable, and you persuade yourself that he is an unreliable source. dozens -- even hundreds -- of people saw the plane fly across the highway directly towards the pentagon, often directly over their own heads. nobody saw it fly away. That would be a real mystery, but it doesn't challenge, even slightly, your conviction that no plane hit the Pentagon, that AA77, a regularly scheduled flight full of civilians, military personal, government employees, and so on, simply disappeared from time and space via some extraordinary feat of leger-de-main. It doesn't matter that we know the names of the dead passengers. You're now in exactly the same cognitive space as Mad Alex with his appalling claims that the Sandy Hook families are all frauds and hoaxers -- that their children weren't murdered, because their children never existed, or whatever his current blah blah is.

ultimately, at this point, if the government were arguing the other side -- if they were claiming that AA 77 had not hit the Pentagon, you'd be on the other side, demanding to know where that Boeing is, and what happened to its passengers.

it happened.

it is as certain as anything can be.

and this is my point: if you are capable of rejecting the absolutely overwhelming direct evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, then you are capable of rejecting any/all evidence of anything that runs contradictory to your preferred interpretations of events -- which is why i'm not prepared to debate with you about anything else that happened that day.

up
3 users have voted.

Sigh

@UntimelyRippd you do a lot of debating.

Here's my litmus test on the Twin Towers. Get a girder of structural steel and as much jet fuel as you like. Use the jet fuel to make the girder molten. (There are photos of molten steel in the wreckage before it was whisked of to china in days rather than saved for an investigation.) Jet fuel is basically kerosene. It won't melt structural steel. Maybe it was the paper in the wastepaper baskets.

Then while you're on a roll you can explain how a third building with minor fires on one side collapsed into its own footprint like the others, hours later.

Until you've explained these anomalies I see no reason to discuss the matter with you.

up
2 users have voted.

@FuturePassed
If you doubt that it did, then I can't imagine what sort of argument or evidence would ever persuade you that the jet fuel argument is weak, so why would I bother to try?

If you agree that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, I might take the time to offer explanations of why the jet fuel argument is weak. You'll ignore them just the same, but at least you'll have played fair for a while.

Hell, never mind, you can just scroll down to the conversation between myself and boriscleto. The "couldn't get hot enough" argument is a nonstarter.

up
2 users have voted.

Sigh

snoopydawg's picture

@UntimelyRippd

https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-any-real-evidence-that-the-Pentagon-was...

IMG_2568.JPG

These people said that they did not see any evidence of the plane. Where were the huge wings that not only should have left a mark on the building, but were not seen on the ground. I did look for photos of the debris and the ones I saw could have been taken anywhere. They are cropped.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Pentagon.html

This article has some great information in it as well as photos and is worth reading.

IMG_2569.JPG

There are many people who said that they saw a missile hit the pentagon and finally why were every video of the event taken by the FBI? You don't find that the least bit questionable? As to the light poles that were hit there.

IMG_2570.JPG

If you question whether the towers came down because they were hit by planes then why wouldn't you question whether a plane hit the pentagon? If you don't question that then did you watch the video that shows something happened before the towers came down which I don't remember hearing about before I watched the video. I find that curious.

You'll ignore them just the same, but at least you'll have played fair for a while.

I have no idea what this means. It doesn't bother me if you think differently than I do. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. My opinion can't hurt you. It's mine. That's all it is.

up
5 users have voted.

@snoopydawg
evidence that would persuade you otherwise, and you are wrong. AA77 hit the Pentagon. And like everyone else who wants to imagine it did not, you decline to propose any explanation for the most glaring difficulties with such a narrative:
A. How come nobody reported seeing it fly past the Pentagon?
B. What happened to it (and its crew and passengers) afterwards?
Despite the fact that every claim put forward by your camp has abundant counter evidence (generally, rather more abundant than the minimal evidence that does support the claim -- much of which has been straightforwardly debunked, some of it in the links I provided), you choose to cling to that narrative and simply ignore the biggest and most startling "hole" to be found across any and all narratives that have been put forth: Hundreds saw the plane fly toward the Pentagon. Nobody saw it after the explosion at the Pentagon. Nobody ever saw any of the passengers or crew again. All by itself, this should tell you that you are wrong.. That it cannot penetrate the kevlar curtain of skeptical certainty that you have raised around your preferred narrative tells me that there is no evidence of any kind that would ever change your mind about anything related to 9/11.

And regardless of what you or I or anyone else supposes caused the towers to fall, I'm quite certain that jetliners did fly into them, and I hope you are too. Any doubts I have about anything that did or did not happen that day aren't founded on a belief that, since bad people do bad things and lie about them, anything at all is possible, regardless of the availability of evidence that it's not. And the evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon is vast and overwhelming, whereas the evidence that it did not is scant and dubious, depending mainly on improbable and unsupportable assertions about what "must" be and what "cannot" be (with respect to matters like what would happen to the wings when an aluminum framed jetliner hits a reinforced concrete wall, or what would happen to the rest of the plane), or upon vague and not remotely conclusive hints of malfeasance involving available camera footage and whatnot. Once you've decided that photos of the engine wreckage lying there in the ruins are unreliable evidence (never mind the photos showing the entry points of the engines on the facade, distinct from the main impact hole), you've decided that you're just going to believe what you want to believe because it's what you want to believe.

and that's not how i play the epistemology game.

again, i suggest you simply play the game in reverse: Imagine that the "official" story were the one you're currently proposing as the "truth", and imagine yourself dismantling it for its obvious bogosity. You would never buy it, with its casual dismissal of hundreds of eyewitnesses, its waving away of the photographic evidence, and its inability to even address the question of, never mind suggest an explanation for, what did happen to the plane.

up
3 users have voted.

Sigh

Mark from Queens's picture

@UntimelyRippd
Even fucking ABC let the truth slip by with this story, U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

By the way it's interesting that the dateline on this story is May 2001. Heh...

I'm not familiar enough with the minutiea details of 9/11 to have a strong opinion on this.

But there is plenty of evidence of this country's "intelligence" fabricating and plotting tragic mass killings of both civilians and military (even proposing killing astronaut John Glenn) as the pretext for justifying war.

See everything from the sinking of the Lusitania to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which were outright lies planted in the media (also Dick Cheney's specialty) in order to rile up a reluctant American public to get behind going to war.

A lot about 9/11, including especially Building 7 and the Pentagon, leaves one wondering what it was all really about.

up
2 users have voted.

(thirty three and a third at TOP)

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

@Mark from Queens

up
0 users have voted.

Sigh

The Aspie Corner's picture

After all, why would the 'Murican Gubmint attack its own people when it can get one of its Middle East Client States (Saudi Arabia and Israel) to do it?

up
4 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

@The Aspie Corner thanks, sometimes I feel like sheeple can't even see who the opposition is. Wealth knows no boundaries, it is the untouchable owners that move the labor masses to and fro, with starvation and bombs and great suffering. They've burned so far up the slave chain, it is singeing white people now. Big profits all around when every thing is pre-crisis, crisis, post-crisis. Never a real recovery in sight.

peace

up
13 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

after all the protestations that his relationship with the truth - any truth, about anything - is tangential and coincidental at best, and most of the time is null?

Really?

up
2 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

gulfgal98's picture

@TheOtherMaven is Trump speaking a few days after the WTC towers came down. He toured the area with one of the architects or engineers and relayed what that person told him.

Personally, I believe that the towers came down as a result of a controlled demolition. That is why they were pulverized and fell directly into their footprint. Numerous engineers have stated similar findings.

Further jet fuel is similar to kerosene and would not burn hot enough to melt the steel used in the construction of the towers. The link goes to a scientific study that shows just how impossible it would have been for a jet plane to create fires of that magnitude.

up
4 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

boriscleto's picture

@gulfgal98 The fuel itself burned up in a matter of minutes. The paper and furniture and everything else in the towers burned. The fire only had to burn hot enough to weaken the structural steel, it didn't have to turn it molten.

up
3 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

https://youpic.com/photographer/boriscleto/

@boriscleto
aluminum can get when it burns, despite the fact that 10s of thousands of pounds of aluminum and aluminum-magnesium alloy aircraft components were available to fuel the fires.

yesterday, annoyed by the need to revisit this, i dug up a 2004 paper that extensively reviews everything ever written about "the combustion of aluminum", but it's very dense and difficult (and well outside my own specialty). i did come away with a few interesting things:
A. The "flame temperature" is: REALLY EFFING HOT. like, it can reach 4000F.
B. The "ignition temperature" is difficult to put a finger on, because it depends on the general conditions. It did appear to me that ignition could possibly have happened at temperatures that everybody agrees would have happened in that building.
C. (If I understood correctly) really hot aluminum will reduce CO2. Put another way, it doesn't need O2 to burn -- it can combust in pure CO2.

here at this truth site, you can watch a whole crowd of skeptics trying to persuade each other that there's just no way burning aluminum and magnesium could explain any of the inexplicables upon which their thermite hypotheses rest. incidentally, if you're curious about just what exactly thermite is, well, uh ...

a mixture of finely powdered aluminum and iron oxide that produces a very high temperature on combustion, used in welding and for incendiary bombs

up
3 users have voted.

Sigh

@boriscleto
takeaways from reading that paper (which had nothing to do with 9/11, i should note), is that, notwithstanding the confident statements of many people of just how hot it never could have been up there in the towers, nobody has ever published a model of what would happen if several thousand pounds of aluminum actually vaporized (due, perhaps, to a spectacular impact with a concrete and steel building) and then was exposed to a hot fire. i couldn't find even a discussion of trying to ignite vaporized aluminum.

not much doubt, though, that if a bunch of it were reduced to an aerosol, it would burn really, really, really fucking hot. nonetheless, the skeptical pilots at that site for skeptical pilots fall back on the last rhetorical device of those confronted with a perfectly reasonable explanation for that which they have decided is inexplicable: stubborn refusal to admit the possibility.

up
1 user has voted.

Sigh

CS in AZ's picture

@TheOtherMaven

it was a bomb in the basement that brought the towers down on 9/11.

What he says is that the towers had been previously bombed with bombs in the basement (that would be a reference to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), and he notes that despite extreme damage to the basement and blowing out “half the support pillars” at the foundation, that previous bombing failed to bring down the towers. This is to demonstrate how strong these buildings were.

He goes on to explain this strength is because the WTC towers had an external steel support structure that essentially encased the entire buildings, and then he talks about how he doubts a jet plane could fly into it and break it, unless they also used bombs at the moment the plane hit. He says he thinks there must have been bombs on the planes, which were detonated at the moment of impact.

He also sounds like his usual rambling, babbling self who doesn’t know jack. But, even if one were to think he’s making sense here, the fact is he did not say anything that contradicts the story of it being an external terrorist attack. His only speculation in that clip is that the hijackers also had bombs on those planes, which they used to do worse damage and break through the steel exoskeleton of the towers.

This is presented as purely his own idea, by the way. He doesn’t say any experts told him this or suggested it. Donald is his own expert, after all.

Just trying to help get this story right... I was thinking upon reading the headline but before watching the video, gee if Trump actually floated a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and it’s on video, that could easily have been used against him in the election to paint him as a loon. It would have been a terrible political blunder (among many) to let that pass.

But as it turns out, he didn’t say anything particularly controversial IMO, especially since he was speaking just days after the event, before there was much of an official story, and lots of people were speculating at that time, lots of chatter and people talking about how bizarre it all was, the way they fell. I heard a lot of people saying the unique the “steel exoskeleton” design was what held them together and the collapses were so neatly contained.

up
5 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@CS in AZ

At the very least, we could be scrupulous about facts and material evidence. It's an advantage we have over most.

Trump knows little about geopolitics, but he probably knows a hell of a lot more than most about the engineering and construction of high rises.

up
2 users have voted.

If it is a monopoly, then it IS your government.

that routinely checked out the buildings, except not on 9/11.
The owner of the security company was a brother of President Bush.
That is verified and verifiable.

up
3 users have voted.