Announcement

Rathji
Member
+1|6018

xanthpi wrote:

When I was 16 I was a bit of a dumbass too. I believed in ghosts and also thought that humans might have been created by aliens.
You mean they weren't?!?!? Oh fuck I just lost a bet with my brother.
Sgt_Sieg
"Bow Chicka Bow Wow." The correct way.
+89|6110

Ziggy_79x wrote:

tF-voodoochild wrote:

The biggest thing bothering me is that there is actual video footage from a surveillance camera that shows whatever it was that hit the Pentagon, yet this footage was confiscated and only 5 frames from it have been released. If there was nothing more than images of a 747 airliner flying into the Pentagon then why would it require being covered up? The FBI could silence a lot of people really quickly if they would just release that footage showing a jumbo jet flying into the Pentagon.

The whole point of covering something up is to hide the truth, so if the truth is that a 747 crashed into the Pentagon then that footage should show it, why would the FBI need to hide that from the public?
One of the very important questions raised in this video. Along with why did the administration say at first that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire when the owner admitted that the building was "pulled". And how did they have time to set all the explosives used to demolish the building right after a TERRORIST ATTACK WHEN THE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE. Who takes explosives into a burning building. Especially enough explosives to take a building down WHILE the building is burning. Hmmm. Thats stupid. Those explosives were there to begin with. This building housed the records that would have shown who benefited from the put options and insider trading that went on in the days leading up to 9-11. Thats why it was "pulled". Many more great questions are brought up in this video. You can believe it or not, but the truth is there right before your eyes.
I know this is an old post and has probably been responded to already but I'd just like to clarify something. Building 7 suffered structual damage and was by no means in a ball of flames as you described it. They brought the building down way later in the day because they didn't want to take a chance incase it really was too structurally damaged (because typically large chunks of building falling on another will cause a wee bit of damage). I'd also like to point out that it was not a 747 that flew into the Pentagon but a 707 (if memory serves) and last time I checked, when a plane loaded with jet fuel (It was flying to LA from Boston) blows up, it takes away most of the flimsy stuff it's made of with it. And lastly, I'd like to ask where everyone making these movies gets this "top secret" information. I don't think the google sources are very reliable in that sense. Okay, rant over, flame away.
Takedazor
Member
+10|6114|Vila Real, Portugal
What was told to the american people is that iraque was attacked because of weapons of mass destruction and saddam was giving money to terrorists, both were proven wrong when they won the war, no weapons of mass destruction were there and there were no ties to terrorist activities there, that is the true, changing the regime was also one of the goals but based on that wrong motives the war had no reason to begin like the vietnam war in case you don't remenber it.

As for the video that is put here i don't understand the septicism, some stuff there might be not totally suported by facts but they make like 100acusations, and at least 1/3 is proved by scientific facts like the free fall of the towers only in implosion scenario, other 1/3 by commom sense like founding the passport of terrorist and identified bodies when planes where incinerated, the other 1/3 greed explains 200bilion dollars is a lot of money and it all vanished maybe gold in the basement in vaults also got incinerated.

Even if only 1 of the 100 arguments this video it's true than we have to at least think the us goverment as hide something from the american people.

Do you really think bush is a good president for the american people? look at how he andled the katrina, videos release that he knew what was doing on, but gess what he didn't worried about letting some nigga die, he doesn't worry about american soldiers getting killed and in my opinion he and is administration planed the 9/11 and didn't cared about the people that got killed in that day, after all flyed the bin laden out of the country that day, and cleaned out the evidences in the towers.

So many evidences, i would say a orgy of evidences that almost makes me wonder if poor bush is inocent.

To the people that is going to aswer this threat i would like that it would explain the things that are told in the video and if they can explain all, i will change my mind gladly, never made a call at 80000feet but who knows, maybe i'll someday call my mother by my surname -_-. At least they could have coverded it up better it's patetic how they get away with billions of dollares, kill thousands of persons, invent a plane crashing at the pentagon, plant bombs on the WTC, ok ok so you guys are saying that the poor worker that was on the basement and the fireman are lying about the explosions, maybe all the american that are in the video are middle east fanatics, it gets even better, middle east fanatics invented the laws of gravity so that they could blame it on bush.

So the CIA could not have planted bombs on the WTC, ok maybe it wasn't the CIA, in the movie people say that they see people around that they didn't knew what agency they were from, and the CIA isn't a pair of angels, they invented the weapons of mass destruction based on what? Fact they got the evidence on a english site 2years out of date it came out in news all over the world but i just gess that it didn't came out in the usa, news there are more worried about passing bin laden movies, niggas getting pwned by police, people dying by the katrina because aid took 6days to get there, it's fair. When you defend your president it disturbs me greattly, it looks like people always seem to like more those who bring you harm than those who bring you good things, but gess that is the nature of things.

But maybe just maybe bush is doing a service to the american people, he as the facts maybe there is something we don't know that justify all the crap he did, maybe this is all for a greater good to the american people wish i doubt a lot, i just think they are a bunch of crooks and organized moob.

Doesn't it disturb you to know that your president was is and will be financed by the bin laden? dont you raise questions about this? well maybe he won't need the laden anymore cause he got away with many billions and after shuting up a lot of mounths paying gold bars he should have enough to make it through without uncle bin.

Facts Facts Facts and even more facts, they were in the news in your television and mine, videos, images, people testimonials, documents, what else do you need? see it with your own eyes? i gess the frase a picture is worth a thousand words doesn't apply to some people.

First thought of mister bush after de 9/11, "How can we blame this on saddam?" this was told by people on is administration that resigned, maybe they all work for the middle east fanatics as well.

Now lets think a little bit about the "fanatics", they bomb your "church", home, the cafe next door and kill most of your family, i wonder who wouldn't be a fanatic in that situation, i think i would have 80-20 probabily of picking a sniper rifle and going JUBA on the americans and in my perspective that would be sweet revenge or setling the score.

I told i wouldn't post here anymore but it was stronger than me, the close minded people that come along in this threat is incredible. The most troubling post was "now close this threat admin", almost makes you wonder but i'd say that's pushing it too far .

I hope to see some good responses here with some facts and don't forget to explain the new gravity law, cell phone capabities, planes that only make 1hole, planes incinerated, passport flying to strets, suicide terrorists alive, crashed planes in service, 200bilion incinerated, driling in the WTC, someone bying the WTC and putting high insurance, responsible for security change day before, warnings not to fly that day, and building number 11 if i'm not mistaken, that add lots of evidence and went on fire for no reason so they imploded it in 8hours or so, ye sure and i'm santa claus. So that you know portugal isn't patetic, it's our people that discovered your country and many others.
=DBD=TITAN126
Member
+5|6118

d4rkph03n1x wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

I wish people wouldn't open their mouths unless they actually knew what they were talking about. Then the rest of the readers might learn something.

Iraq wasn't invaded because of 9/11. Iraq was invaded to get rid of Saddam Hussein, as the primary reason.

If the US wanted the oil, they could have had it for free rather than spending 600 billion dollars on a war to get it. All they had to do was do a deal to lift the sanctions and the oil was theirs.

I wish people would think before they put finger to keyboard.
As I said in my first post, I'm here to remain politely neutral, and not to flame. That being said, the reason America invaded Iraq was because they feared the capability of Iraq to create Weapons of Mass Destruction. These accusations were unfounded, and the UN inspectors lied or fabricated their report so that George Bush could obtain permission to invade Iraq. As we have probably all heard there were absolutely NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and therefore the invasion was unjustified. The resources Iraq has are very, very valuable to George W. Bush, otherwise he would not send 120,000 soldiers there. My main point is that the Bush Administration should be going after Osama Bin Laden, the true cause of 9/11, rather than spend so much money and manpower on unfounded accusations in Iraq. Sure, they may have done Iraq a favour, dethroning a tyrannical dictator, but realistically, they had no right to do so.

The 'War on Terror' shifted it's focus to Iraq, instead of the cause of the furore, Afghanistan and the Taliban. The leader of the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, remains uncaptured somewhere in the tribal lands at the borders of two countries. I can't remember which exactly, but that is the widely believed speculation. After all these years, he has proven he is still alive, by taunting and threatening the United States and the Coalition Forces. The true debate however, is not about Iraq, but about the staging of 9/11. I will reiterate what I said in my first post. I do not believe that 9/11 was staged, but it created a smokescreen large enough for the Bush Administration to get away with invading a completely different country. You could even say that it was what the Government had been hoping for.
It has still not been proven that Iraq did not have WMD's. In fact, as I have posted earlier in this thread, one of Saddam's top generals has written a book detailing how Saddam moved his WMD development program to Syria a few months before the US invasion under the diguise of helping flood victims.
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Remember, many people questioned whether Nazi Germany was producing WMD's as well. When the war ended, a priliminary search of Germany turned up nothing. Then, in a small town in southern Germany, a few soldiers stumbled upon a nuclear reactor hidden under a Church.

Last edited by =DBD=TITAN126 (2006-03-02 19:24:18)

Mawaya-no-kami
Member
+0|5969|Maryland
The floors in the World Trade Towers were not supported by I beams but rather steel space trusses with rebar connecting the two steel beams.  The reason Minoru Yamasaki (the designer) did this was because he wanted the floors to be completely spacious without beams running through them.  This meant that a large amount of the load was distributed along the sides of the structure.

When the planes crashed into the towers large portions of the side structures were lost.  This caused the load to be redistributed along the remaining walls.  The fact that it stayed up even after the impact is remarkable.  The heat as a result of the fires started by the jet fuel and sustained for over an hour by the office furniture, equipment and papers heated the space trusses enough to cause them to weaken to the point where they simply could not bear the load of the floor.  The weakining of the trusses was made possible by the destruction of the fire retardant material on the trusses and a majority of the sprinkler systems in the impact area.

If one or more members in a truss are compromised the rated load bearing strength rapidly declines.  The reason that the other buildings in the documentary Loose Change that were on fire for a much larger time period than these towers stood was because they had a sounder floor design and the fire retardant was sustained because of the lack of impact and force from an airplane (with the exception of the Empire State Building).  But that building had huge I beams running everywhere within it - a completely different situation.

Once one floor fell it was all over.  The floors were not designed to withstand the weight of another floor so once one fell it initiated a giant chain reaction all the way to the street.
Mawaya-no-kami
Member
+0|5969|Maryland
It wasn't proven (in my opinion) that Iraq had WMDs before the war so I see it as unjust.  The United States went in under false pretenses.

If you can direct me to some tangible evidence I would appreciate it, seriously.
TheTinamou
Member
+0|5966
Yes but that doesn't explain how the buildings fell at free-fall speeds.  If each floor landed on the next, some energy had to be lost to force the floor the crumble, which would cause the buildings to fall at a slower rate.  And how was most of the concrete pulverized to dust?  It certainly couldn't have been just from the building falling down.

I think this video may help dismiss the "pancake theory."  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9%2F11

Fast foward to around the 30 mintue mark.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6055
So many idiots in this thread.

So.

Muslims destroyed the WTC with passenger jets.

Saddam did fund terrorists.

Just because WMDs were not found, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. Chemical weapons are still being discovered in China, buried by the Japanese, 60 years after WW2 ended.

The Iraq War was not for oil.

And so on.

Now, if you're not a very good thinker and are prone to believing in utter bullshit rather than facts, do the decent thing and decline the temptation to post your bullshit on internet forums. You can have your opinion, but if you are prone to idiocy then just keep it to yourself. If you are not sure whether or not you are prone to idiocy, then ask. Having an opinion does not magically make that opinion fact. OPINIONS DO NOT CHANGE FACTS.

It's boring and uneccessary to keep rehashing this tired old crap.
Nehby
Member
+1|6012
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … =1&c=y

There, Popular Mechanics ran an article disproving many of these myths. Also they cite people who know what they are talking about, not some conspricy retard living in his mom's basement.

Edit: to late for good spelling

Last edited by Nehby (2006-03-02 21:44:39)

Mawaya-no-kami
Member
+0|5969|Maryland
I think that the inside of the structure was still falling after the video in Loose Change stopped rolling during the freefall timing demonstration.  What was hitting the ground when the video stopped wasn't the inside of the structure it was the walls of the structure.  Who is to say it was done falling if you can't see it through the dust and debris?? Also, the second tower that got hit fell first because it hit the corner.  Taking out the corner and some of the wall of the structure weakened it more than just taking out a piece of the wall.

Last edited by Mawaya-no-kami (2006-03-02 21:52:02)

Mawaya-no-kami
Member
+0|5969|Maryland
Xanthpi,

Please don't flame.

Fundamentalists destroyed the WTC with passenger jets.  Not all Muslims are hostile.

The Saudi's (the people we pay at the pump) do fund terrorists.

Just because WMDs were not found, it doesn't mean they didn't exist.  So we can gamble with war now?  I thought we needed a sound reason for going to war.

The Iraq War was not for oil.  I agree.  There is no reason for it.  Do you know if Iran invaded Iraq they could wipe out all of the United States' forces with sheer numbers of militants?

And so on.  Do you have more examples and some proof maybe?

You are right.  Facts change opinions.  Do you have any?  Some documented proof would be nice.

Then stop.  If you have to keep posting it then you obviously aren't changing anyone's views.

Last edited by Mawaya-no-kami (2006-03-02 22:00:13)

Mawaya-no-kami
Member
+0|5969|Maryland
Here is a report to support my claims:

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Last edited by Mawaya-no-kami (2006-03-02 22:06:56)

xanthpi
Banned
+11|6055

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

Xanthpi,

Please don't flame.
Flaming is allowed against dumbasses. It's the law.

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

Fundamentalists destroyed the WTC with passenger jets.  Not all Muslims are hostile.
All Muslims are hostile. Since Islamic law states that all Muslims must utterly hate non-Muslims, all Muslims are hostile. However, not everyone with some form of Islamic identity is hostile.

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

The Saudi's (the people we pay at the pump) do fund terrorists.
Correct.

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

Just because WMDs were not found, it doesn't mean they didn't exist.  So we can gamble with war now?  I thought we needed a sound reason for going to war.
The reason for going to war was regime change, not WMD. That was just some bullshit they told the idiot public.

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

The Iraq War was not for oil.  I agree.  There is no reason for it.  Do you know if Iran invaded Iraq they could wipe out all of the United States' forces with sheer numbers of militants?
There is not a single entity in the world which can beat the USA militarily, not even Iran's 'militants', as you put them.

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

And so on.  Do you have more examples and some proof maybe?
I haven't got time to spend ages educating all the idiots. They can go and find their own proof or they can stfu.

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

You are right.  Facts change opinions.  Do you have any?  Some documented proof would be nice.
I haven't got time to condense years of learning in some user-friendly soundbites.

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

Then stop.  If you have to keep posting it then you obviously aren't changing anyone's views.
But it's fun to flame idiots.

Go and read some of the epic discussions about Islam if you want to see me in polite mode, absolutely crushing many, many idiots in a single thread.
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6029|San Francisco
You're right, xanthpi, opinions do not trump plain facts in a discussion.  So please post your facts and stop being an ass.  I want this thread back in order.

Post your reactions and thoughts about the video, and if you feel that someone posts something wrong, back up why you feel it is wrong and don't just rely on the whole "OMG It's total common sense!!  WTF is wrong with you people!!!!!11!1" fallback.  If you want to come out and say something, back yourself up and show us what information led you to your opinion.
Mawaya-no-kami
Member
+0|5969|Maryland
Thanks Marconius.
Ziggy_79x
Member
+4|6021

xanthpi wrote:

So many idiots in this thread.

So.

Muslims destroyed the WTC with passenger jets.

Saddam did fund terrorists.

Just because WMDs were not found, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. Chemical weapons are still being discovered in China, buried by the Japanese, 60 years after WW2 ended.

The Iraq War was not for oil.

And so on.

Now, if you're not a very good thinker and are prone to believing in utter bullshit rather than facts, do the decent thing and decline the temptation to post your bullshit on internet forums. You can have your opinion, but if you are prone to idiocy then just keep it to yourself. If you are not sure whether or not you are prone to idiocy, then ask. Having an opinion does not magically make that opinion fact. OPINIONS DO NOT CHANGE FACTS.

It's boring and uneccessary to keep rehashing this tired old crap.
OBEY. NO FREE THINKING. MARRY AND MULTIPLY. PAY TAXES. DON'T QUESTION AUTHORITY.......
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6055

Marconius wrote:

You're right, xanthpi, opinions do not trump plain facts in a discussion.  So please post your facts and stop being an ass.  I want this thread back in order.

Post your reactions and thoughts about the video, and if you feel that someone posts something wrong, back up why you feel it is wrong and don't just rely on the whole "OMG It's total common sense!!  WTF is wrong with you people!!!!!11!1" fallback.  If you want to come out and say something, back yourself up and show us what information led you to your opinion.
Ooooooooooh.

There's five years of information to post about all of this and there isn't time, unless someone wants to pay me about US$4000 to do so, which they won't, so I won't.

So, we're stuck, as always, with one of the unfortunate side-effects of free speech, thought and conscience; that is, you have a bunch of people who are able to decipher reality correctly, and a bunch who aren't. And where does this leave society? In a mess, that's where (see current state of world for proof of where believing in false things gets us).

What we have here are a bunch of people who either hate the US/ President Bush so much, or who are really so incredibly stupid, that they will believe the things that their enemies want them to believe. Facts don't make any difference to the way they think, so all that are left are flames.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6055

Ziggy_79x wrote:

OBEY. NO FREE THINKING. MARRY AND MULTIPLY. PAY TAXES. DON'T QUESTION AUTHORITY.......
OBEY the truth. Or your thirst, if you want a Sprite.

NO FREE THINKING unless you come to an innocent conclusion.

PAY TAXES or the country goes under.

DON'T QUESTION AUTHORITY unless authority is wrong.

=DBD=TITAN126
Member
+5|6118

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

It wasn't proven (in my opinion) that Iraq had WMDs before the war so I see it as unjust.  The United States went in under false pretenses.

If you can direct me to some tangible evidence I would appreciate it, seriously.
Like I said, it was never disproven either. I can't give you any tangible evidence, and you can't give me any tangible evidence either.
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6057|Sydney, Australia

TheTinamou wrote:

Yes but that doesn't explain how the buildings fell at free-fall speeds.  If each floor landed on the next, some energy had to be lost to force the floor the crumble, which would cause the buildings to fall at a slower rate.  And how was most of the concrete pulverized to dust?  It certainly couldn't have been just from the building falling down.

I think this video may help dismiss the "pancake theory."  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … p;q=9%2F11

Fast foward to around the 30 mintue mark.
I don't have any hard evidance but i'll say:

As each succesive layey is added, the total mass of the falling object increases. As F=MA (newtons 2nd law) , the force of the floors hitting each succesive layer was enough to counter any force slowing the rate of fall down. The mass of each new floor increased the force with which the next floor was hit. The speed of falling increased continually.

What exactly do you mean by freefall speed?

www.wikipedia.org wrote:

freefall - the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity and air friction
Wouldn't any speed as a result of acceleration due to gravity be considered a free-fall speed?

Did you mean terminal velocity? But wait a minute, "terminal velocity depends on many factors including mass, drag coefficient, and relative surface area" [www.wikipedia.org]. As the mass in always increasing with new layers added, the terminal velocity will always be changing. So what did you mean by free-fall speeds?

Last edited by mcminty (2006-03-03 03:13:19)

Sgt_Sieg
"Bow Chicka Bow Wow." The correct way.
+89|6110

Marconius wrote:

You're right, xanthpi, opinions do not trump plain facts in a discussion.  So please post your facts and stop being an ass.  I want this thread back in order.

Post your reactions and thoughts about the video, and if you feel that someone posts something wrong, back up why you feel it is wrong and don't just rely on the whole "OMG It's total common sense!!  WTF is wrong with you people!!!!!11!1" fallback.  If you want to come out and say something, back yourself up and show us what information led you to your opinion.
Hey, look at my previous post, info that lead to the opinion.
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6113

Mawaya-no-kami wrote:

The floors in the World Trade Towers were not supported by I beams but rather steel space trusses with rebar connecting the two steel beams.  The reason Minoru Yamasaki (the designer) did this was because he wanted the floors to be completely spacious without beams running through them.  This meant that a large amount of the load was distributed along the sides of the structure.

When the planes crashed into the towers large portions of the side structures were lost.  This caused the load to be redistributed along the remaining walls.  The fact that it stayed up even after the impact is remarkable.  The heat as a result of the fires started by the jet fuel and sustained for over an hour by the office furniture, equipment and papers heated the space trusses enough to cause them to weaken to the point where they simply could not bear the load of the floor.  The weakining of the trusses was made possible by the destruction of the fire retardant material on the trusses and a majority of the sprinkler systems in the impact area.

If one or more members in a truss are compromised the rated load bearing strength rapidly declines.  The reason that the other buildings in the documentary Loose Change that were on fire for a much larger time period than these towers stood was because they had a sounder floor design and the fire retardant was sustained because of the lack of impact and force from an airplane (with the exception of the Empire State Building).  But that building had huge I beams running everywhere within it - a completely different situation.

Once one floor fell it was all over.  The floors were not designed to withstand the weight of another floor so once one fell it initiated a giant chain reaction all the way to the street.
You also need to point out that the plane took out 4 floors.  The support columns were on the exterior of the building with 4 columns in the middle.  With the force of the impact it is highly probable that the 4 interior columns were also damaged.

To those who stated that the 2 towers were built to withstand a 767's impact are sadly mistaken.  They were constructed in ~1966... there were no 767s around then.  It was a 707 that the towers were designed for and it was never designed for a direct impact.  That's like saying, "since cars are designed for impact no one should ever die in a car crash... especially if you're wearing your seatbelt."
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6029|San Francisco

xanthpi wrote:

Marconius wrote:

You're right, xanthpi, opinions do not trump plain facts in a discussion.  So please post your facts and stop being an ass.  I want this thread back in order.

Post your reactions and thoughts about the video, and if you feel that someone posts something wrong, back up why you feel it is wrong and don't just rely on the whole "OMG It's total common sense!!  WTF is wrong with you people!!!!!11!1" fallback.  If you want to come out and say something, back yourself up and show us what information led you to your opinion.
Ooooooooooh.

There's five years of information to post about all of this and there isn't time, unless someone wants to pay me about US$4000 to do so, which they won't, so I won't.

So, we're stuck, as always, with one of the unfortunate side-effects of free speech, thought and conscience; that is, you have a bunch of people who are able to decipher reality correctly, and a bunch who aren't. And where does this leave society? In a mess, that's where (see current state of world for proof of where believing in false things gets us).

What we have here are a bunch of people who either hate the US/ President Bush so much, or who are really so incredibly stupid, that they will believe the things that their enemies want them to believe. Facts don't make any difference to the way they think, so all that are left are flames.
Flaming is what turns internet forums into preschooler fights, and all you are doing is blatantly flaming since you can't constructively add to the conversation.

What we HAD here was a bunch of people who wanted to discuss the Loose Change video and the possibility that the government had a hand in 9/11.  The video brings up details that the mainstream media won't even touch...there's another video on the web that shows Geraldo's show on Fox News editing the Loose Change footage so that a 9/11 naysayer would look like a fool on TV.

You say there are 5 years of info to back yourself up, but you claim to be too lazy to post it all, eh?  Then stop posting in this thread.  You haven't backed anything up, and must be angry that the video has facts that you never considered, and thus rubs you the wrong way since it is physically impossible for you to agree with the facts.

I'll make this plain and simple.  Stop flaming.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6055
Oooooooooooooooooooooooh.

What's to discuss? The US Government had no hand in 9/11 so there's no point in talking about it. So it's better just to flame the idiots. Let them know their place.
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6172

xanthpi wrote:

Oooooooooooooooooooooooh.

What's to discuss? The US Government had no hand in 9/11 so there's no point in talking about it. So it's better just to flame the idiots. Let them know their place.
Check...                 sounds good

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard