Just because I'm crazy doesn't mean I'm not right.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
are you a "conspiracy theorist"?
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
- Status
Captain Ginyu
Member
Building 7 was the nail in the coffin for me.
If you click on the link I just posted, you would have the answer:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-sect...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
Much ado has been made about small errors the "conspiracy theorists" have made in our reporting of things.
Yet isn't "refusing to do any research whatsoever" the biggest mistake of all?
Isn't the incorrect "707 isn't anything like a 767" meme a direct result of "reading what someone else wrote and just copying it without verification"? In other words the very same error that "conspiracy theorists" are accused of?
the joke of the nonconspiracyguys is,...........we are relaxed 
You're using the 'Titanic' argument. AKA Many people said it was unsinkable. Just because people that worked on it said it could withstand an airliner impact, doesn't make it so.
don't get me started on the titanic - it was the olympic that sank. the whole thing was a big insurance scam to get rid of an expensive and badly damaged ship (the olympic).
I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying to point out the elephant in the room.
You haven't made up your mind? I say BS, I've suggested possible alternatives and yet you handily dismiss it all as not possible. Like the destroying evidence thing. The logs and security checks are set and established by the agency where the records are. Like in the case of the Pentagon any logs there are set up and maintained by the Pentagon, not some independent 3rd party. If there was something embarrassing to the Pentagon in one of those rooms then you think their own security measures are going to stop them from getting rid of it? That's rather naïve to think they're going to sign a log when they're actively removing damaging evidence. If an investigation is to be launched it means they don't have the evidence yet or know for sure it exists, they just suspect where they might find it. So if someone manages to remove the evidence before hand then who will know it was removed other then those removing it? If the investigating body knew the evidence existed for a fact they wouldn't need to do an investigation.
Same with the building falling because of structural deficiencies rather then demolitions. I doubt you're an expert on demolitions so when you say it couldn't possibly happen that way because it would look different, chances are better then not that you're saying that because someone else claiming to be an expert said so. If a demolition causing a key point to fail will result in a building falling a certain way then it stands to reason anything else causing that same key point to fail would yield the same result.
As for the pictures, why should I have to post links for you? So you can attack the link as being a biased source and therefore the pictures are misleading? Someone else suggested I post links in a rep message. I'll tell you the same thing I told them. The pictures I'm talking about are on many sites and are easily found doing a simple google search in their images search engine. I'd rather allow an individual to look thru on their own and pick what they want to look at so they can avoid sites they feel are biased. Additionally why waste my time doing that knowing that quite a few people on this site are opposed to clicking outside links. I mean if I was talking obscure hard to find images then that would be a different matter but I'm not. I'm talking about pictures, many the same, from sites that say things happened the way they were reported as well as sites saying the opposite. There's twisted wreckage that clearly has the name of the airline stamped on it, other wreckage that has markings that match the markings of the plane and still others that show parts that look like the parts of engines that people can readily recognize upon knowing they're looking at wreckage from a plane.
As for the reason for discussion you talk about people being willing to accept the truth when shown it. The problem is you're not showing truth, you're showing opinion. If someone could show me solid proof of these theories I'd accept it. I've yet to see solid proof really on either side of the discussion.
All I have tried do is offer reasonable alternatives. Like the two separate attacks theory. Just because the odds of it happening are small doesn't mean that couldn't be it. The odds are very small of hitting a big lottery and yet people do hit it and millions play it even though they no the odds are against them winning because in the end no matter how remote it seems they might still win. Additionally you altered what I was saying there by trying to make it even more remote by saying two separate attacks that happened on the same day at the same time. One might have not been an attack but rather an elaborate heist ala Die Hard With a Vengeance where the plan was to blow up or destroy something to create a circumstance for something to be stolen by what looks like the people responding to what was destroyed. I agree though that's a bit farfetched or is one of those things where you say "Only in the movies". The more likely scenario if demolitions were actually used is that some of the terrorists managed to plant demolitions in advance to help maximize the destruction caused by the plane crash thereby ensuring it would be as demoralizing as it was. Around the time of 9/11 there were a number of questionable people, from foreign lands trying to gain access to and/or taking pictures of things that could have been someone seeking targets. I don't mean ordinary typical tourist type pictures either but pictures taken from areas not open to the public. Then again maybe it was all just what has been reported? The fact is there has never been a scenario quite like what happened with 9/11 so it's not a valid argument to say "It can't happen that way" because there is no history of how it should have happened to draw from. Nobody can say for certain how things should happen from a jet airliner completely entering into the tallest building in the world via a deliberate head on crash because that scenario had never happened before 9/11. All we can do is trust that engineers are right when they say a building should be able to withstand something like that. Just like the people in New Orleans trusted the levies would hold against Katrina but didn't.
Mr_Mojo_Risin'
New member
I get "Wired" magazine and they had a story in there about a data center being built (out west) that was going to store Americans phone and email records. This was long before Snowden and they had people working on this data center telling them what was going on.
It blew my mind that our freedoms are being walked on in the name of national security.
With our freedoms being slowly taken away, doesn't that mean the terrorists won?
I guess it's just a way for getting people back to work. I know it would take someone a full day to read all my emails, listen to my phone calls and read all my message board posts.
Big Brother IS watching AND listening.
Nineteen Eighty Four, knocking on your door.....
It blew my mind that our freedoms are being walked on in the name of national security.
With our freedoms being slowly taken away, doesn't that mean the terrorists won?
I guess it's just a way for getting people back to work. I know it would take someone a full day to read all my emails, listen to my phone calls and read all my message board posts.
Big Brother IS watching AND listening.
Nineteen Eighty Four, knocking on your door.....
Actually it's fact, but I can't prove it because the threads that would prove these discussions have happened many times over the years are no longer there having been deleted. The people pushing these theories aren't likely to admit it though because it would prove that what I'm saying is correct.
The people thinking the same way are the same people thinking the same way 5 and 10 years ago. Again though I can't prove it because the threads from the past have been deleted. A further complication is that many of the people from the past have either changed their handles out of fear of persecution/paranoia or they've been banned for repeatedly violating the TOU. So what may seem like new people being won over is actually just the same people with a new name. Additionally few if any of these people pushing these beliefs are above dishonesty. They believe what they believe so fervently that they feel the ends of getting their message out justifies the means of being as dishonest as they say the government and media is. To that end it's not beyond reason that they employ aliases to make it appear like more people agree with them and I wouldn't be surprised if some are smart enough to make it look like they were once against the theory but have been won over because of what is presented as proof in the thread.
Have you? Have you actually looked inside their minds and seen the chemical reactions occurring that represent them changing their belief? Or did you just see what you wanted to see?
Sure they have because they are all classic Government Conspiracy theories that have been around a long time and even have been represented in movies such as the Mel Gibson movies titled "Conspiracy"
You've been educated? So what you knew about things, what you've concluded on your own was just garbage and that the only way you can come to know the truth is if someone tells...I mean educates you? What establishes these people as paragons of virtue, truth and honesty to make you not consider they might just as easily have a hidden agenda like they claim the government has. Most people who think someone is guilty of something when they have no proof, think that because that's what they would do. Like the husband who is convinced his wife is cheating on him because he himself has cheated and so he reasons, "If I could do it then so could she" or he thinks, "That's what I did to hide my cheating, so if she's doing the same thing it must be because she is cheating".
What's the timetable on that because the JFK thing has been going on for 50 years now and no truth has been revealed that was hidden. History is written however the survivor wants it. Hence the saying that "The History of War is written by the victors".
Well one thing is the focus you and others keep placing on how to call someone a conspiracy theorist is akin to saying they are crazy or mentally ill. Right here in this very thread. Also who are you to say others are ignorant when what you believe is yet to be proven? When debating an unproven topic either way both sides have the potential to be ignorant or enlightened. To say someone is ignorant just because they don't believe what you believe is not the way of an enlightened person.
please, again, bring and post your evidence supporting this outrageous misinformation. your attempt at obfuscation belies your education and exposes your biased opinion for what it is...
Again why do I need to bring proof that is so easily accessible? So you can attack the source I happen to pick? I've told people how and where it can easily be found, your refusal to seek it out on your own belies your education and your own attempts at obfuscation and exposes your biased opinion for what it is...
Oh and on them Chemtrails, why would the government need to make people sick when big business already does it for them? There are all sorts of poisons and toxins we allow in foods and other consumables that have been tied to pretty much all the major health issues our world faces today. No need to spray chemicals in the air when it's in the cereals, cheeses, meats, beverages, snacks, etc. that we consume. Where's your proof that this is why they spray chemicals into the air? Or is your opinion biased and this is another attempt at obfuscating the truth?
Sure let's just forget about all the things we put up as proof that doesn't hold water. My how convenient. Your whole philosophy of how this must be a government conspiracy is based on what you perceive as holes in the official story and therefor the whole story must be false. Yet when someone attacks holes in the version you want to believe it's like, "forget about that then, who cares about that
what about the rest of it?" Like you were saying that if any piece of the alternative storyline you put forth doesn't match with reality then maybe none of it does.
Nobody here is saying that the government or big business or the banks are all completely honorable. We all know that in the course of history each of these entities have done downright dastardly deeds in pursuit of obtaining more and more of the all mighty dollar. That still doesn't mean that because they've done things in the past what you say they've done in the present holds water. The problem with using those past examples is none of these entities of Government, Big Business and Banks are set entities that remain unchanged. Each are large organizations with many members that come and go over the years. So the government of 50 years ago is not the same government of today and likely will not be the same 50 years from now.
You seem to forget that what gives your statement "with all the cameras in airports how is it possible" is based on a fallacy. That Fallacy being the failure to recognize that a lot of the cameras in airports and elsewhere came about because of 9/11 and the train bombing in Spain and the bus bombings in England. Prior to those things the need for "All those cameras" was not felt.
Perhaps the question you should be asking isn't why do some of the people from the 9/11 commission have doubts of the official story but rather how come all of them don't? If they are all investigating the same thing to draw a conclusion as a group shouldn't they all be on the same page? It's not like it's a trial where even though a few say guilty the person being judge is innocent due to mistrial.
All the same can be said of you. You disregard what everyone else says and you have no evidence to prove those not believing your version wrong yet you smugly assert your version as proof. Why are you still here if you're not willing to even consider what you are guessing at might be wrong.
Stoner4life doesn't have to disprove your theories because you haven't proven yours. Then again you can't really prove or disprove a theory because if you could it wouldn't be a theory.
Unhappy With U.S. Foreign Policy? Pentagon Says You Might Be A ‘High Threat’ : “Hema” 6
Matt Sledge
Posted: 08/07/2013 11:36 am EDT | Updated: 08/07/2013 5:19 pm EDT
Watch out for “Hema.”
A security training test created by a Defense Department agency warns federal workers that they should consider the hypothetical Indian-American woman a “high threat” because she frequently visits family abroad, has money troubles and “speaks openly of unhappiness with U.S. foreign policy.”
That slide, from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), is a startling demonstration of the Obama administration’s obsession with leakers and other “insider threats.” One goal of its broader “Insider Threat” program is to stop the next Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden from spilling classified or sensitive information.
But critics have charged that the Insider Threat program, as McClatchy first reported, treats leakers acting in the public interest as traitors — and may not even accomplish its goal of preventing classified leaks.
insider threat
DISA’s test, dubbed the “CyberAwareness Challenge,” was produced in October 2012, a month before the Obama administration finalized its Insider Threat policy. The slide about Hema is included in a section of the training about “insider threats,” which are defined by an accompanying guide as “threats from people who have access to the organization’s information systems and may cause loss of physical inventory, data, and other security risks.”
Both Hema’s travel abroad and her political dissatisfaction are treated as threat “indicators.” Versions of the training for Defense Department and other federal employees are unclassified and available for anyone to play online.
“Catch me if you can,” the training dares.
In a statement to The Huffington Post, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Damien Pickart said, “DISA was sensitive to any civil liberty concerns that might arise from any portion of the curriculum, which is why it coordinated with 26 federal agencies to ensure the maximum amount of input was received before going live.”
“When considering personnel for a position of trust that requires a security clearance, there are many potential indicators that must be considered when evaluating for insider threat concerns,” he explained. “The department takes these variables into consideration based on past examples of personnel who engaged in spying or treasonous acts.”
Several million people across the federal government have taken the training since it was released, Pickart said, and there has been only one complaint. He added that the next version of the security awareness training, to be released in October, is being updated so that its insider-threat test focuses more on behavior, “not personal characteristics or beliefs.”
Notably, the CyberAwareness Challenge is given to a wide range of federal employees whose roles have far less to do with security threats than that of a National Security Agency contractor like Snowden. The Department of Housing and Urban Development even requires its private business partners accessing a tenant rental assistance database to complete the training.
The Defense Department version of the “CyberAwareness Challenge” shows a healthy familiarity with Manning’s disclosures to WikiLeaks: In one training slide, the user is asked what to do when contacted by a reporter from “WikiSpills.”
Identifying “WikiSpills,” even hypothetically, as a legitimate journalist organization is quite different from how military prosecutors have approached the real WikiLeaks in the trial of Manning. There the military has suggested that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took few steps to verify the leaks he received before publication and acted as a virtual co-conspirator with his source.
Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said the DISA training slide was “ignorant and clumsy.”
“The item ‘speaks openly of unhappiness with U.S. foreign policy’ simply does not belong on the list,” Aftergood wrote in an email to HuffPost. “It is not a threat indicator. It could apply to most members of Congress, if not to most Americans. By presenting the matter this way, the slide suggests that overt dissent is a security concern. That is an error.”
READERS: Have you taken this security awareness training or another “insider threat” test? The Huffington Post would like to hear from you. Email Matt Sledge at [email protected], or call 347-927-9877.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/insider-threat-training_n_3714333.html
Matt Sledge
Posted: 08/07/2013 11:36 am EDT | Updated: 08/07/2013 5:19 pm EDT
Watch out for “Hema.”
A security training test created by a Defense Department agency warns federal workers that they should consider the hypothetical Indian-American woman a “high threat” because she frequently visits family abroad, has money troubles and “speaks openly of unhappiness with U.S. foreign policy.”
That slide, from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), is a startling demonstration of the Obama administration’s obsession with leakers and other “insider threats.” One goal of its broader “Insider Threat” program is to stop the next Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden from spilling classified or sensitive information.
But critics have charged that the Insider Threat program, as McClatchy first reported, treats leakers acting in the public interest as traitors — and may not even accomplish its goal of preventing classified leaks.
insider threat
DISA’s test, dubbed the “CyberAwareness Challenge,” was produced in October 2012, a month before the Obama administration finalized its Insider Threat policy. The slide about Hema is included in a section of the training about “insider threats,” which are defined by an accompanying guide as “threats from people who have access to the organization’s information systems and may cause loss of physical inventory, data, and other security risks.”
Both Hema’s travel abroad and her political dissatisfaction are treated as threat “indicators.” Versions of the training for Defense Department and other federal employees are unclassified and available for anyone to play online.
“Catch me if you can,” the training dares.
In a statement to The Huffington Post, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Damien Pickart said, “DISA was sensitive to any civil liberty concerns that might arise from any portion of the curriculum, which is why it coordinated with 26 federal agencies to ensure the maximum amount of input was received before going live.”
“When considering personnel for a position of trust that requires a security clearance, there are many potential indicators that must be considered when evaluating for insider threat concerns,” he explained. “The department takes these variables into consideration based on past examples of personnel who engaged in spying or treasonous acts.”
Several million people across the federal government have taken the training since it was released, Pickart said, and there has been only one complaint. He added that the next version of the security awareness training, to be released in October, is being updated so that its insider-threat test focuses more on behavior, “not personal characteristics or beliefs.”
Notably, the CyberAwareness Challenge is given to a wide range of federal employees whose roles have far less to do with security threats than that of a National Security Agency contractor like Snowden. The Department of Housing and Urban Development even requires its private business partners accessing a tenant rental assistance database to complete the training.
The Defense Department version of the “CyberAwareness Challenge” shows a healthy familiarity with Manning’s disclosures to WikiLeaks: In one training slide, the user is asked what to do when contacted by a reporter from “WikiSpills.”
Identifying “WikiSpills,” even hypothetically, as a legitimate journalist organization is quite different from how military prosecutors have approached the real WikiLeaks in the trial of Manning. There the military has suggested that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took few steps to verify the leaks he received before publication and acted as a virtual co-conspirator with his source.
Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said the DISA training slide was “ignorant and clumsy.”
“The item ‘speaks openly of unhappiness with U.S. foreign policy’ simply does not belong on the list,” Aftergood wrote in an email to HuffPost. “It is not a threat indicator. It could apply to most members of Congress, if not to most Americans. By presenting the matter this way, the slide suggests that overt dissent is a security concern. That is an error.”
READERS: Have you taken this security awareness training or another “insider threat” test? The Huffington Post would like to hear from you. Email Matt Sledge at [email protected], or call 347-927-9877.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/insider-threat-training_n_3714333.html
All of what you say here can be flipped back on you. Who established you as a genius? I find that particularly hard to believe when you start your response to a request for proof by saying I could write a 100 paragraph essay on why I think something is true. Just because you think something is true doesn't make it true and most geniuses are smart enough to know the difference between proof and opinion.
What genius seeks to spread truth by saying ignore what I can't prove and only focus on what you can't disprove?
February 12, 2014
DARPA developing ultimate web search engine to police the internet Reply
Cyber Security, Intelligence Gathering • Tags: DARPA, Deep Web, IP address, Memex, Office of Scientific Research and Development, United States Department of Defense, Vertical search, Web search engine
Published time: February 12, 2014 22:35
Reuters / Umit BektasReuters / Umit Bektas
The Pentagon’s research arm that fosters futuristic technology for the military will soon begin working to surpass current abilities of commercial web search engines. Yet, once it masters the “deep Web,” the agency doesn’t say much about what comes next.
The Defense Advanced Research (DARPA) said its “Memex” project will be able to search the far corners of internet content that is unattainable by modern, mainstream search engines, offering DARPA “technological superiority in the area of content indexing and Web search on the Internet.”
DARPA said earlier this month in its solicitation announcement for Memex proposals that the system will initially be used to counter human trafficking, which often thrives in web forums, chat rooms, job postings, hidden services and other websites.
To root out trafficking operations within the invisible corners of the web, commonly referred to as the “deep web,” Memex (a melding of “memory” and “index”) “will address the inherent shortcomings of centralized search by developing technology for domain-specific indexing of Web content and domain-specific search capabilities.”
With Memex, DARPA hopes to achieve the ability for decentralized, automated, topic-precise searches that can leverage image recognition and natural language technology.
DARPA has asked researchers to develop advanced web-crawler software to reach sites and resources that have sophisticated crawler defenses. Memex operators would then be able to access the indexed domain-relevant content with much greater precision and ease than is currently possible.
Memex, DARPA says, will be first employed against human trafficking, which, “especially for the commercial sex trade, is a line of business with significant Web presence to attract customers and is relevant to many types of military, law enforcement, and intelligence investigations.”
DARPA says that dark places online where trafficking occurs enables “a growing industry of modern slavery” that can be stopped with Memex capabilities.
“An index curated for the counter trafficking domain, including labor and sex trafficking, along with configurable interfaces for search and analysis will enable a new opportunity for military, law enforcement, legal, and intelligence actions to be taken against trafficking enterprises,” DARPA’s solicitation announcement reads.
Yet while DARPA mentions the usefulness of such technology for law enforcement and investigative purposes regarding human trafficking – basically, crimes few are opposed to stopping – it does not address the myriad other uses Memex would offer the US military, government intelligence operations, or police actions.
Amid the recent disclosures of government spying via the National Security Agency’s operations, the topic of complete surveillance over the entirety of the web is a sore subject. Thus, DARPA says it is “specifically not interested in proposals for the following: attributing anonymous services deanonymizing or attributing identity to servers or IP addresses, or gaining access to information which is not intended to be publicly available.”
How DARPA would catch traffickers without “deanonymizing” someone, though, the agency does not explain. Nor does it address just how far it wants to out anyone hiding in the deep web for legitimate reasons, whether they are journalists, whistleblowers, activists, and the like.
The Memex project takes its name from a 1945 article in The Atlantic titled “As We May Think,” by Dr. Vannevar Bush, head of the White House Office of Scientific Research and Development. Bush envisioned a “device” that could be used for finding and categorizing the world’s information, acting as a supplement for the human brain.
“In a nutshell, Bush wanted to mimic how the human brain thinks, learns, and remembers information,” writes Motherboard. “Which is exactly what artificial intelligence researchers at the DoD and in Silicon Valley are trying to do now, to glean better insights from the unruly army of big data being collected by web giants and the military alike.”
The Memex project is expected to run over the next three years, with proposals due in April
http://rt.com/usa/darpa-internet-search-engine-788/
DARPA developing ultimate web search engine to police the internet Reply
Cyber Security, Intelligence Gathering • Tags: DARPA, Deep Web, IP address, Memex, Office of Scientific Research and Development, United States Department of Defense, Vertical search, Web search engine
Published time: February 12, 2014 22:35
Reuters / Umit BektasReuters / Umit Bektas
The Pentagon’s research arm that fosters futuristic technology for the military will soon begin working to surpass current abilities of commercial web search engines. Yet, once it masters the “deep Web,” the agency doesn’t say much about what comes next.
The Defense Advanced Research (DARPA) said its “Memex” project will be able to search the far corners of internet content that is unattainable by modern, mainstream search engines, offering DARPA “technological superiority in the area of content indexing and Web search on the Internet.”
DARPA said earlier this month in its solicitation announcement for Memex proposals that the system will initially be used to counter human trafficking, which often thrives in web forums, chat rooms, job postings, hidden services and other websites.
To root out trafficking operations within the invisible corners of the web, commonly referred to as the “deep web,” Memex (a melding of “memory” and “index”) “will address the inherent shortcomings of centralized search by developing technology for domain-specific indexing of Web content and domain-specific search capabilities.”
With Memex, DARPA hopes to achieve the ability for decentralized, automated, topic-precise searches that can leverage image recognition and natural language technology.
DARPA has asked researchers to develop advanced web-crawler software to reach sites and resources that have sophisticated crawler defenses. Memex operators would then be able to access the indexed domain-relevant content with much greater precision and ease than is currently possible.
Memex, DARPA says, will be first employed against human trafficking, which, “especially for the commercial sex trade, is a line of business with significant Web presence to attract customers and is relevant to many types of military, law enforcement, and intelligence investigations.”
DARPA says that dark places online where trafficking occurs enables “a growing industry of modern slavery” that can be stopped with Memex capabilities.
“An index curated for the counter trafficking domain, including labor and sex trafficking, along with configurable interfaces for search and analysis will enable a new opportunity for military, law enforcement, legal, and intelligence actions to be taken against trafficking enterprises,” DARPA’s solicitation announcement reads.
Yet while DARPA mentions the usefulness of such technology for law enforcement and investigative purposes regarding human trafficking – basically, crimes few are opposed to stopping – it does not address the myriad other uses Memex would offer the US military, government intelligence operations, or police actions.
Amid the recent disclosures of government spying via the National Security Agency’s operations, the topic of complete surveillance over the entirety of the web is a sore subject. Thus, DARPA says it is “specifically not interested in proposals for the following: attributing anonymous services deanonymizing or attributing identity to servers or IP addresses, or gaining access to information which is not intended to be publicly available.”
How DARPA would catch traffickers without “deanonymizing” someone, though, the agency does not explain. Nor does it address just how far it wants to out anyone hiding in the deep web for legitimate reasons, whether they are journalists, whistleblowers, activists, and the like.
The Memex project takes its name from a 1945 article in The Atlantic titled “As We May Think,” by Dr. Vannevar Bush, head of the White House Office of Scientific Research and Development. Bush envisioned a “device” that could be used for finding and categorizing the world’s information, acting as a supplement for the human brain.
“In a nutshell, Bush wanted to mimic how the human brain thinks, learns, and remembers information,” writes Motherboard. “Which is exactly what artificial intelligence researchers at the DoD and in Silicon Valley are trying to do now, to glean better insights from the unruly army of big data being collected by web giants and the military alike.”
The Memex project is expected to run over the next three years, with proposals due in April
http://rt.com/usa/darpa-internet-search-engine-788/
- Status
