IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
R. I. P. - No Plane Theory, Jim Fetzer evading questions

23investigator
post Jun 10 2015, 05:30 AM
Post #41





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 6 2015, 04:02 PM) *
Continuing the theme above.

There is a video in which a woman in a helicopter is in conversation with another woman back at a TV station.

Her initial account was that she had sighted the aircraft that actually hit Tower Two.

It most certainly did not seem she was talking about a large passenger aircraft.

In fact that conversation was clearly edited and again lost in the fog of illusion.

My personal appraisal of the video is that it is the most realistic of any of the video footage presented and still available to the public.

Not to say it has not been visually edited as well as the audio discussion between the two women: as it most definitely has.

The visual editing is by superimposing a white globe effect over the actual aircraft detail.

The aircraft is not anything like the proportions of a Boeing 767.

Robert S


More of above

In the first instance, the woman appears to refer to a 737.

She then modifies her comment to a very large aircraft, like a Boeing 747 or a DC9.

A male in the mix of conversation then says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression that it was that 'bigger' plane".

I hope he kept his job: the world needs more honest people like that.

The conversation then fluctuated between: at least a 727 saw it a minute ago: and it was at least a 727, 727 or 737.

Robert S

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 12 2015, 05:27 AM
Post #42





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 10 2015, 07:00 PM) *
More of above

In the first instance, the woman appears to refer to a 737.

She then modifies her comment to a very large aircraft, like a Boeing 747 or a DC9.

A male in the mix of conversation then says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression that it was that 'bigger' plane".

I hope he kept his job: the world needs more honest people like that.

The conversation then fluctuated between: at least a 727 saw it a minute ago: and it was at least a 727, 727 or 737.

Robert S


There are various versions of the video I am referring to.

Like most videos on the internet over the issue of 9/11: quality varies greatly.

One thing is consistent: the aircraft involved is small: compared to the size of a Boeing 767.

Another: the aircraft follows the same flight path.

Perhaps the most significant: when the aircraft becomes visible an interesting thing happens.

Tower Two becomes wider on the side nearest Tower one.

To really appreciate this it is necessary to view all the videos labelled "chopper 4": and others showing the same event that are not so labelled.

If and when you view these videos: please ask yourself: how could Tower Two become wider (wider than Tower one): and WHY.

Robert S


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 14 2015, 07:41 AM
Post #43





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 12 2015, 06:57 PM) *
There are various versions of the video I am referring to.

Like most videos on the internet over the issue of 9/11: quality varies greatly.

One thing is consistent: the aircraft involved is small: compared to the size of a Boeing 767.

Another: the aircraft follows the same flight path.

Perhaps the most significant: when the aircraft becomes visible an interesting thing happens.

Tower Two becomes wider on the side nearest Tower one.

To really appreciate this it is necessary to view all the videos labelled "chopper 4": and others showing the same event that are not so labelled.

If and when you view these videos: please ask yourself: how could Tower Two become wider (wider than Tower one): and WHY.

Robert S


If you are still with this series of posts.

There is one video on youtube that is very worth viewing.

The Google address: NIST FIOA WTC2 Plane Impact WTC1 Smoke Ejections, 9 03am (NBC4 News Broadcast)(1)

I suggest you type the address in full, as provided: it may be case-sensitive.

You should find the quality of this video as being very good.

The aircraft that appears from the top right corner of the screen is relatively 'well defined'.

The aircraft is not very large: but the wings are visible: as is the horizontal stabiliser on the port side of the aircraft.

The altitude of the aircraft is discernable: the distance from the towers is a little more difficult to determine: but to trained pilots: probably not that
difficult.

As the aircraft progresses closer to the Towers: it becomes obvious that it is not a very large aircraft.

In this instance, the white effect evident about the starboard wing does not appear to be as a result of image editing: as clearly the white
globe effect is: in other versions of this video.

I am not saying by this: that video has not been edited: as I am suspicious that it has.

But if you pause the video just before the aircraft goes out of view behind Tower one: at the top right corner of Tower one: it is
evident that the aircraft is at that point, over the water: and compared to the size of the Towers: not all that large.

With the video paused: Tower two appears to be wider than Tower one.

If you use a piece of paper and pencil and mark off the width of Tower two and compare it with the width of Tower one: you should
be left with no doubt at all that Tower two for some reason is wider than Tower one.

My suspicion is that this is the result of image editing.

Why? to not reveal the size of the aircraft as it becomes (or should become) visible between the two towers.

You should also notice that at this very time in 'this video' there is a 'cut in', showing Tower one, with evidence of an explosion at the bottom left.

A female commentator breaks in with: "another one just hit".

If you remember the commentators in other versions of the same video said they did not notice the aircraft circling the towers: being
generous the 'cut in' may have been a genuine one: but it is interesting to note: that the explosion is nonetheless still recorded in the main video!!!

The audio of a woman though, then saying: "something just hit, a very large plane, a 747 or a DC9 just flew past my window"!!!

I ask you: did it look like a very large plane to you??

It is well worth listening to the remainder of the audio.

They then 'cut in' another piece of video: which the male commentator says: "is another piece of tape".

I ask you: does that aircraft look like a Boeing 767??

The male commentator is the same one who previously says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression it was that bigger plane".

Please watch the rest of the video, and listen carefully to the audio.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jun 14 2015, 07:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 19 2015, 11:51 AM
Post #44





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 14 2015, 09:11 PM) *
If you are still with this series of posts.

There is one video on youtube that is very worth viewing.

The Google address: NIST FIOA WTC2 Plane Impact WTC1 Smoke Ejections, 9 03am (NBC4 News Broadcast)(1)

I suggest you type the address in full, as provided: it may be case-sensitive.

You should find the quality of this video as being very good.

The aircraft that appears from the top right corner of the screen is relatively 'well defined'.

The aircraft is not very large: but the wings are visible: as is the horizontal stabiliser on the port side of the aircraft.

The altitude of the aircraft is discernable: the distance from the towers is a little more difficult to determine: but to trained pilots: probably not that
difficult.

As the aircraft progresses closer to the Towers: it becomes obvious that it is not a very large aircraft.

In this instance, the white effect evident about the starboard wing does not appear to be as a result of image editing: as clearly the white
globe effect is: in other versions of this video.

I am not saying by this: that video has not been edited: as I am suspicious that it has.

But if you pause the video just before the aircraft goes out of view behind Tower one: at the top right corner of Tower one: it is
evident that the aircraft is at that point, over the water: and compared to the size of the Towers: not all that large.

With the video paused: Tower two appears to be wider than Tower one.

If you use a piece of paper and pencil and mark off the width of Tower two and compare it with the width of Tower one: you should
be left with no doubt at all that Tower two for some reason is wider than Tower one.

My suspicion is that this is the result of image editing.

Why? to not reveal the size of the aircraft as it becomes (or should become) visible between the two towers.

You should also notice that at this very time in 'this video' there is a 'cut in', showing Tower one, with evidence of an explosion at the bottom left.

A female commentator breaks in with: "another one just hit".

If you remember the commentators in other versions of the same video said they did not notice the aircraft circling the towers: being
generous the 'cut in' may have been a genuine one: but it is interesting to note: that the explosion is nonetheless still recorded in the main video!!!

The audio of a woman though, then saying: "something just hit, a very large plane, a 747 or a DC9 just flew past my window"!!!

I ask you: did it look like a very large plane to you??

It is well worth listening to the remainder of the audio.

They then 'cut in' another piece of video: which the male commentator says: "is another piece of tape".

I ask you: does that aircraft look like a Boeing 767??

The male commentator is the same one who previously says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression it was that bigger plane".

Please watch the rest of the video, and listen carefully to the audio.

Robert S


Continuing: but diverging a little.

A Mr Richard Hall from the UK has prepared a number of interesting videos.

I am not promoting that all he has had to say is correct.

Work that he carried out relating to the flight path visible in twenty-six different videos showing an "image of an aircraft" that appears to collide with Tower two, compared to a plot of the flight path created by using
information collected from civilian radar is interesting.

From 3D modelling created by Mr Hall from the above data: it is apparent that the flight path in the videos aligns with the radar plot.

Each of the videos though: seems to have a different shaped aircraft.

The aircraft in each video just seem to pass through the wall of the tower unhindered.

Yet then in later photographs (many extracted from video taken) there appears to be significant damage caused to the wall of the tower at the point of entry of the aircraft.

As extensive as the damage appears, it is still not large enough to accommodate the free passage of a Boeing767: yet the aircraft in the videos give every appearance of passing through the wall as a complete unit.

Those of the videos that are taken from the side of the aircraft are such that they do not allow any consideration of the penetration hole at the moment of impact.

Those of the videos that are taken from behind or below the aircraft: all have had one thing in common.

The appearance of the wall, before and when the aircraft passes through, have obviously been digitally image edited.

There is no doubt about this: when the lack of detail of the wall is considered.

But then after the explosion and smoke have subsided "lo and behold" there is a gaping hole in the wall, with all detail showing.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jun 19 2015, 09:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 19 2015, 05:11 PM
Post #45





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 19 2015, 10:51 AM) *
The appearance of the wall, before and when the aircraft passes through, have obviously been digitally image edited.

There is no doubt about this: when the lack of detail of the wall is considered.

But then after the explosion and smoke have subsided "lo and behold" there is a gaping hole in the wall, with all detail showing.

Robert S


As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 20 2015, 01:03 AM
Post #46





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 20 2015, 01:03 AM
Post #47





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM
Post #48





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM
Post #49





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 24 2015, 05:04 AM
Post #50





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 20 2015, 02:35 PM) *
Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S



Sorry about all the duplications: I don't think I was patient enough.

Changing direction a little.

Can anybody explain to me the phenomenon evident in the images of the fuselage skin that was photographed on Building five: where there appears to be a 'brown coloured material' behind the outer aluminium skin in a number of locations.

thanks

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th May 2018 - 12:10 AM