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 )

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nasa Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The " Elephant In The Room ", PilotsFor911Truth.org

Rating 5 V
 
rob balsamo
post Aug 5 2010, 07:31 PM
Post #161



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Aug 5 2010, 07:08 PM) *
I'm going to look at all the various videos and see how many frames it takes for the second aircraft to go from nose to tail into the building.


NTSB Video Impact Speed Study (8mb pdf)

Summary
Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)





QUOTE
It brings up a lot of questions, like, why go so fast (as already pointed out) and why modify a plane to do something extraordinary ?


Fighters were inbound from Otis ANG.

QUOTE
Some whiz could possibly determine air resistance versus thrust of a 767 at the particular air density.
Maybe using calculations of acceleration and climb during take-off. You know, if a 767 can climb at a certain speed at a certain angle with a certain load up to a certain cruising altitude, there could be an indication of possible suicide speeds at low altitude.


"Whiz kids" at Boeing already performed such calculations based on flight and wind tunnel testing. They came up with a max operating limit of 360 knots.


QUOTE
If not a standard 767, then what would the modifications involve ?


Get us the parts and we'll tell you.

QUOTE
It seems implausible that the videos were faked and thousands of people remain silent when told aircraft hit the towers, if indeed, no planes were involved. Its even odd to think that the videos were altered, but what is weirder, modified 767s or modified videos and modified radar ? What's the purpose ?


To beat a Fighter to it's target perhaps? Speculation of course.

QUOTE
I can see a delay in the demolition of the towers so electronic "accounting" can be done, and maybe gold plundering in the basements, so an explanation why the towers weren't brought down at the same time as airplane impact is plausible to me. But why screw around with what would be a straight-forward plane-into-tower scenario ? Of course the Pentagon has that same problem.

Over-engineered false-flag simulations ? Jeez.


Only the perps could answer. But just like there have never been a steel skyscraper which collapsed due to fire before 9/11, there has never been an aircraft which exceeded it's maneuvering speed by more than 220 knots, or it's operating speed by 150 knots, and survived.

If you find one, please let us know.



QUOTE
Well, maybe the no-planes thing has some merit.


I disagree. Many people witnessed aircraft hit the towers, including people I know personally.

QUOTE
The 767 that had two debris fields when it dived into the ocean, was there a black-box data recording of g-forces ? Do we know what manuevers it was doing when it broke-up ? I don't recall seeing a lot of info except that at a certain speed, it apparently broke up.


Please watch the presentation or read this thread. It's covered.

QUOTE
Can we determine g-loading on the 767 that hit the second tower by the arc-radius method ?


Yes.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10783786
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Aug 6 2010, 07:41 PM
Post #162





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Not to pick on Maha

But in respect to the facts, I had already pointed to the airframes in question, as given refurbished engines and instruments; then sent to Mojave Airport in California.

There, BAE Systems turns the aircraft into remote-controlled drones, installing radio antennas and modifying the flight controls, throttles, landing gear, and flaps. (Or whar ever)

Retagged by “Elreb” as KC-911A and KC-911B, they were never originally refurbished to kill WTC1 or WTC2.

It was a drill that went “Real World”. Something Mode S, backdoor remote control sent the planes to new targets. NORAD was at a loss! It is just a drill.

Otis was at Battle Stations “Ready 5” sitting on their nuts for 40 minutes waiting to scramble.

Who held them back and why?

PS: Rob please correct my story to make it flow better!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 8 2010, 11:16 AM
Post #163





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (elreb @ Aug 4 2010, 10:41 PM) *
There, BAE Systems turns the aircraft into remote-controlled drones,

BAE (and constituent companies), but not the only ones, have had a long history of producing remote control target drones and using some decidedly heavy metal:



De Havilland Sea Vixen D3 (conversion from FAW2)

then there was the Gloster Meteor U15 before that and unlike the Sea Vixen D3 much used in the drone role.

More on target drones:

Target drone - Wiki

then there are the known, and recorded elsewhere on this forum, Boeing aircraft used for crash tests.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Aug 16 2010, 10:04 PM
Post #164





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



I have no objection to being picked-on whatsoever.

I live one mile from BAE systems in Mojave. I'ved worked outside for 19 years in this area. I have not seen 757, or 767 aircraft being flown in this area very much, but yes a little. There are some aircraft of that type right now sitting in the field. I have seen low flying 747s years back. I know one person who works in a salvage company in Mojave airport and I can ask him if he knows anything, and I know one other person who was developing his own two person planes there. They also refurbished tanker aircraft there maybe ten years ago. Its not a very lively airport and planes get noticed pretty easily, as they take off just north of town which has a Northwest prevailing wind. That also means that planes can be flown in from the East without much visibillity coming from the direction of Edwards Airforce base. Still, I haven't witnessed what seems like development of 767 aircraft here.
Mostly its weird planes like the Voyager, the "space plane" and all the seemingly endless creations of Burt Rattan and Scaled Composites.

I did look again at a few different videos and even the first plane was about 7 frames although its hard to see, the second, right about 6.5 frames from nose to tail into the building out of 30 frames per second.

I guess we could just leave it as impossible. But I like your points.

So we agree they had to be modified aircraft and remote controlled to do what they did.

The extra speed makes sense in every aspect as to pull off such an event.

Is the performance of the whole flight abnormally quick ? I know someone was mentioning the flight path.

There was a twin engine white comercial style aircraft flying south from Mojave a couple weeks back. That's unusual though.

Typically up high its Edward's Air Force aircraft it seems doing tight manuevers or supersonic.
The hills I work on are right on the cruise missile test course to China Lake. It used to be the old Wild Weasle F-4s chasing them, now F-18s or F-16s.

Off-topic, what do any of you think about "chemtrails" ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Aug 17 2010, 11:24 PM
Post #165





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Dam Johnny, “Maha”

Good show…thank you…BTY look at Google Earth…I see heavy air craft at…35.059444, -118.151667


You are right in the middle of my Old Spanish Trail & Mohave River Trail.

Could have used you on our “Frontier Adventure Series”

If things get better, we will give you a job. Can you write?

http://www.silverspurbooks.com/

AS far as "chemtrails" I was one of those who got agent "Purple" at Eglin AFB.

This post has been edited by elreb: Aug 17 2010, 11:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Aug 18 2010, 11:30 PM
Post #166





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



Thanks for the link regarding the Mojave area.
I've been a wind-turbine tech out here for, actually, 20 years now. I see a lot of the sky around Mojave.
I have an uncle who worked at China Lake Naval Weapons Center for 35 years. I gave him some DVDs from Pilots for Truth and Architects for Truth last year, haven't talked to him. Maybe I should.

I'm not aware of agent purple. I don't want to digress, but I'd assume that somewhere on this site would be a great place to discuss "chemtrails".

If we assume the planes were modified and remote controlled, we'd look into anything unusual involving passenger lists, abnormal departure and flight path data etc. Some would say there's enough data already looked at: Too fast and manueverable to be human piloted standard aircraft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Aug 20 2010, 01:28 AM
Post #167





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



Yeah, gee Rob I finally looked at your links, I'm only half bad.

I did observe the wing bend on the plane. 3 Gs huh ? Does that include 1 G for gravity, or would it be 4 Gs ?

I do like the thought trail involving how all these seemingly odd ways to stage an attack may involve fooling air defense. With many excercises, "hijacked" airliners looking like military flight performance aircraft could add to the confusion as stated by traffic controllers. Maybe on the screens during the excercises, the "hijacked" aircraft were given false IDs as simulated or real friends or foe aircraft.

Somebody must have a bit of a complex in remembering the events on that day as excercise turned into reality.


Mod edit: Off topic portions of this post removed. Please post your inquiries in the proper forum sections.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 20 2010, 06:55 AM
Post #168





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Does this site have a consensus about the air speeds? Were they false ie inserted data and impossible for the supposed air frames used... or were they accurate and modified or substitute air frames were used? If the latter, there are several options for the "actual" flight and the high jacking I would think.

One being that the perps simply had to dispose of those passengers and crew and since they were about to cause major damage to the WTC and Pentagon, a few hundred passengers and crew murdered would be part of the plan. Whether there were hijackers of those original flight seems to be moot as hardly ANY pilot could hit those targets flying those maneuvers at anything close to the reported speeds. This seems to indicate that the planes were flown "electronically" as drones or similar and the hijacking aspect was only necessary to pin the blame on AQ and Islamic radicals.

So we have to decide if the actual flights were disposed of (even hijacked) and then taken over electronically so no one could do anything on board. Or were they modified planes which were boarded and then flown into their targets electronically.. even "hijacked" but ultimately not under the control of the hijackers as claimed.

I would look for the simplest scenario to accomplish the "mission" from the perps POV. To my way of think it might be:

Modified planes were prepared for the attack and substituted for the commercial air frames. The hijackers were "managed" by their "handlers" and told to practice or even carry out this multi hijacking believing they would fly the planes into the targets. They were dupes of course and only carried out the first stage of the high jacking, but did NOT control the planes.

Perps had the ability to insert data into the ACT system and knew of the military exercises at the time and knew that they could easily confuse ATC, NORAD operators and so forth with the inserted data. When it was too late the FAA ordered all flights grounded because they realized they had no idea of what was going on.

Air defenses had never faced a shoot down of a domestic airliner and they too were confused of where the attack was coming from since the RADES and ATC data was so unreliable during and now after the attack. Essentially the perps knew that with distraction and confusion... the way a magician acts... they could do their heinous act.

Since the planes could not destroy the towers, they were an excuse and trumped up cause for the actual engineered destruction of the entire WTC complex. The excuse would be planes start fires which become uncontrollable and will allow tall buildings to collapse. Not likely true, but that would be the official explanation and they sought means to conceal the identity of the planes striking the towers as well as make sure that they hit the towers "as planned". The planes had little to do with the actual collapses, and in the case of the south tower may have messed up some of the explosives etc because of the off center location and angle of the hit. But it didn't really matter because they measures to take down the towers were not plane strike dependent.

Inserting false data seems to be a doable act with few people required. My take away is that this was a insider rogue intel-military op (coup) which likely was planned well in advance of the elections and putting W and Cheney in there was part of getting it all in place to happen. There were many nefarious goals accomplished by what they did and many benefited and bought into the official narrative for that reason. The overall goal seems to be about growing the control and influence of the military and intel over our nation's agenda. And we were shown in spades how much power and control the military and intel have over our society. They took us exactly where they wanted this to go and there was hardly a pip from the frightened public.

Air speeds ultimately don't matter and all this keeps us focused on the details and not the bigger picture of their motives and agenda. Sorry for the rant and going off topic.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Aug 20 2010, 06:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Aug 27 2010, 07:22 PM
Post #169





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



I think the wing bending indicates high speed, and it really seems like the planes were going very fast. Otherwise, the videos and radar data would have to have been altered, and one would wonder why anyone would want to make a real event appear unrealistic by speeding things up.

Operations Northwoods was to use CIA agents with elaborately developed aliases to board planes that would have remote controlled planes take over their flight path. I read somewhere that flight 77 reportedly (by local news) landed at an airport and the passengers were moved into a NASA building.

The fact that flight 77s data recorder is so far off proves the official story is false. Especially with the witnesses. That's beyond a doubt.

We seem to have a concensus that the planes were modified and remote-controlled if video and radar data are relatively correct (and maybe if the speeds are "normal" and video and data are false too) . It might be measurable as to how far debris travels out the side of the towers, regarding speed.

Comparing debris travel at the 500+ knots versus 300-350 Knots speeds. I'm not sure about how to measure trajectory arcs. Of course we don't really know the weight and shape of the debris. Maybe the street corner where the engine landed may be an indicator, but a lot of speed could be reduced by collision with the building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadeets
post Sep 15 2010, 09:57 PM
Post #170





Group: Core Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 6-July 08
From: Encinitas, California
Member No.: 3,674



QUOTE (SanderO @ Aug 20 2010, 05:55 AM) *
Does this site have a consensus about the air speeds? Were they false ie inserted data and impossible for the supposed air frames used... or were they accurate and modified or substitute air frames were used? If the latter, there are several options for the "actual" flight and the high jacking I would think.


I came up with one other possibility which I included in a talk I gave in Ventura, CA, on 9/11/10. That is, a 767 was cleared to higher airspeeds in a flight test program, with flutter monitoring and so forth, such that they actually had confidence it could be flown at the higher airspeed reported.

Although I didn't consider this likely, I included it as a possibility for completeness.

Dwain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Sep 19 2010, 11:02 PM
Post #171





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



QUOTE (dadeets @ Sep 13 2010, 11:57 PM) *
I came up with one other possibility which I included in a talk I gave in Ventura, CA, on 9/11/10. That is, a 767 was cleared to higher airspeeds in a flight test program, with flutter monitoring and so forth, such that they actually had confidence it could be flown at the higher airspeed reported.

Although I didn't consider this likely, I included it as a possibility for completeness.

Dwain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Sep 19 2010, 11:14 PM
Post #172





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



I know Rob and other pilots are emphatic regarding maximum low altitude speeds.
Boeing gives a max low altitude speed, and I wonder if there is a safety margin before bad things start to happen.
Its been said that higher than 300-350 knots was "impossible" at low altitudes by highly credible "authorities".
What can we do beyond that ?
And then because credible data/videos etc. indicate 500 + knots, it may be a bit grey, but some explanation has to be entertained, and if plane/pilot "enhancement" doesn't work, then I don't know where to go with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Sep 20 2010, 12:14 AM
Post #173





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



come on guys, no matter how it happened, it was a reichstag fire event. a usg/mossad orchestrated false flag.

atta, shehi, et alia were probably assassinated by us intell operatives. they never boarded any aircraft that day.

no one as knowledgeable of the usa and its defense systems and its strategic economic vulnerabilities as a bin laden would have devised a plan incorporating hijackings[and the failure that would have ensued ordinarily]. so too, no bin laden would have attacked the wtc. neither the wrong side of the pentagon.

i am going to say it again, any real, coherent enemy of the great satan would have leased aircraft and loaded them with explosives. and launched within minutes of the targets. and the targets would have been east coast petrochemical complexes, indian point nuclear plant.

that has always been the dog in the manger, so to speak. the question that no one asks. why would any opponent of the great satan risked an op with hijackings and targeted what were essentially non-strategic assets?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 20 2010, 08:29 AM
Post #174





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



They were largely symbolic of US hegomny - finance and the military. But that's off topic re air speed.

Can someone clarify the following:

How much time were the planes reported to be traveling at 500 knots?

How long does it take for such a plane to accelerate to that speed if one "floors it"?

How long would it take for a plane which accelerates to this speed to break apart? That is... how long would it continue to move in the direction it was heading before it completely broke apart? What actually breaks off - the wings and tail?

Just curious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 20 2010, 10:08 AM
Post #175





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



SanderO

I'm not convinced that Boeings were actually doing 500knots that day. In the first place, we know that because of radar "injects" as a part of Vigilant Guardian the radar data was for all practical purposes meaningless. Injected targets were not real airplanes, but only electronic images on the scope.

I'm not convinced that it was a Boeing that struck first. The only pictures I've seen of the first airplane to hit were poor and very short. It might have been a Boeing, or maybe not.

I've not flown Boeings, so I can only speculate. Most airplanes will not reach the airspeed redline in level flight--it takes some sort of dive, even with the throttles wide open.

Exceeding the redline does not mean that the airplane will instantly fall apart, or even that it will necessarily suffer structural damage. I know that for little airplanes, the certification rules require about a 10% cushion over the published numbers regarding a failure of the structure.

In short, exceeding the airspeed limitations does not necessarily mean the structure will fail. It may damage the structure somehow, but it does not mean that it will fail. And in some hypothetical case about the structure actually failing and coming apart, there are many many variables.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 20 2010, 11:34 AM
Post #176



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (SanderO @ Sep 20 2010, 08:29 AM) *
How much time were the planes reported to be traveling at 500 knots?


I calculated the last minute of travel, the average is 500+ knots. Feel free to calculate the moment the aircraft exceeded it's Vmo of 360 knots. CSV file is attached at bottom of this post.

QUOTE
How long does it take for such a plane to accelerate to that speed if one "floors it"?


Depends on pitch attitude, engine thrust and aircraft structural capability (drag, control surface flutter, etc). This is basic physics and the four fundamentals of flight.

Get us the engines and pitch data and we can tell you. Unfortunately, the FDR data is not available for the WTC aircraft.

With that said, it is impossible for a standard 767 to reach such speeds based on precedent set by Egypt Air 990, limits set by the manufacturer, and numerous experts with thousands of hours in the 767. NASA Flight Director Dwain Deets describes the reported speeds as the "Elephant In The Room". He is right.

QUOTE
How long would it take for a plane which accelerates to this speed to break apart? That is... how long would it continue to move in the direction it was heading before it completely broke apart? What actually breaks off - the wings and tail?


According to EA990, a few seconds over Vd. EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 knots. It lost wing panels, it's left engine, and horizontal stabilizer skin.

Please read the thread and view the presentation SanderO as most of your questions are answered.

@amazed,

The Radar simulated inputs were input on NEADS/NORAD radar screens. This is different than the RADES and ASR radar used in calculating speed as used by the NTSB. The radar used for calculating the speeds is the same radar that is used to vector aircraft in the NYC Terminal area. There weren't any sim inputs on those screens. This will be covered thoroughly in our next presentation "9/11: Intercepted".

To all, there is a margin of safety built into the speeds. See this Vg diagram that was put together using the V-speeds of a 767 as set by Boeing based on flight and wind tunnel tests.

The Yellow "Caution" zone is your "margin of safety".



If you would like to learn more about the above diagram, here is a short video tutorial offered by an Aerobatic flight school that is pretty good.

http://www.apstraining.com/v-g-diagram-dis...h-aps-training/

Keep in mind that not only has a steel skyscraper never collapsed due to fire and gravity prior to or after 9/11, but never has an aircraft exceeded it's Max Operating by 150+ knots, it's Maneuvering speed by more than 200 knots, pulled G loading, remained controllable, or held together.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  RADES_Radar_Data_UA175_CSV.csv ( 28.66K ) Number of downloads: 58
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 20 2010, 01:13 PM
Post #177





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Anything that collapses does so with the assist of gravity. But connecting fire damage to turning enough of the structure to putty so it can't carry the loads above is a new one. Lot's of oddities on 9/11/01.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 20 2010, 10:33 PM
Post #178



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (SanderO @ Sep 20 2010, 01:13 PM) *
Anything that collapses does so with the assist of gravity....



Mea Culpa, SanderO, allow me to emphasize the part you missed.

"....a steel skyscraper never collapsed due to fire and gravity prior to or after 9/11."

In other words, many steel skyscrapers collapsed due to explosives and gravity.

Hope this helps.

rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 21 2010, 09:02 AM
Post #179





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for the info Rob.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Sep 29 2010, 01:44 AM
Post #180





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



The graph seems to indicate low altitude/high air density due to the 360 knot max safe operating speed.
It does go up to about 450 knots. The graph grid is a bit weird for speed.

So a 767 at 3 Gs (as plotted by the arc radius) and 425 knots is about 120 knots over stall, and at the structural failure limit.

My understanding of stall is that the airflow seperates from the wing, resulting in a loss of lift.

So, an airplane couldn't maintain a 3 G turn, 120 knots over stall. Or at least it would seem to be pushing outside any kind of intended flight path and be in certainly unknown flight trajectory territory unless the craft was tested at such speeds and made to be able to stay together at those speeds. I don't think that could be done from caves in Afghanistan.

What could be done to standard shaped wings to maintain stall to higher airspeeds ? Vortex generators help raise stall airspeed. It seems like reducing weight/wing loading would help some, but not really affect how the airflow interacts with the wing curvature. So maybe a different wing profile ?

Some of the 767s designed for tanker/radar missions had bigger engines, so is it possible the thrust could be there for near 500 knots low-level flight ?

So, are we looking at a plane with a different wing profile, lighter weight, and stronger engines, and reinforced airframe, or where did all the videos of the planes hitting the towers come from, and are they speeded up ?

The videos I've looked at show the second plane at 6.5 frames nose to tail into the building out of 30 frames per second, and that is about 500 MPH or 435 knots. They don't seem to vary. I'll go back and look at the analysis about plane speed based on video measurements. If I recall they were measuring part of the aircraft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2019 - 11:59 AM