Reply to this topicStart new topic
What Did Betty Ong Actuall Say?

post Oct 12 2012, 02:43 AM
Post #1

Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 24-September 12
Member No.: 7,033

Often times when trying to solve complex problems, people tend to overlook the less sophisticated solutions. Sometimes simplicity is a great path to understanding the complex, or good leverage for bring the complex into better focus. When you read the entirety of the alleged Flight 11 to Reservations transcript, it reads like it has been written for someone who just had a full frontal lobotomy. The glaring inconsistencies are easy to detect and I'm sure that most of you have already recognized them for what they are. [if you want to compare Flight 11 to Reservations call transcript inconsistencies, please let me know. This initial post will focus on some other than the obvious.]

Now, let's get right to it. What did Betty Ong initially say at the start of the call with American Airlines Reservation Center in Cary, North Carolina, at 0820hrs local on September 11th, 2001? She said a lot, but there are four (4) very distinct things that morning:


1-I'm Number 3 in the back.
2-The cockpit's not answering.
3-Somebody's stabbed in business class and — I think there's mace — that we can't breathe.
4-I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked.

Now, what do we absolutely KNOW about Flight Attendant Training prior to September 11th, 2001, that was common practice among ALL Major Airlines? We know without question, that if a Flight Attendant ever has the need to communicate with their airline on the ground, that the Flight Attendant making the call would absolutely have to identify the Flight Number they were working, so that things such as gate changes, delays, connecting flight changes, sick passenger scenarios, etc., could all be handled and coordinated appropriately. We are talking about fundamental Flight Attendant Training.

Pay very close attention to what happens next.

When asked by Reservations what flight (meaning what Flight Number#) she was on, Betty Ong, gave an immediate (quick and sure) response:


1-Flight 12.

Now, many people I believe, have inappropriately or incorrectly jumped on this obvious misstatement by Betty Ong. We later discovered that she stated the wrong flight number and many of run with that to conclude that something must be wrong with the official story, simply because of this misstatement. That may be true, but there is so much more here than meets the eye, than just Betty's misstatement about her flight number. What interests me the most about Betty's call to Reservations, is what comes next.

After she gave the wrong flight number, Betty, was asked by Reservations for her "Seat Number." Betty, said nothing. There was long pause after being asked for her Seat Number. The pause was so long, that Reservations asked whether or not Betty Ong, was "still there." Betty, responded with:



Up to this point Betty, was asked THREE (3) TIMES by Reservations for her seating with long pauses in between the first two (2) requests for information about her seating.

If you listen carefully, Reservations began using an urgent tone during the THIRD (3rd) request. What a lot of people did not understand initially, was that these people on the ground, under these circumstances, had a duty to be darn certain that they could verify and authenticate that the call was genuine. So, they increased the urgency in the tone of their voice when communicating to Betty.

Betty, never responding to the request for information about her seat, then began to give information about her flight:


1-We just left Boston, we're up in the air.
2-We're supposed to go to LA and the cockpit's not answering their phone.

Reservations then intervenes forcefully and asks Betty, to give her "Seat Number." This means that Betty, was asked verbally FIVE (5) TIMES in total during the same phone call with Reservations, about her Seat Number. In between being asked five (5) times for her Seat Number, Betty, begin giving routine profile information about her flight! Now, this is somewhat subtle, but it is very important to understand.

She had no problems hearing Reservations ask her for the Flight Number and she had no problems communicating with Reservations upon initial contact. All of a sudden, she fails to respond to a request for her Seat Number, and instead starts to provide Reservations with information about the profile of her flight having just left Boston, and repeating what she had ALREADY said upon initial contact with Reservations, regarding the "cockpit" not answering their phone. That made NO sense to me whatsoever.

Those long pauses when she has absolutely no problem hearing Reservations, nor communicating with Reservations, leads me to believe that she was either reading a script, or being told what to say. Why? Because the conversation between her and Reservations up to the point of being asked for her Seat Number, was running smoothly - yet she decided to reply with profile information AND started REPEATING the SAME THING SHE HAD ALREADY STATED. Betty, KNOWS what the pending question is all about! Betty, KNOWS that the pending question from Reservations is all about her SEAT NUMBER, not a request to repeat what she's already said AND what Reservations already knows.

That is a HUGE red flag for me. But, it gets even worse.

Betty, after being literally cut-off in mid-voice by Reservations (the vocal intervention), then replied with the following:


1-Okay, I'm in my jump seat right now.
2-At 3R.

I want to bring your attention to the phrase "Okay." There's nothing inherently wrong with the phrase at all. However, context means everything in life, and the context in which Betty, uses the phrase, does not make make sense. Betty, says "Okay" not as a recognition that she was being asked a different question, but in recognition that she was now shifting gears at a different level of consciousness than the level from which the question about her Seat Number originated. This is what happens when you are trying to have two conversations at the same time -or- you taking in information from one context, from use inside a different context. As I said, context is everything in life.

She says, "Okay" with a slight pause at the end before saying "I'm in my jump seat right now." That's an indication not merely of a split focus - because after all, if the aircraft was literally being hijacked, of course she would have split focus. But, this is more than just mere split focus because of what came BEFORE the "Okay," which was her non-response to a direct question that was put to her FIVE (5) TIMES in total and that contained numerous long standing pauses of silence where she said absolutely nothing at all.

This is an indication to me that WHILE Reservations was engaged in making five (5) attempts to get Betty, to give them her Seat Number, she (Betty) was cognitively engaged in some other activity. She then returns with a statement that essentially repeats what she had already said before and what Reservations had already heard her say. Only AFTER being vocally interrupted, did she (Betty) then offer her location "At 3R."

Now, you really need to pay very special attention to what happens next, because in my mind this is where the official story completely derails.

There were five (5) additional verbal exchanges that included Reservations personnel asking Betty, for her "Name." Betty, then replies with the following:


1-Hi, you're going to have to speak up, I can't hear you.

One minute and four seconds into the call, with ample audio quality and volume sufficient enough to allow her to respond to all previous questions, all of a sudden she can't hear. Betty, is then asked again for her name and responds with the following:


1-Okay, my name is Betty Ong. I'm number 3 on Flight 11.

Again, Betty, offers us yet another subconscious reset of her focus, but this time it comes directly on the heels of her statement that she "can't hear" Reservations. She's continually resetting her verbal prose throughout the entire transcript. This is not merely an indication of someone wanting to make sure they are fully understood. This is an indication to me of someone who is trying to maintain a specific delivery sequence of the verbal prose made available for use. At this point, there is absolutely no mention of any terrorists. There is absolutely no mention and/or description given of anyone who might have stabbed the Number 1 Flight Attendant and the Number 5 Purser. All anyone knows at this crucial point is that Betty, has declared that two (2) members of her crew have been stabbed in Business Class. Now, take a look at what happens next.

Betty, once again repeats the situation on-board the aircraft that she wants to convey to Reservations:


1-And the cockpit is not answering their phone
2-There's somebody stabbed in business class
3-We can't breathe in business class
4-Some-body's got mace or something

An American Airlines Manager, immediately asked Betty, the following:


1- Can you describe the person that you said—someone is what in business class?

Betty, never responded directly to that question. She followed-up with:


1-I'm sitting in the back.
2-Somebody's coming back from business.
3-If you can hold on for one second, they're coming back.

So, clearly, someone OTHER than Betty, was coming back from Business Class. Betty, never identifies who that is. She (Betty) then follows with the following:


1-Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed.
2-Our purser is stabbed.
3-Nobody knows who stabbed who, and we can't even get up to business class right now 'cause nobody can breathe.
4-Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is?

Betty, reinforced the fact that there is NO I.D. ON THE ATTACKER. She also makes another very interesting statement. Betty, says that NOBODY CAN BREATHE and that is preventing them from getting up to Business Class. Why is this such a problem? It is a problem because of what Betty, says next:


1-And our number 5—our first class passengers are—galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed.
2-And we can't get into the cockpit, the door won't open. Hello?

There are two (2) statements here that are in direct contradiction with each other. Betty, says that nobody can breathe and Business Class is not accessible. Betty, then says that they cannot open the cockpit door. Well, from the rear of the aircraft, the only way to get to the cockpit door, is to first walk through Business Class AND First Class before you get to the cockpit door. If Business Class is not even accessible, then how it is possible to know that the cockpit door won't open? [shortly after this - Betty, corrects the flight number #12 that she gave earlier, to flight number #11]

Betty, then makes the following statement which sets up another contradiction:


1-Our number 1 has been stabbed and our 5 has been stabbed.
2-Can anybody get up to the cockpit?
3-Can anybody get up to the cockpit?
4-Okay. We can't even get into the cockpit.
5-We don't know who's up there.

The statement that Betty, offers: 'We don't know who's up there.', sets up a contradiction with what she says next:


1-I think the guys are up there.
2-They might have gone there—jammed the way up there, or something.
3-Nobody can call the cockpit.
4-We can't even get inside.
5-Is anybody still there?

This is the very first time that Betty, even comes close to offering any kind of description of who might be inside the cockpit. But, look at the context. Her description is "the guys." The $64,000 question here is: WHAT GUYS! Who is Betty, referring to? At what point anywhere in the transcript does Betty, even come close to saying anything about some "guys." In fact, her previous statement made it crystal clear that nobody knew "WHO'S UP THERE." Betty, goes from not knowing who was in the cockpit, to all of a sudden having a vague idea that there might be some "guys" in the cockpit, with nothing whatsoever in the middle of the dialogue that explains HOW she arrived at that belief or thought.

From that point, Nydia Gonzalez, offers the following in her call to the American Airlines Emergency Line:


1-Hey, this is Nydia at American Airlines calling.
2-I am monitoring a call in which Flight 11...[pause]
3-The flight attendant is advising our reps that the pilot, everyone's been stabbed.

When did Betty, ever communicate to Reservations that "the pilot" had been stabbed? When did Reservations ever communicate to the American Airlines Manager, that Betty, told him that "the pilot" had been stabbed? This never happened. There is no communication anywhere in the transcript where Betty, tells anyone that the pilot had been stabbed. Betty, clearly stated that her Number 1 and her Number 5, had been stabbed, not the pilot. So, Nydia, is now feeding American Airlines Emergency, incorrect and/or unconfirmed information about the situation on-board the aircraft.

What comes next is EXTREMELY bizarre.

Out of all the statements made in the entire transcript, this next statement is the most bewildering of all. Out of nowhere, the "Male Voice" Craig Marquis, the American Airlines Manager, says the following:


1-These two passengers were from first class?

What two passengers? When did Betty, ever tell anyone that there were "two passengers" involved at this point? Betty, NEVER put a number on the attackers. She never described them and she was consistent that nobody knew who was in the cockpit, nor did Betty, know how many there might have been. She certainly never made any claims or statements that there were two passengers from First Class involved. Betty, never even used the words "First Class" up to this point. She ONLY spoke of Business Class and the Cockpit Door up to this point. So, how on earth could Craig Marquis, who was sitting on the ground at American Airlines, possibly know anything that was not expressly told to him by someone on the aircraft? He could not have possibly known this much at this time.

But, the bizarre turn of events gets even MORE bizarre by the next statement that comes directly from Nydia Gonzalez:


1-Okay, hold on.
2-Hey Betty, do you know any information as far as the gents...[pause]
3-The men that are in the cockpit with the pilots, were they from first class?
4-They were sitting in 2A and B.

So, clearly, the information about seats 2A and 2B, did not come directly from Betty Ong, as many in the Media have reported. Those are ALL FALSE REPORTS! The information came directly from Nydia, who was allegedly still in contact with Betty, and where Betty, allegedly provided that information. But, there is nowhere in the transcript that indicates Betty, provided that information directly to American Airlines on the ground. So, that myth is busted wide open.

Second, look CAREFULLY at the order in which the statements from Craig and Nydia, come into the transcript. First, Craig, asks if "These two passengers were from first class?" Then, Nydia, asserts that "They were sitting in 2A and B."

How would Craig, know to ask about First Class? Much more importantly, how does Craig, know that there are TWO PASSENGERS involved when Betty, clearly stated that nobody knows who is in the cockpit? Answer: It is NOT possible for Craig, to know this information at this time in the sequence of events. Simply, not possible - unless he guessed, or unless he knew something prior to the events unfolding on-board Flight 11. There are no other explanations for his premature statement.

In closing - people often times go looking for the big things in scary situations, that might help them to understand or piece together what might have happened. I think this is a great example of how the little things, the tiny things, end up becoming so incredibly HUGE. I also think that this transcript is an awesome example of what the 911 Commission Report missed and WHY it is so important to re-open the entire investigation, so that the "little things" can be examined to see if they make any real sense.

I hope everyone reading this understands the significance of this analysis, and why it calls the entire Flight 11 transcript into serious question. Betty, is in the back of the aircraft in seat "3R" on an Airphone talking to American Airlines. Nobody can breathe beyond Business Class. Yet somehow, by some atmospheric miracle, people are able to stand at the cockpit door trying to open it - but are unable to do so. Nobody has any idea who stabbed who. Nobody knows who is inside the cockpit with the pilots - yet - Betty, all of a sudden estimates that "the guys" are up front. Craig, asks if "the two (2) passengers were from First Class," but was never told by anyone that First Class had anything to do with the events taking place on the aircraft. Nydia, knows that "gents" were involved and sets their seating assignment as "2A and B."

It just does not make sense and it does not add up.

This post has been edited by RVSM: Oct 12 2012, 02:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 12 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #2

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 28-September 12
Member No.: 7,036

Are you positing the idea it was not Betty who made the call? You may not like this, but a lot of what you highlight can be explained by the frantic situation. When you have three or more people in real time communication during a crime it is not unusual for people to make assumptions or mishear what was said.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 13 2012, 09:48 AM
Post #3

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

Good analysis RVSM. Thanks for the detailed analysis.

Yes, all the "phone calls" sound very much like the speakers were reading from some sort of script.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Aug 22 2013, 04:19 PM
Post #4

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380

QUOTE (Uneeque @ Oct 12 2012, 02:23 PM) *
Are you positing the idea it was not Betty who made the call? You may not like this, but a lot of what you highlight can be explained by the frantic situation. When you have three or more people in real time communication during a crime it is not unusual for people to make assumptions or mishear what was said.

This is LESS the case in this scenario. Firstly, this is not a single error we are speaking of, this is multiple errors. Secondly, training can be proven to diminish panicked reactions, it is WHY people train, to develop automatic responses. The very LEAST to be expected is that she ought to know where she sat. Thirdly this is not an issue with just her, so with ground staff making assumptions they need not have made nor would have, it is odd to say the least. Because the roles of these staff are by nature stressful and likely to encounter many situations over time, the least they would do is take notes and determine some accuracy not make wild guesses.

Yes we can allow some mistakes. However, if we just dismiss this entirely then we do the same with each plane, thus we must then assume the "alleged" (and changed) in flight calls by passengers, MUST be discounted as accurate because they have less training or concept of this happening and thus would be MORE panicked.

Additionally there are details that she SHOULD know, simply such as who stabbed who, if she does not, then she cannot ever have made ANY suggestion as to whom may have attacked her colleagues. She never says if any passengers are not at the back, that she saw the plane hijacked, only about mace and stabbings. And therein is a mistake that can be forgiven, because you do not stab with box cutters, the blade will often snap and if not, a stab with a less than 2 inch blade will not be enough to kill, as such a battle would ensue, so no mention of a battle implies they had throats cut or some such and she just SAID stabbed. Overall, there is not a sghred of evidence to suggest she knows who/where the attackers were/sat in fact, from what she says, and from a failure to correctly adjust the assumptions made, it is then clear that she could never have known who attacked her colleagues. THIS is why there are questions. Maybe you are right, but to so casually dismiss it would be grossly negligent of anyone researching these events. To test your idea, perhaps then the accuracy of information and reactions, of recorded calls in other survived hijack cases could be looked at
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zaphod 36
post Aug 30 2013, 05:27 AM
Post #5

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 22
Joined: 7-April 08
Member No.: 3,114

Flight 12.

When you listen to the audio Youtube carefully, "Flight 12" sounds strange. You can hear her voice twice, especially at "12".
Is there a button on the airphone, which can be used for a "double sound"?
If this is possible, Betty Ong could had been used this button for a sign or warning. This could also explain the long break after "Flight 12".

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Sep 17 2013, 03:10 AM
Post #6

Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238

Madeline "Amy" Sweeney, also a FA on AA11, allegedly made a phone call to AA Flight Service in Boston from an Airfone in one of the back rows. The call was NOT recorded, due to lack of taping equipment. The AA employee who took her call, Michael Woodward, took notes. This is a story about that phone call, which would have been happening near to the same time as Betty Ong's/

MY NOTES in [b]bold[/b]

But commissioners were unaware of the crucial information given in an even more revealing phone call, made by another heroic flight attendant on the same plane, Madeline (Amy) Sweeney. They were unaware because their chief of staff, Philip Zelikow, chooses which evidence and witnesses to bring to their attention. Mr. Zelikow, as a former adviser to the pre-9/11 Bush administration, has a blatant conflict.

"My wife's call was the first specific information the airline and the government got that day," said Mike Sweeney, the widowed husband of Amy Sweeney, who went face to face with the hijackers on Flight 11. She gave seat locations and physical descriptions of the hijackers, which allowed officials to identify them as Middle Eastern men by name even before the first crash. She gave officials key clues to the fact that this was not a traditional hijacking. AAnd she gave the first and only eyewitness account of a bomb on board.

"How do you know it's a bomb?" asked her phone contact.

"Because the hijackers showed me a bomb," Sweeney said, describing its yellow and red wires.


Sweeney slid into a passenger seat in the next-to-last row of coach and used an Airfone to call American Airlines Flight Service at Boston's Logan airport. "This is Amy Sweeney," she reported. "I'm on Flight 11 -- this plane has been hijacked." She was disconnected. She called back: "Listen to me, and listen to me very carefully." Within seconds, her befuddled respondent was replaced by a voice she knew.

"Amy, this is Michael Woodward." The American Airlines flight service manager had been friends with Sweeney for a decade, so he didnt have to waste any time verifying that this wasn't a hoax. "Michael, this plane has been hijacked," Ms. Sweeney repeated. Calmly, she gave him the seat locations of three of the hijackers: 9D, 9G and 10B. She said they were all of Middle Eastern descent, and one spoke English very well.

Mr. Woodward ordered a colleague to punch up those seat locations on the computer. At least 20 minutes before the plane crashed, the airline had the names, addresses, phone numbers and credit cards of three of the five hijackers. They knew that 9G was Abdulaziz al-Omari, 10B was Satam al-Suqami, and 9D was Mohamed Atta -- the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists.

Mr. Woodward was simultaneously passing on Sweeney's information to American's headquarters in Dallas-Fort Worth. There was no taping facility in his office, because the most acute emergency normally fielded by a flight service manager would be a call from a crew member faced with 12 passengers in first class and only eight meals. So Mr. Woodward was furiously taking notes.

Amy Sweeney's account alerted the airline that something extraordinary was occurring. She told Mr. Woodward she didn't believe the pilots were flying the plane any longer. She couldn't contact the cockpit. Sweeney may have ventured forward to business class, because she relayed the alarming news to Betty Ong, who was sitting in the rear jump-seat. [[b]NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF AMY-TO-BETTY COMMUNICATION] In professional lingo, she said: "Our No. 1 has been stabbed,"[/b] referring to a violent attack on the plane's purser, "also No. 5," another flight attendant. She also reported that the passenger in 9B had had his throat slit by the hijacker sitting behind him and appeared to be dead. Betty Ong relayed this information to Nydia Gonzalez, a reservations manager in North Carolina, who simultaneously held another phone to her ear with an open line to American Airlines official Craig Marquis at the company's Dallas headquarters.

The fact that the hijackers initiated their takeover by killing a passenger and stabbing two crew members had to be the first tip-off that this was anything but a standard hijacking. "I don't recall any flight crew or passenger being harmed during a hijacking in the course of my career," said Peg Ogonowski, a senior flight attendant who has flown with American for 28 years.

Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney also reported that the hijackers had used mace or pepper spray [WRONG- only ONG reported pepper spray] and that passengers in business class were unable to breathe. Another dazzling clue to the hijackers having a unique and violent intent came in Betty Ong's earliest report: "The cockpit is not answering their phone. We can't get into the cockpit. We dont know who's up there."

A male colleague of Ms. Gonzalez then comes on the line and makes the infuriating observation: "Well, if they were shrewd, they'd keep the door closed. Would they not maintain a sterile cockpit?"

To which Ong replied: "I think the guys are up there."

1) Amy Sweeney's script appears to have modest differences from Betty Ong's, but they are inexplicable differences.

2) Betty's script appears to have modest differences from Amy's.

3) It is hard to understand why Betty would say "we can't breathe" due to the Mace sprayed in the front, but Amy not only forgets to mention the mace, she is able to do forensics on which passengers are the ones who have gone towards the cockpit -- 9D, 10B, and 9G, meaning she either visually referenced that occurrence, or got the information from someone else (a non-stabbed flight attendant or very careful passenger who noted the seat locations as he/she fled the stabbing and the mace). Betty doesn't mention the bomb that Amy talks about. One would think that the Flight Attendant crew would be in CLOSE communication with each other during this crisis, to decide on action plans, phone calls, etc. Amy and Betty do not appear to have shared information, at least as far as these phone notes and transcripts tell us. why?

Instead, its almost as if Betty and Amy are on different planes which are both having possible hijack crises, or experiencing different scenarios.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Sep 18 2013, 05:47 AM
Post #7

Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095

Instead, its almost as if Betty and Amy are on different planes which are both having possible hijack crises, or experiencing different scenarios.

They sound like two distinctly different drill scenarios.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 10 2013, 09:31 PM
Post #8

Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552

QUOTE (JackD @ Sep 17 2013, 07:10 AM) *
...she [Sweeney] is able to do forensics on which passengers are the ones who have gone towards the cockpit -- 9D, 10B, and 9G, meaning she either visually referenced that occurrence, or got the information from someone else (a non-stabbed flight attendant or very careful passenger who noted the seat locations as he/she fled the stabbing and the mace).

Or an imposter flight attendant. I don't know about 2001 figures, but American Airlines currently employ 17,000 (and 14,000 in 1989); Though she had 12/13 years experience, Sweeney normally only worked part-time on weekends. She couldn't have known them all.

This post has been edited by poppyburner: Oct 10 2013, 09:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 11 2013, 08:34 PM
Post #9

Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552

QUOTE (JackD @ Sep 17 2013, 07:10 AM) *
'3) It is hard to understand why Betty would say "we can't breathe" due to the Mace sprayed in the front, but Amy not only forgets to mention the mace,...'

Are you sure? (hope I haven't misread your post):
'[Amy] Sweeney tells [staff assistant James] Sayer that the individuals who took over her plane “had Mace and pepper spray,” and she can “detect an odor in the cabin.”' ~ History Commons.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 16 2014, 12:13 AM
Post #10

Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552

I beg your pardon. From the same source as above:

["]Sweeney["] apparently does not give her name during the call. Sayer will recall that “[o]n the telephone was [a] female flight attendant on… Flight 11, calling from the air,...



I'm not so sure:

QUOTE (Michael Woodward)
"Amy and Betty were trying to, RELAY information so ... as I was talking to her she would, y'know she would ask Betty: "Did
you, see this?" or... y'know, so they were kind of working in TANDEM, to get the information - out."

~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lfIjuQbfjw @ 34:39

This post has been edited by poppyburner: Feb 16 2014, 12:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 28th January 2020 - 09:07 AM