IPB




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

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

13 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aal77 Fdr Decoder Program, Decodes almost 4 more seconds

wstutt
post Oct 21 2009, 07:57 AM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



I have created a new program to decode AAL77's raw FDR file.

I am making it available for download along with it's source code and some output files from the program.

You can read more about it here

It decodes almost 4 more seconds of data than what appears at the end of the NTSB CSV file.

I welcome suggestions for any more parameters you would like decoded or any other features you would like added.

I will also be discussing this on the J.R.E.F. "AA77 FDR Data, Explained" thread as well as here.

Warren.

mod edit: Although Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not have any reason to believe the above program is offered for any nefarious purpose, we felt the responsibility to add this disclaimer. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for nor is responsible for any of the data provided above by Warren. Nor can we guarantee his program is free of malicious code. Download at your own risk.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Oct 22 2009, 05:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 21 2009, 08:58 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Thanks Warren.

I noticed your post on Randi's umm- forum, and one or two? of the links weren't working earlier- looked like an "unshared file" Orbitfiles thing to me. You might want to verify the hyperlinks at this page:

http://warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/index.html

"NTSB FOIA Request Dated 2nd January 2009"

EDIT: Also, I avoid MSIE like the plague- can you package any other kind of installer? Never mind- it works with Firefox too, in a possibly more convoluted way, but I seem to recall it being a problem with the UA93 decoder (that I could not get to install) several months ago.

I was able to download the "setup.exe" file (but those kind of filenames can look awfully "virusy" wink.gif ).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 21 2009, 09:56 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Warren,

At quick glance... Your last 4 seconds do not add up to impact.

1. The second to last 4 seconds of travel according to your CSV is 2.25 DME, then the next/last 4 seconds is only .25 DME? (yes, i pulled up GE, fits perfectly with impact point. Neat how that works when Beachnut has been yelling the DME is in error for the past 3 years)

2. Your numbers still show a descent rate in excess of 4200 fpm.... which is still more than a 5 degree slope, still too high to hit light poles working backwards from the "impact" hole.

and.... finally...

-99 + 300 = 201. Still too high to hit the pentagon.

Roof of the Pentagon is roughly 110 feet above sea level. 35 ground elevation + 77 height of pentagon. (yes, i also looked at radalt, something fishy going on there as well. They dont match Pressure altitude descent rates and (edit to add) is too high to hit the light poles based on speed. Keep in mind Radalt is altitude above ground or any object on the ground in which the radar is bouncing off... you have to look at true altitude to get a more precise figure and correlate.

Speed also becomes more of an issue in terms of structural integrity and control effectiveness being more than 20 knots faster... not to mention now it doesn't correlate with any other "official" information or documentation. (/edit)

But, your last 4 seconds of decode is more in line with what the CIT witnesses describe for altitude as the NTSB plotted altitudes seemed a bit high compared to witness statements.

Thanks for putting it together.

Assuming your decode is accurate....

The next questions are, why didnt the NTSB show this when they decoded the file using specific software made to decode these files? .. and... why isnt this shown in our decode decoded by an engineer from an FDR Company?

smile.gif

By the way, what is the time created for your raw file?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 21 2009, 10:36 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 21 2009, 09:56 AM) *
By the way, what is the time created for your raw file?



Nevermind, i found it...


Directory of D:\AA77 FDR

08/09/2007 08:22 AM <DIR> .
24/03/2009 10:13 PM <DIR> ..
08/09/2007 08:22 AM <DIR> AA77 FDR
14/09/2001 04:45 PM 25,165,994 American 77.fdr
1 File(s) 25,165,994 bytes

Directory of D:\AA77 FDR\AA77 FDR

08/09/2007 08:22 AM <DIR> .
08/09/2007 08:22 AM <DIR> ..
08/09/2007 08:22 AM 25,165,994 American 77.fdr
1 File(s) 25,165,994 bytes

blink.gif

Now, my next question is, which raw file had the extra seconds? lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 21 2009, 03:42 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Had some time to get this more precise....

For Randi's Kids, since I know they'll need a picture drawn out for them... wink.gif



Feel free to play with the above simulator yourself...

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.aspx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 21 2009, 04:16 PM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 26 2009, 01:58 PM) *
Thanks Warren.

I noticed your post on Randi's umm- forum, and one or two? of the links weren't working earlier- looked like an "unshared file" Orbitfiles thing to me. You might want to verify the hyperlinks at this page:

http://warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/index.html

"NTSB FOIA Request Dated 2nd January 2009"

I noticed that the files were not shared while testing my new web pages and changed them to shared. Let me know if there are still problems with them.

QUOTE
EDIT: Also, I avoid MSIE like the plague- can you package any other kind of installer? Never mind- it works with Firefox too, in a possibly more convoluted way, but I seem to recall it being a problem with the UA93 decoder (that I could not get to install) several months ago.

I was able to download the "setup.exe" file (but those kind of filenames can look awfully "virusy" wink.gif ).

I could just provide a link to the program's .exe file. You could then just download it and run it. Would that be OK?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 21 2009, 05:25 PM
Post #7





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 26 2009, 02:56 PM) *
<snip>

1. The second to last 4 seconds of travel according to your CSV is 2.25 DME, then the next/last 4 seconds is only .25 DME? (yes, i pulled up GE, fits perfectly with impact point. Neat how that works when Beachnut has been yelling the DME is in error for the past 3 years)

It appears that the DME values are not updated every time they are recorded by the FDR. The DME DISTANCE - LEFT (NM) value of 3.75 was recorded 5 times over a period of 16 seconds before being recorded as 1.5 4 seconds later, so the second to last 4 seconds of travel would have been less than 2.25 DME.

QUOTE
<snip>
Thanks for putting it together.

Your welcome.

QUOTE
Assuming your decode is accurate....

The next questions are, why didnt the NTSB show this when they decoded the file using specific software made to decode these files? .. and... why isnt this shown in our decode decoded by an engineer from an FDR Company?

<snip>

Perhaps the software that the NTSB used does not decode incomplete fames. The extra almost 4 seconds comes from a frame that only has 1007 of 1020 * 12 bit words.

As far as Undertow's Readout 2 goes, he said on his web site:
QUOTE
...
The software only processes full subframes. ...

I can see that indeed, for the ends of the sections of compressed data represented by the rows of #ERROR in rows 29, 47 and 74 in a77.2_complete.csv, only the last incomplete subframe has not been decoded, but at the end of a77.2_complete.csv, the last 4 complete subframes as well as the last incomplete subframe have not been decoded. I don't know the reason for this. BTW, subframe number 146102 in my program corresponds to the beginning of a77.2_complete.csv. I could produce a decode starting at that point if you like.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 21 2009, 05:30 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 26 2009, 03:36 PM) *
<snip>

Now, my next question is, which raw file had the extra seconds? lol

They both do. Even though the modification dates of the two files are different, the contents of the files are the same, byte for byte.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 21 2009, 06:04 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 21 2009, 05:25 PM) *
It appears that the DME values are not updated every time they are recorded by the FDR. The DME DISTANCE - LEFT (NM) value of 3.75 was recorded 5 times over a period of 16 seconds before being recorded as 1.5 4 seconds later, so the second to last 4 seconds of travel would have been less than 2.25 DME.


Yes, my wording was a bit unclear, sorry i had just woken up when i posted.

There seems to be many problems with the DME, it repeats 17.5 DME for 48 seconds, then in turn updates 1.5 to 1.25 in one subframe?


QUOTE
Perhaps the software that the NTSB used does not decode incomplete fames.[sic]


Perhaps, and that would be speculation at this point... but why would a govt agency tasked to investigate and ensure safety for the flying public not have software to analyze all the data and then draw erroneous conclusions based on incomplete data sets?


QUOTE
As far as Undertow's Readout 2 goes, he said on his web site:


Thanks. He also claimed his software was not certified for Aircraft Accident Investigation whereas the NTSB software is...

QUOTE
I could produce a decode starting at that point if you like.


I'm good for now with what you have provided. Thanks again Warren.

I have had a chance this afternoon to look over your data more thoroughly.. .I just opened your "FinalFlightComplete" (i opened your other csv file this morning). Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1, and then pull level almost instantaneously...impossible.. or descend 129 in 1.5 seconds to impact the pentagon creating a more than 6 degree slope (86 f/s drop) which clears all the tops of the poles...

If trends are continued as shown in your data from last interval (59 f/s drop) and considering the descent would be less than 59 f/s based on positive G's over 1 for that segment, but, lets just do 1 G linear trend.. 59*1.5 = 88.5... 174 - 88.5 = 85.5. Still too high for the impact hole. Again, this is at 1 G linear descent rate using 'best' case scenario for an impact based on your data. If we incorporate the increase in positive G loads, whoosh... right over the top... and would be consistent with the radalt bouncing off the top of the pentagon and Turcious statements of "pulling up to clear...". wink.gif

Do the GL's now realize the FDR is not missing 6 seconds from the pentagon wall due to a "bird strike", compressor stall or some mysterious corruption due to "impact"? And that Ed Santana was correct when he stated FDR's cannot be missing any more than 0.5 seconds? Looks like an FDR "salesman" (as Beachy likes to marginalize Ed..) knows more than Beachy... smile.gif

Again, assuming you are correct, you might want to alert the NTSB their Flight Path Study, Time Correlation, "Impact time"... etc etc.. in the National Archives is wrong and the data they are distributing to the American Public through the FOIA is wrong. This has major ramifications for flight safety. We have tried to inform them, but they turned a blind eye.


Once again, no matter how you slice it, the data does not support the govt story of AA77 impact with the Pentagon as reported.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 22 2009, 09:27 AM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 26 2009, 11:04 PM) *
<snip>
Perhaps, and that would be speculation at this point... but why would a govt agency tasked to investigate and ensure safety for the flying public not have software to analyze all the data and then draw erroneous conclusions based on incomplete data sets?
I agree that I am speculating on this. At some point the NTSB, or someone working for the NTSB must have used some code within some program to decompress the data compressed in this particular way. I believe there is no standard for the compression of FDR data. As far as I know, new FDRs no longer perform compression since flash memory is so much cheaper now. Perhaps the NTSB has not had to decode data from many FDRs with this particular compression and the NTSB has not found out that the incomplete frames are not being decompressed and therefore not decoded.

QUOTE
<snip>

I'm good for now with what you have provided. Thanks again Warren.
Your welcome.

QUOTE
<snip>
Again, assuming you are correct, you might want to alert the NTSB their Flight Path Study, Time Correlation, "Impact time"... etc etc.. in the National Archives is wrong and the data they are distributing to the American Public through the FOIA is wrong. This has major ramifications for flight safety. We have tried to inform them, but they turned a blind eye.
<snip>
Does the NTSB have established procedures to correct previously issued reports? Something like an appeals process?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 22 2009, 02:47 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 22 2009, 09:27 AM) *
Does the NTSB have established procedures to correct previously issued reports? Something like an appeals process?



I am not aware of an established internal or external procedures aside from attempting to notify the NTSB (which we have done starting in 2006 via various methods), however there are also other methods where flight safety is concerned as described and shown here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18247

The NTSB also has set precedent in correcting their errors in a timely fashion if in fact they exist, most notably is a small 3 degree error in their animation for AA1420 runway overrun at LIT.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/aa1420/anim_boardmtng.htm

And of course with AA77, instead of fixing the animation, the NTSB now just makes a note of the clock annotation error in their FOIA cover letters (EDT/GMT), the NTSB does not mention any other errors in the animation. The only other errors the NTSB mentions are errors in the MCP (autopilot) in one of their pdf's.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Oct 22 2009, 03:40 PM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



im curious to why warren says at other places the last decoded altitude is 4 feet and yet in this thread when you explain to him how its still to high to hit light poles and the pentagon he doesn't bother to mention this yet he is sayin this at other places.

warren?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 22 2009, 04:20 PM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 27 2009, 07:47 PM) *
<snip>
The NTSB also has set precedent in correcting their errors in a timely fashion if in fact they exist, most notably is a small 3 degree error in their animation for AA1420 runway overrun at LIT.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/aa1420/anim_boardmtng.htm

And of course with AA77, instead of fixing the animation, the NTSB now just makes a note of the clock annotation error in their FOIA cover letters (EDT/GMT), the NTSB does not mention any other errors in the animation. The only other errors the NTSB mentions are errors in the MCP (autopilot) in one of their pdf's.
Do you know if any actions by people outside of the NTSB resulted in the NTSB correcting any of the errors that you mentioned above?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 22 2009, 04:29 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Oct 22 2009, 03:40 PM) *
im curious to why warren says at other places the last decoded altitude is 4 feet and yet in this thread when you explain to him how its still to high to hit light poles and the pentagon he doesn't bother to mention this yet he is sayin this at other places.

warren?


I assume you mean Randi's kids. I haven't visited Randiland in quite some time as mostly its just a romper room of personal attacks, libel, photoshopped pictures.. etc.

But i assume they are putting all their eggs in the Radalt basket and making excuses for Pressure altitude.

The last Radar Altitude in Warrens data is 4 feet. This does NOT mean 4 feet above the ground. Radar Altimeters send out a signal straight down from the aircraft that bounces off any object, ground, building, tree.... whatever, and returns to the aircraft giving a read out of your height above that object. Kind of like a Fish-Finder or depth gauge on a boat.. if you will....

The Radar Altitude prior to that is 57 feet. There is a one second interval between the two. Based on speed, thats only 815 feet horizontally. The light poles cover an area up to ~1020 feet from the pentagon. The light poles only get up to 36 feet above ground IIRC? 57' is too high to hit the initial light poles The slope made by the RadAlt is also above the tops of the poles when working backwards from the impact hole.

This is why we have to look at Pressure Altitude adjusted to True altitude and correlate for a more precise measurement and placement of the aircraft. Since the Pressure altitude is still too high, the only logical conclusion based on the data is that the Radar Altitude at 4 feet is not measuring the distance to the ground, but some other higher object, perhaps the top of the Pentagon?

Now, I'm sure the GL's are hand waiving and making all types of excuses for the higher pressure altitude, such as "altimeter lag", as they did before we decoded the raw file and only had the original CSV file from the NTSB, and therefore only Pressure altitude. But like then, they have no evidence for such lag, just innuendo, theory and speculation while we now have several American and United 757/767 Captains who have actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 and have never seen such "lag" in their aircraft not to mention they think the speeds are ridiculous, especially pulling more than 2 G's at more than 130 knots over Vmo in a 757. Warren, you may want to inform Randi's kids to familiarize themselves with a Vg diagram.

Randi's kids are probably also reaching at the limits of margins for error in favor of their "impact" theory as well. The FAA allows +/- 75' margin for error on altimeters which pilots check prior to take off. The AA77 FDR altimeter margin was -13 feet at take off. This is the correct margin for error which should be applied as no altimeter "drifts" 62 feet more off True Altitude during a single flight creating the largest margin for error. Not to mention you have to add the 13 feet to AA77 FDR altimeter to get a proper height. In other words, I calculated 174 feet above in the Alt Sim. When adjusting for instrument error, the True altitude is 187.

To keep it simple...

If the FDR was in the aircraft which flew over the pentagon, the data recorded would look like what Warren has provided.

If the FDR was in an aircraft which caused the damage at the Pentagon, the data would not look like what Warren provided and would show a lower Pressure altitude to match the Radar Altitude.

Hope this helps Dom, and thanks for asking the question as I'm sure Randiland is in full spin mode with theory and speculation for Pressure altitude.

Also, I would like to make one thing clear (and no offense to you Warren as I have no reason to believe you are anything but sincere, but I do feel a responsibility to add this disclaimer),

Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for nor is responsible for any of the data provided above by Warren. Nor can we guarantee his program is free of malicious code. Download at your own risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 22 2009, 04:32 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 22 2009, 04:20 PM) *
Do you know if any actions by people outside of the NTSB resulted in the NTSB correcting any of the errors that you mentioned above?

Warren.


I do not, but that doesn't mean there aren't any instances that have been corrected by outside influence. As you can see by precedent set, the NTSB usually corrects their information in a timely manner or at least posts a side letter of explanation if in fact such errors exist. I don't think it matters who takes the credit for the find.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 22 2009, 04:50 PM
Post #16





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Oct 27 2009, 08:40 PM) *
im curious to why warren says at other places the last decoded altitude is 4 feet and yet in this thread when you explain to him how its still to high to hit light poles and the pentagon he doesn't bother to mention this yet he is sayin this at other places.

warren?
It's true that I said on J.R.E.F. that the last decoded radio height is 4 feet. That is the last radio height in the decode and appears in the output files on my web site, look at this .csv file if you are interested. That is all that I claimed.

Whether the radio heights and pressure altitudes in the decode are consistent with the aircraft hitting the light poles and the Pentagon is another matter.

In my post on J.R.E.F. announcing my new program, I included a link to this thread so that readers could follow the views expressed here.

I am in the process of adding more flight parameters to the program for the next release which will hopefully shed more light on this issue.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 22 2009, 04:54 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 22 2009, 04:50 PM) *
I am in the process of adding more flight parameters to the program for the next release which will hopefully shed more light on this issue.

Warren.


Warren,

If you could be so kind to provide an output (CSV) file of these parameters, it would be much appreciated.

Bleed Duct Pressure
Engine RPM
AC Bus Volts
Left/Right Fuel pumps
Fuel Tank Density all tanks
Engine EGT
Engine gen
Engine EPR
Engine Fuel Flow
Engine Oil Pressure
Engine N2, N3
Engine Oil Press, Temp, Quantity
Engine Vibration
Engine Out (off)
Fan Inlet Temp
Filter Vibration
Hydraulic Pumps
Hydraulic Pressure
Master Warning
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 22 2009, 05:15 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 27 2009, 09:29 PM) *
<snip>
Also, I would like to make one thing clear (and no offense to you Warren as I have no reason to believe you are anything but sincere, but I do feel a responsibility to add this disclaimer),

Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for nor is responsible for any of the data provided above by Warren. Nor can we guarantee his program is free of malicious code. Download at your own risk.
No offence taken Rob.

I also put a disclaimer for the program on my web site.

One of the reasons I provide output files is so that people can still look at the results if they feel uncomfortable installing and running the program on their own computers.

I also provide the source code so that the results in the output files can be independently verified should people wish to. I welcome suggestions on how independent verification of the results in the output files can be made easier.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 22 2009, 05:35 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 22 2009, 05:15 PM) *
No offence taken Rob.


Thank you Warren, I'm glad you feel that way as I felt the disclaimer needed to be included in the OP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Oct 22 2009, 05:38 PM
Post #20





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 20 2009, 07:29 PM) *
Hope this helps Dom, and thanks for asking the question as I'm sure Randiland is in full spin mode with theory and speculation for Pressure altitude.


thank you rob that helps a lot! as well all know all too well how randi's kids operate.


QUOTE (wstutt)
It's true that I said on J.R.E.F. that the last decoded radio height is 4 feet. That is the last radio height in the decode and appears in the output files on my web site, look at this .csv file if you are interested. That is all that I claimed.

Whether the radio heights and pressure altitudes in the decode are consistent with the aircraft hitting the light poles and the Pentagon is another matter.


thank you for clarifying warren. you should mention that to others who are running with this 4 feet "ball" thinking they just scored a touchdown.

cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

13 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: 1st October 2014 - 01:58 AM