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

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

10 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > »   
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 Jul 2 2010, 07:54 AM
Post #101



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Obwon @ Jul 2 2010, 08:27 AM) *
Well, way back then, I was the only one I knew who was asking "but... where is the debris?"
I watched the fireball emerge from the south tower on teevee, I waited breathlessly for the much heavier than air and burning fuel, pieces of plane, to exhibit the wake vortexes of solid aircraft debris to come trailing flames down through the fireball. It never happened. And that was funny because... Neither were pieces of furniture, chairs, desks, tables, computers etc., that should have been on that floor, coming through the fireball either.





I see lots of solid objects coming through the fireball, particularly the engine found on Murray St which reflects the distance traveled based on horizontal speed and gravity.

A solid aircraft hit the south tower. Whether it was N612UA remains to be proven. The data provided does not support the govt story of a standard 767-200.


Again, please take NPT/TV Fakery discussion to the Alt theory forum. Please stay on topic! I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 2 2010, 10:24 AM
Post #102



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10
Printer Friendly Version
Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai announced recently.

Before this appointment, Deets became Director, Research Engineering Division in March 1994 and served as acting division chief from 1990 to 1994. In that position, he directed the research and engineering aspects of the flight research programs at Dryden.

Deets has had several special assignments since September 1994 that took him away temporarily from the Research Engineering Division responsibilities. He led the preparation of the Dryden response to the NASA Federal Laboratory Review. He was Chairman of the NASA Non-Advocate Review of the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program in 1995, and will again serve in the capacity for the 1996 review. Among the programs Deets has been associated with at Dryden during his NASA career are the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft.

In 1986 Deets completed a special assignment at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., where he led an effort to define the needs for flight research and flight testing within NASA. He then headed development of a flight research strategy for what was then NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, now called the Office of Aeronautics. This effort led to a major increase in emphasis on flight research by NASA.

In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995.

He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.

Source - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Ne...1996/96-10.html


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 2 2010, 12:09 PM
Post #103



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I guess we now have one dot connected as to how the 767-200 could have been "beefed" up to achieve such excessive speeds.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10787357
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Jul 2 2010, 12:57 PM
Post #104





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



WHOA!! WHOA! Now we have "a rag doll riding a bull's ass" in the Room with the ELEPHANT???

Where's the Pony in all this horseshit??? In the Thrid ring of this circus??

Yes, I must agree when I first became aware of a 911 Aircraft AIRSPEED issue; it was a RED FLAG ELEPHANT for me too. And for me the probability of a B-757/767 exceeding it's max airspeed by 100kts (or mph?) would have to be very much less than 1%. And of course I would expect that NO TRANSONIC passenger carrying transport category aircraft built since the B-707 would be capable of airspeeds significantly greater than the Maximum limits established by the manufacturer.

And of course there are several reasons for this improbability, and almost ALL of them have been covered in great detail in this thread. But how can all this information be summarized, so it can be understood more easily. to PROVE that someone deliberately gave us INCORRECT data, so we can DEMAND a REAL INVESTIGATION, to find the TRUTH, and demand JUSTIFICATION for these terrible crimes.

Do we really expect some kind of JUSTICE, from our exististing Judicial System; if we can supply enouth Proof to challenge existing AIRSPEED information?? I'm not counting on that.

But, we may be able to collect enough "Preponderance of the Evidence" which might be useful for Lawyers to become interested in.

Let me begin with the "rag doll riding the bull's ass". I am sure that was one of the tailplane, elevator "flutter" videos that generated that comment. The comment is not entirely inappropriate, if you happen to be in Piper Comanche instead of a B-767. Aerodynamic flutter of control surfaces is one limiting factor in the determination of a maximum airspeed. The forces causing control surface flutter are very similar to the castoring wheel of a shopping cart, or the "shimmy" in nosegear of light aircraft. The "fix" for this problem is to add a counterweight in front of the hinge line and/or to make the control surface LIGHTER Behind the hinge line. And this is why you'll find the "all metal" DC3 has a cloth covered elevator..... Newer aircraft like the 767 may use DEPLETED URANIUM instead of LEAD to balance the control surface, ahead of the hinge line.

On aircraft that have control cables running between the Pilot's yoke and aircraft control surfaces, some of the "flutter" at the tail will find its way forward to the Pilot's yoke.

I believe the B-757 & 767 aircraft are "FLY BY WIRE" aircraft. If this is true, it means there is NO MECHANICAL connection between the pilot's yoke, and the aircraft control surfaces, just a few wires, a black box, and a servo mechanism near the control surface. And usually there will be some kind of redundancy in the wiring, black boxes, and servos. These servos are capable of PRECISELY multiplying the FORCE of Pilot control imputs by Thousands OF TIMES. And the "Flight Control System" in such an aicrraft is capable of "SAMPLING" many aircraft inputs, including a few from the pilot from 10s to 1000s of times Per second, processing them and applying appropriate control surface movements. If the electronic flight control system detects an anomoly it can RESPOND in several different ways. First-it will continue to fly the airporne, then it may choose to activate the Stick shaker, to get the pilot's attention. there are also BUZZERS, HORNS, and Pleasant Female Voices that say "Pull Up, Pull up,...

The Stick Shaker is a small motor with an off-balance weight on its shaft, and it works the same way as your cell phone does when in "vibrate" mode. So, a rag doll sitting on a Bull wagging his tail might be a more accurate description.

Several experimental aircraft have been built which are aerodynamically unstable by design, difficult if not impossible for a pilot to fly, with out the computerized flight control system.

So now, if we go back into the cockpit of a suicide terrorist, who wants to fly into a building, what is he going to do with the autopilot/electronic flight control system as he begins his "final dive" to his rondevious with the 100 virgins? [if we assume he is aware of this choice, and knows how to accomplish it.; and further; if we assume that he is in control of the aircraft heading/alt at this tiime. (no remote control)

If the electronic flight control system (integral with autopilot Yes? NO?) remains engaged and functional, it will not allow that aircraft to exceed several parameters concerning airspeed limits, engine power settings, EPRs, Turbine/Compressor overspeed, Egt... etc.. That airplane is SMART enough ALL BY ITSELF to MOVE its own power levers back so that the "barber pole" speed indicated on the aircraft airspeed indicator will not be exceeded.

Leaving the electronic flight control system/ autopilot engaged will only delay his arrival with the 100 virgins.

If he is able to disengage some parts of the aircrafts built in safegards against exceeding its limitations... most of the limiting controls would still be operational and functioning... at least on the engines.... Overspeed governors have MAX settings, set by maintenance or manufacturer on the ground. etc etc..

If he attempts to fly that aircraft 10 to 20 mph beyond its max limits, he would lose control of the aircraft a couple of seconds after initiating that final manuever. If the aircraft doesn't break apart in mid air, it wont make a very big hole in the ground either because that guy wasn't no CHUCK YEAGER..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwind
post Jul 2 2010, 01:31 PM
Post #105





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 13-January 07
From: Joplin, Missouri
Member No.: 441



The FBI polygraphers will clean-up this mess.

Google "Quadri-Track ZCT"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 2 2010, 01:46 PM
Post #106



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The 757/767 Flight Control System is not fly-by-wire.

It is hydraulic.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/plan...ht_Controls.pdf

But you are right, if the AP was engaged, it would not let the aircraft exceed its limitations unless of course programmed otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Jul 2 2010, 01:54 PM
Post #107





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



FLY BY WIRE, Rob

"FLY BY WIRE" is a good DOT to connect with if you INSIST "BEEFED UP" B767 actually made contact with towers that day.

As you posted the last Bio about Dwain.... which includes the X-29 forward swept wing aircraft which is the "experimental" aircraft I was referring to in my last post. The FORWARD swept wing aircraft has some posibilities as a relatively more "efficient" aircraft configuration... it tends to have the possibility of greater LIFT generation per aircraft size/speed than conventional configuration. Somehow the wing tip vortices help to generate some additional lift to the main wing aft of the wing tips... also this design can use a forward canard configuration.

There is a Blakik sailplane and also the Hansa Jet HFB 320 that had forward swept wings.

The "problem" with the forward swept wing is when you increase the wing loading by manuevering or turbulence... you increase the aircraft angle of attack... the wing "g" loading increases... and as it does this... the wing will "twist" the WRONG WAY... ie the angle of attack at the wing TIPS will increase at a greater rate than closer to the c/l of the aircraft. The result is an aircraft with poor dynamic longetudenal stability... and dangerous stall/spin charistics.

So the X-29 program involved the development of an "active computerized flight control system" to mitigate this degree of dynamic instability, allowing it to be controllable at airspeeds outside of the envelope of what could be obtained without the FLY BY WIRE Computerized flight control system.. and if I recall correctly.... this active fly by wire flight control system, was hopefully going to be able to allow this aircraft to achieve true supersonic flight....

I have NO IDEA what the outcome of that program was... but obviously Dwain can tell you.

What the development of this FLY BY WIRE technology means.... is that an aircraft's flight control system consists of a number of input parameter sensors feeding a CPU with memory, programming, software, and output servo devices... with feedback loops...

And I imagine it has been possible to modify some of the flight charastics of the B757 &767 acft with changes in software in the aircraft flight control system... and is that enough to account for an increase of 100mph .... I don't know... I would'nt think so... but I dont know...

Eventually we will have "SOFTWARE DEFINED AIRCRAFT" in the future...


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 2 2010, 11:24 AM) *
Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
. Among the programs Deets has been associated with at Dryden during his NASA career are the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft.

In 1986 Deets completed a special assignment at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., where he led an effort to define the needs for flight research and flight testing within NASA. He then headed development of a flight research strategy for what was then NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, now called the Office of Aeronautics. This effort led to a major increase in emphasis on flight research by NASA.

In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995.


Source - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Ne...1996/96-10.html


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 2 2010, 04:05 PM
Post #108



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The 757/767 Flight Control System is not FLY BY WIRE nor fly-by-wire.

Even if FLY BY WIRE, a simple software "upgrade" would not achieve the performance exceeding a slick P-51 airframe.



The actual airframe of the 767-200 would have to be modified (not nevessarily visible in the poor quality videos), or if you prefer, the NTSB data complied by incompetent employees, in which case (as we point out in our film), you should think twice about getting on your next flight.

Which brings me to the question, what are your credentials and experience IslandPilot?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 3 2010, 10:16 AM
Post #109





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I'm no expert on transport category aircraft, but I think Rob is right on this fly by wire question.

Boeing might have introduced that with the 787, but I don't think even the 777 has it.

75 and 767 did not have it.

Airbus was the first with it, but Boeing passed.

It was software problems with the FBW system that led to the spectacular accident at the Paris Airshow years ago. They were filming the flyby of one of the Airbus series, with pax onboard, and it crashed slow motion into the ground because the pilot could not get it to pull up because of the aircraft configuration at the time.

The F-16 is aerodynamically unstable by design, and cannot be flown without the computer. It is FBW
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jul 3 2010, 12:10 PM
Post #110





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Rob!

Great work by you, Dennis and everybody else at PFT. Great comments and discussion too.

I've always suspected beefed up, souped up, and/or remotely guided. That seems to be an essential insurance measure after going through the trouble of rigging the buildings as noted by others above. You guys are are making the best case possible, given that the actual plane wreckage that would prove it conclusively was spirited away almost nine years ago.

I only know as much as your average Airplane Fanboy, but its always been my clear understanding that 757s and 767s were hydraulic, not FBW, and that Airbus was the first to go for FBW big time while Boeing eschewed it. Moreover, there's two schools of thought on it, with the anti-FBW argument being that hydraulics give the pilot with more feel and other sensory input while FBW tends to disconnect the senses while reliance on it dulls pilot skill. There was a great article in the Economist about 10 years ago about this argument.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jul 3 2010, 12:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 3 2010, 01:48 PM
Post #111





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for that info Tnem! The Economist is truly a unique magazine. handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jul 4 2010, 06:24 AM
Post #112





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE
...fly by wire question.
Boeing might have introduced that with the 787, but I don't think even the 777 has it.

B777 apparently has FBW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777, here is a discussion how it differs from the one at Airbus: link A quote from that:
QUOTE
"I think it is fair to note that, 5 out of the 6 A320 crashes were because, in the beginning, pilots did not understand the fly-by-wire system well. So there were 5 accidents due to that. Since 1993, there has only been one such crash."

About B767:
QUOTE
Boeing's conservative approach was illustrated in the 1970s and 1980s when it decided not to include in its 767 more advanced systems such as fly-by-wire, fly-by-light, flat panel video displays, and advanced propulsion systems (Holtby, 1986). Even though the technology existed, Boeing did not believe it was mature enough for the 767.

link

But do I understand it well the FBW question (now probably answered - no FBW in standard B767 - the N612UA was manufactured in 1983 -link to FAA registry - so the FBW is most probably out of question in case of this aircraft) has not much to do with the question whether the plane was hijacked by RC with possible lock out of pilots - as discussed here or steered by a homing computer through autopilot system and hydraulics anyway (- whether there was FBW or most probably not) as the very unusual properties of the final trajectory at the hardly believable speed with the hardly believable precision against the headwind - especially the almost perfect perpendicularity of the hit - seem to suggest?

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jul 4 2010, 06:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 4 2010, 06:48 AM
Post #113





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jul 1 2010, 03:10 PM) *
Moreover, there's two schools of thought on it, with the anti-FBW argument being that hydraulics give the pilot with more feel and other sensory input while FBW tends to disconnect the senses while reliance on it dulls pilot skill.

Only aircraft with direct mechanical linkages, whether push-pull rods and cranks or cables and or chains, between cockpit controls and flying controls have any direct feel. Even with hydraulic controls (with what we called hydro-boosters, jacks to some) artificial feel has to be incorporated. This is one of the problem areas in the transonic region of flight. Because of the importance of redundancy on flight safety this was the reason why hydraulic flying control systems were duplicated or triplicated, there was also provision of hydraulic accumulators which were cylinders charged to a high pressure with air which became compressed storing hydraulic energy once the engine driven hydraulic pumps were running. Pressure checks and charging of hydraulic accumulators was one of the tasks called for during Daily Inspections (DIs), with sometimes additional checks on Before Flight Inspections (BFIs).

Some aircraft, e.g. the Sea Vixen had deployable ram air turbines (RATs) that used the airstream to drive a hydraulic pump in the case of a double engine failure. The RAT on an F4 drove an electrical generator.

The Hawker Hunter was unusual in that it had a manual reversion capability for lateral flying controls in the event of hydraulic failure.

I recall carrying out modifications to our F4Ks hydraulic systems during 1969 to increase the redundancy in the stabilator controls because the US was losing many in Vietnam due to AAA damage at the tail end with loss of longitudinal control.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jul 4 2010, 08:26 AM
Post #114





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Just a bit OT here, but this should be mustwatch for all who still play the no-plane card:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 4 2010, 09:48 PM
Post #115



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



NPT/TVF and off topic discussion moved here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10787425
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Jul 4 2010, 10:52 PM
Post #116





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



So, does it look like the videos were sped up to fit the radar estimates ?

My experience with computer-controlled hydraulics on wind-turbines gives the edge to turbulent wind, every time. Planes, I don't know.

I believe stall requires a significant change in airspeed for a significant time so the air can re-adhere to the surfaces, so surfaces experiencing stall must be quite hard to be second-guessed by computer-hydraulics. So even hyped-up computer-driven hydraulics would have a hard time guiding an aircraft if you think any of the surfaces would be getting into stall at those speeds and manuevers.

Also air density due to temperature and moisture content has to be considered, these also affect the air resistance. One would think the air was fairly warm, which makes it less dense, but moist which makes it more dense.

Oh, here is a link that shows the perimeter column assembly. The bolted ends were staggered, in at least this photo (scroll down), so there were probably a lot of welded joints, as well as bolted joints to be broken. Also the large areas of mending plates had concrete floors behind them sandwhiched between the perimeter and core columns. So it may indicate to those who know the strength of airframes whether a standard 767 wing can go right through this kind of obstacle.

The thicknesses become thinner as the columns went higher, from what I've read the thicknesses at the two different tower heights would be somewhere between .5" and 1", and the floors were all 5" thick concrete with rebar. The sides were thicker than the fronts/backs on the columns.

The perimeter columns were made of a high-strength alloy also, not a mild steel.

http://stj911.org/blog/?p=325
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Jul 5 2010, 01:01 PM
Post #117





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



I have a 'Loose Change 2nd edition' dvd and they have a time marker on the collapse of one of the towers and my remote in pause advances 1/30th of a second per click, and I get somewhat roughly 6.5 clicks for the second plane touching and going completely into the tower. So I divided 30 (frames per second) by 6.5 and got 4.6, and multiplied 160 (feet long - 767) by 4.6 and got 763 feet per second or 501 MPH. Its a bit crude, and I'm sure someone could get a more accurate measurement, but its fairly close.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Jul 5 2010, 03:45 PM
Post #118





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



One last thing (for now),
It appears that the Boeing had 767s designed for radar and refueling missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767#External_features
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jul 5 2010, 05:02 PM
Post #119





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



If you believe them, NASA’s “Glenn Research Center” claims that their KC-135 was in flight with a team of scientist from the Johnson Space Center the entire time 911 was going on.

Could not be (N930NA) that was retired. Could have only been N931NA.

The plane was said to have had a history in assisting several research projects at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base.


This post has been edited by elreb: Jul 5 2010, 06:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 6 2010, 03:30 AM
Post #120





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Rob and Omega are correct.


What do you think the yoke was doing in Robs 747 video as the cables
were being stretched and yanked by the fight controls and wings/tail twisting ?
What would a pilot look like if he were trying to hang on to it ?


Hint..........







767-200 is cable, linkage and hydraulic power actuators.
No fly by wire here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th December 2017 - 11:50 AM