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 )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What Hit The South Tower?, The wrong plane!

Beached
post Mar 3 2007, 11:46 AM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Here is an actual file photo of N612UA - the aircraft alleged to have impacted the South Tower (Flight 175):

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/205074/L/
United Airlines
Boeing 767-222
New York - John F. Kennedy International (Idlewild) (JFK / KJFK)
USA - New York, April 28, 2001
N612UA

Please take a look at the following comparisons:





We will observe that the nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B.
767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B
767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than B

The NIST frames of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1

In other words, A is greater than B. Therefore, this plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-222.

A more in-depth analysis can be found here:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

This post has been edited by Beached: Mar 3 2007, 02:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Mar 3 2007, 04:33 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Below is N612UA (image flipped horizontally) and the aircraft that hit the South Tower:





I don't want to speculate here, however, unless this is an erroneous registration, then we are looking at two completely different aircraft.

unsure.gif

This post has been edited by Beached: Mar 3 2007, 04:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Mar 3 2007, 05:08 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



smile.gif
Yeah, I remember!

From Robert (SunZoo)'s interesting theory.
- Posted: Mar 4 2006, 07:08 PM - exactly 1year ago!
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...wtopic=611&st=0

He was systematically attacked by Killtown, until he unregistered.
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=611&st=90


Was that ONE full year ago??? blink.gif
Unbelievable
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Mar 3 2007, 05:47 PM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



I remembered that too, and went browsing the old LC Forum (I was getting all nostalgic for the old days!) Doesn't time fly!

I was also looking at the pictures of the 300 series 767 aircraft you posted in that thread... These look more like the aircraft that struck the South Tower:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1038372/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1040514/L/

I'm pleased that at least one other person agrees that this cannot be N612UA that impacted the Tower!

biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Mar 3 2007, 09:39 PM
Post #5


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



another image for you- very large, so I won't try posting it...
http://media.twango.com/m1/original/0025/f...c7646c8ae8f.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Mar 4 2007, 03:00 AM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 4 2007, 03:39 AM)
another image for you- very large, so I won't try posting it...
http://media.twango.com/m1/original/0025/f...c7646c8ae8f.jpg

thx for that link WD!
I've been looking for this original earlier, because in all the discussions (no plane, pod) people were basing their arguments on grainy, low res images.

This picture has 18.4MB and apart from the proportions of the plane the following aspects would be interesting (I am no expert in digital photography and software):

-source of the picture (or even contact to the photographer)
-must have been a professional - high resolution digicam.
-has this picture been "photo-shopped" i.e. is it possible or impossible to add the plane to a high res pic like this one.

Anybody?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Mar 4 2007, 04:56 AM
Post #7


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Mar 4 2007, 08:00 AM)
QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 4 2007, 03:39 AM)
another image for you- very large, so I won't try posting it...
http://media.twango.com/m1/original/0025/f...c7646c8ae8f.jpg

thx for that link WD!
I've been looking for this original earlier, because in all the discussions (no plane, pod) people were basing their arguments on grainy, low res images.

This picture has 18.4MB and apart from the proportions of the plane the following aspects would be interesting (I am no expert in digital photography and software):

-source of the picture (or even contact to the photographer)
-must have been a professional - high resolution digicam.
-has this picture been "photo-shopped" i.e. is it possible or impossible to add the plane to a high res pic like this one.

Anybody?

Phil Jayhan talks about a member of his forum buying that and a second pic from a newspaper, but I don't know which paper or the photographer. it sems like it would be tougher to fake an image with resolution that high, but I'm no expert on photoshopping.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Mar 4 2007, 10:15 AM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Mar 4 2007, 08:00 AM)
QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 4 2007, 03:39 AM)
another image for you- very large, so I won't try posting it...
http://media.twango.com/m1/original/0025/f...c7646c8ae8f.jpg

thx for that link WD!
I've been looking for this original earlier, because in all the discussions (no plane, pod) people were basing their arguments on grainy, low res images.

This picture has 18.4MB and apart from the proportions of the plane the following aspects would be interesting (I am no expert in digital photography and software):

-source of the picture (or even contact to the photographer)
-must have been a professional - high resolution digicam.
-has this picture been "photo-shopped" i.e. is it possible or impossible to add the plane to a high res pic like this one.

Anybody?

Looking closely at the high resolution picture, I cannot see any sign of digital editing as the grain is consistent throughout. However, having closely studied the proportions of the aircraft, I am also adamant that there is no way that this was N612UA that stuck the South Tower.

In fact, there is no soild evidence to support the claim that either N612UA, or any of these other airctaft crashed on 9/11. In the case of N612UA, neither the CVR nor FDR were recovered, nor have any of the parts alleged to have originated from this aircraft been identified against maintenance logs etc.

Furthermore, the transponder of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower squawked a completely different code. To claim that this was merely due to the hijackers changing codes appears to be overly speculative to me. Someone who knows how to change codes certainly knows how to turn off a transponder. Furthermore, someone who knows how to turn off a transponder certainly knows that to do so is a pointless excercise, as their aircraft will still be visible to primary radar, and in the absense of a transponder identification, will stick out like a sore thumb!

Considering these points, and the fact that Flight 175's transponder changed just after it passed over Stewart AFB (Flight 11's transponder was shut off just prior to passing over Schenectady Airport) then we could be looking at a plane swap scenario as per Operation Northwoods. Possible reasons for a plane swap could be:

1. Remote controlled aircraft would pick up the flight pattern (The botched trajectory of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower is consistent with a remote operation, where the operator will need to take into consideration factors such as a time delay).

2. The drone aircraft could be loaded with thermite to be ignited upon impact. This is the most logical method of delivery and to ensure the structure of the Towers would be heavily compromised at the point of impact. Therefore, only a minimal number of explosives would be required to initiate the collapse (Note that the breaking point at the South Tower was around the upper sky lobby, therefore the impact zone could be anywhere above this point).

Of course, such a scenario raises the question of what became of the passengers, and even who they really were. Due to the sensitive nature of this question, I'd rather not speculate, and instead stick to facts.

This post has been edited by Beached: Mar 4 2007, 07:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 9 2007, 10:35 PM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,939
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



The passengers are always the sticking point, but it seems there are enough irregularites about the passengers--weird or incomplete lists, possible 2 gate controversy at BOS, deplaning in Cleveland, etc, etc, that whatever happened to the passengers offers only 2 possibilities--they were killed or not.

If they were not killed, the most practical means to absord and displace them would be the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Considering the relative reluctance of surviving family members to talk, it makes sense to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Mar 10 2007, 07:03 AM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 10 2007, 03:35 AM)
The passengers are always the sticking point, but it seems there are enough irregularites about the passengers--weird or incomplete lists, possible 2 gate controversy at BOS, deplaning in Cleveland, etc, etc, that whatever happened to the passengers offers only 2 possibilities--they were killed or not.

If they were not killed, the most practical means to absord and displace them would be the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Considering the relative reluctance of surviving family members to talk, it makes sense to me.

I do agree with you. Taking into consideration these irregularities and the possiblility that the aircraft that impacted the South Tower was not Flight 175 (looking at the dimensions of the aircraft that impacted, it is clearly a different plane) then we have to question the true identities of the passengers.

In no way am I suggesting that 9/11 was a carbon copy of Northwoods, however, if we consider who the passengers would have been under the proposed scenario, then it proves that such claims are not at all far fetched. In fact, this is highly probable in the case of 9/11. The opportunity for a plane swap was certainly there for all four flights. Furthermore, due to the emotional gravity of these attacks, many people would find this scenario so offensive, that if it were true, no one would believe it.

Can you imagine the situation if Northwoods had gone ahead? We'd be finding ourselves in exactly the same position as we are with 9/11. We'd be asking: Who were the passengers and what became of them?

This post has been edited by Beached: Mar 10 2007, 07:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
biggahthebettah
post Apr 10 2007, 09:33 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 199
Joined: 7-January 07
Member No.: 412



I have a question about this photo.

Does it look to any of you like the engines on the right (top) is forward of the other one? If you look closely at the wings, they look symmetrical as far as the three lines* on each wing, so I don't think it's a matter of the plane being turned more to one side or another (*please don't laugh; I don't know technical terms for anything on a plane except wings and nose....and I can find the bathroom when I'm in one...LOL). Again, not being a pilot but knowing a tiny bit about physics and aerodynamics (at least enough to fill the head of a pin!) I would think engines would have to be balanced exactly symmetrical. Any thoughts on this, or is it somehow a trick of the eye due to angle? Could this be another type of plane which allows for such asymmetrical engine placement?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Apr 28 2007, 10:42 AM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 135
Joined: 27-April 07
Member No.: 999



There is a refutation of "The Wrong Plane" by Eric Salter, See:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html


"The authors of the following claim that the size of the plane that hit the WTC is not the size of a 200 series 767, which flight 175 was, and instead is closer to a 300 series 767, which has a longer fuselage:

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

This simply isn't true as the following graphic illustrates. I've overlaid the 767 schematics they provided on the Fairbanks footage. It is clear that the 200 series is a near perfect fit and the 300 series fuselage is too long.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/podi...175sizecomp.jpg

So why did they get it wrong? Notice in the graphic that they used, that the midline of their line diagram is on the side of the fuselage and not the center, allowing it to be scaled down smaller than it should be and still match up with the clearly visible right wingtip.

I should take a moment to note that some researchers have found other non-visual forms of evidence which might suggest that a plane "substitution" could have taken place in the 9/11 plot, such as discrepancies in official flight records, anomalies in the FAA and military response to the alleged hijackings, suspicious military war games occurring on the same morning, and so forth. I am not implying any opposition to these areas of inquiry; in fact, I believe they are quite worthy areas for continued investigation (and, for the record, the fact that I have been mentioning "flight 175" does not imply that I have ruled out these substitution possibilities). For now, I am just analyzing the visual record to determine what it can or cannot tell us reliably.

Which is the relevance of this refutation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Apr 28 2007, 12:23 PM
Post #13


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Thanks, tit2 -- and by the way, welcome to our forum. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 28 2007, 07:53 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,939
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Somebody here at PFT has uncovered the various roles of Dov Zakheim in the events of the day. Apparently he sold a batch of 32 Boeing 767 variant to the USAF for tankers. Perhaps that explains the irregularities AND some of those photos showing a fuselage with certain pods and appendages.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 25 2007, 07:27 AM
Post #15





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



This possibility of aircraft substitution by carefully prepared drones occurred to me as I watched TV live over here in the UK, being ill at the time I had unusually the time to watch through the day so am aware of how things went and were originally reported with all manner of noises and comment from witnesses which the media has since tried to bury, not least the squibs first before collapse of WTC7. But I digress , just thought that background would illuminate my point of view.

Being ex naval aviation myself I have maintained an interest in aviation and was thus aware that a drones could have been worked from tankers which I knew would be being developed to replace elderly KC-135s.

I have pondered the sheer size of the fireball on WTC2 and consider a tanker a strong possibility. The under fuselage reflections in the area in front of the position where the leading edge of the mainplanes joins the fuselage are dismissed by official believers as being the fairings housing the undercarriage. I find this difficult to swallow as the reflection appears to me to be forward of the leading edge and indicates a more pronounced bulge than that which is normal here.

Further there is the odd reflection on the nose.

I have downloaded the large image pointed to by waterdancer and checked it over in PS.

I would include a crop (at the original resolution of the image) and a version of that crop with an emboss filter applied, both under 160KB in size and would post them here if I knew how.

I have done quite a bit of aviation photography in my time and spend some time processing images for publication. Thus I am well aware of the limits of 'shopping and of enlarging distant objects in a 'photo (I laugh every time I see one of those spook movies or TV dramas where they enhance grainy CCTV images beyond belief). I can see no evidence of this image being tampered with as the grain extends uninterrupted and with little change (other than that always caused by a difference in gamma) from sky to aircraft.

In some videos there is a flash, or two, from the aircraft which seems to originate from these positions. Now I am not sure if these were real events or doctored images.

If we take the position that the towers were rigged for CD then one explanation for these flashes could be to initiate the detonation of specially prepared devices (explosive and or thermobaric but probably a too early a phase for that latter, they came later) in the tower to ease the penetration of the aircraft through the external steel columns. The flash (laser or some such) could also easily be reflected back to the aircraft to a detector which would initiate the detonation of some special device in the aircraft, say a special tank of napalm, to ensure the fireball is produced.

That the target area for both aircraft was above the upper sky lobby, and given that the aircraft would be more or less accurately flown by remote control (by somebody in a suitably equipped other aircraft during the final stages) then it would be known which areas to specially prepare. This idea has support when the remarks of Scott Forbes, Senior Database Administrator, Fiduciary Trust on the 97th floor WRT noises above on 98 and of dust and debris around on the mornings of the week prior are considered – some of the final preperation.

In the NISTAR 1 document NIST writes about 'unusually large fires'. Is this because they knew something that we were not supposed to i.e., that there was an unusual amount of fuel aboard these planes. NIST also try to claim that building regulations did not require consideration of fuel laden aircraft colliding with tall buildings. Are we expected to believe that in an area like downtown Manhattan, with no less than three major airports in the vicinity, that the many aircraft flying into and out of these airports would do so without using fuel! This I believe is contrary to the documented design philosophy of Skilling. Note Robertson's, a very junior member of the design team, obfuscation on this point in post 9/11 interviews. Whatever, the quantity of fuel was for effect i.e., to make belief in the illusion being perpetrated more certain.

Sorry for this ramble, if this has been discussed here before then I apologies, I have been searching for awhile and not found any discussion on the main point concerning laser triggered detonations.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 25 2007, 07:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 25 2007, 08:28 PM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,939
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It would be so easy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 26 2007, 06:08 AM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 25 2007, 07:27 AM)
I have downloaded the large image pointed to by waterdancer and checked it over in PS.

I would include a crop (at the original resolution of the image) and a version of that crop with an emboss filter applied, both under 160KB in size and would post them here if I knew how.

Seem unable to edit that post of mine, not sure why being logged in. However I have discovered a way which should work.





I have used embossed filter because I do not have alternatives in PS Elements.

The unaltered crop shows no sign of being tampered with.

There does appear to be a logo on the fin which looks the correct shape for United, although that in no way means that this is an actual United Airlines flight.

On the flashes I have had other thoughts.

If they did happen then they could be photoflashes.

The type of SLR camera system I use has a very clever, and not commonly known, wireless flash capability. The remotes can be triggered by the camera’s pop-up flash or an attached compatible gun with the camera and flash units flash mode set to Wireless. To avoid interference from nearby photographers using the same system the wireless flash channel can be set to one of four alternatives and a pre-flash flash sequence is used to differentiate between channels by variety in the frequency of the small bursts within the pre-flash sequence.

Further the sensor on each slave flash unit does not have to be in direct line of sight for the sensor to detect its signal, a reflection will do.

The point is that such a system, the technology of which pre-dates the events in question, could be used from one direction e.g. the aircraft, to produce two flashes each controlling distinct events with one signal being reflected from windows back to the aircraft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 27 2007, 08:06 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 25 2007, 07:27 AM)
In the NISTAR 1 document NIST writes about 'unusually large fires'. Is this because they knew something that we were not supposed to i.e., that there was an unusual amount of fuel aboard these planes. NIST also try to claim that building regulations did not require consideration of fuel laden aircraft colliding with tall buildings. Are we expected to believe that in an area like downtown Manhattan, with no less than three major airports in the vicinity, that the many aircraft flying into and out of these airports would do so without using fuel! This I believe is contrary to the documented design philosophy of Skilling. Note Robertson's, a very junior member of the design team, obfuscation on this point in post 9/11 interviews. Whatever, the quantity of fuel was for effect i.e., to make belief in the illusion being perpetrated more certain.

Hello O892,

I'm sorry to say that I'm growing increasingly weary of all the infighting, self-censorship, and "pet" theories in the 9/11 Truth Movement. My background in science, welding, aerospace/defence engineering, military aircraft and military strategy (was an US AFA Candidate way back when but narrowly missed my 800 meter time due to bronchitis) has led to the following concepts that I believe played much of the part in the WTC attack and "War on Terror":

1. "Softening the target"- use multiple and varied attacks to progressively weaken a structure or enemy fortification. This idea goes back until at least the Great Wall of China (but I never finished reading Sun Tzu).

2. Misdirection. Create a lot of noise and dust away from where the much more covert or clandestine "action" is. This applies to media coverage and public opinion as well.

3. PsyOps. Use every trick in the disinfo and propaganda toolkit to discredit, distract, and divide your intended audience/target. (If you can get the target to do the same to themselves and to self-censor, so much the better). Demonize some "patsy" and your oppostion to control public opinon. Here's where the oft-accused "COINTELPRO agent" works UNDERNEATH the scenes. Subliminal effects and careful wording is used here too. See also Karl Rove's resume and "Bush's Brain".

4. Compartmentalized information, secrecy, and "need to know"- self explanatory.
Binding oaths, blackmail, intimidation, and career "pressure" have all been used as effective "persuaders" here. See Richard Perle's resume.

5. Stonewalling and Obfuscation- see Dick Cheney's resume, the Warren Commission, Watergate, and the 9/11 Commission and FEMA reports. If you control the evidence and the investigation, then you pretty effectively control the outcome/conclusion.

6. Rhetoric. If the "official explanation" finds opposition, use all the little tricks of debate manipulation: ad hominem, straw men, red herrings, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, guilt by association. Sadly, We don't need to look far to find this in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

7. Patience. Erode the oppostion bit by bit, taking tiny, unnoticed bites. This is "war of attrition" (and perception).

8. Emotion. Get people waving the flag, have parades, watch "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel.

9. Media Control. See Rupert Murdoch's resume, "Outfoxed," "Weapons of Mass Deception," "War is $ell," Operation Mockingbird/Mighty Wurlitzer. FAIR and Sourcewatch are my preferred websites about this.

With all this said, I'll finally refer your question over to a post about Ryan Mackay's paper at 911blogger.com:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11016

Tony Szamboti and I addressed the Skilling issue fairly well, I think. Tony is an aerospace engineer also (although he gives me the impression that he can't tell us everything he knows for professional reasons.)

I wish you well in your quest, sir. I will likely be keeping a much smaller online profile and spending more time on personal matters.

Good luck,
dMole

EDIT: I should add that I think we are wrong to look for one "magic bullet" explanation. This was a very complex geopolitical event that is still evolving to this day and well into the future, I suspect. I don't feel that any one source is 0% or 100% credible, but I've likely seen too much quantum physics- credibility should be a "weighted average" IMHO. I do however think there are some sources that I would rate in the negative credibility if KNOWN disinfo, but this word has been thrown around a lot recently.

This post has been edited by dMole: Oct 27 2007, 08:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 27 2007, 02:49 PM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,939
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Great post dMole. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 27 2007, 05:05 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 9 2007, 10:35 PM)
The passengers are always the sticking point, but it seems there are enough irregularites about the passengers--weird or incomplete lists, possible 2 gate controversy at BOS, deplaning in Cleveland, etc, etc, that whatever happened to the passengers offers only 2 possibilities--they were killed or not.

If they were not killed, the most practical means to absord and displace them would be the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Considering the relative reluctance of surviving family members to talk, it makes sense to me.

This is a very good point. Has anyone bothered looking for some gate agents or airport employees that were working early morning at Boston Logan or the other "originating" airports and might have actually seen 80-200 people board the respective flights?

I doubt even Cheney is thorough enough to cover up the "common man" working hourly airport wages...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th November 2014 - 05:45 PM