It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hologram dudes, how was it done?

page: 16
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 





"I do apply occums razor to this. After ruling out pancake collapse and every other 911 theory"


Umm....What are you talking about? The collapse of the towers has been the most studied engineering failure of all time. Investigated by thousands of experts all conducting investigations separate from one another, MIT, major engineering firms, contractors, all sorts of branches of the government..

...You mean to tell me all of those experts are wrong in their conclusions and you (ATS poster) are right? Forget the towers, you can't even logically explain how somebody would go about 'stashing' a couple tons of jet engine right under everybody's noses.

Because like the rest of your suspicions, it flat out lacks common sense.




posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty
Forget the towers, you can't even logically explain how somebody would go about 'stashing' a couple tons of jet engine right under everybody's noses.

Because like the rest of your suspicions, it flat out lacks common sense.


Yes, common sense. Who would be incharge of placing said jet engine, and how do you get it in position without being noticed. illuminatinatifofotty you have definitly brought something to this arguement.

Your input here is appreciated.

PS is there enough letters in your user name? Man!



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty
 


Indeed it has been throughly studied and even physics professors from MIT have stated the Pancake collapse is Bull. Along with many civil engineree that are PE certified.

And why is the matter of how the engine was stashed more improtant to you then the other details that are KNOWN. Like the fact that it landed vertical, did not hit the building, came to rest underneath a structure, and the concrete around it shows no signs of metal scarpeing along it... The engine wasn't even hot. People were crowding around it the moment it was noticed.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 





Indeed it has been throughly studied and even physics professors from MIT have stated the Pancake collapse is Bull. Along with many civil engineree that are PE certified.


Well, than you got me I guess. Think about it though, if the massive impact of a huge, fully fueled airliner traveling at two and a half football fields per second, followed by the ensuing fire generated by all of the office material localized in one corner of the building due to the impact...

If all of that didn't weaken the structure and cause the resulting collapse, then what in fact did?

Hidden explosives rigged up from within the buildings you say?

Well guess what? We even have a bigger problem now. Because planting those explosives all throughout the buildings would be just (even more) as impossible as planting that big bulky turbine and Boeing landing gear right out in front of countless of witness's on a New York city street.




And why is the matter of how the engine was stashed more important to you then the other details


Why? Because it's flat out illogical and impossible that's why. My God, I'll tell you what. If I was at the head of the sprawling executive table with my illuminati cohorts, kicking around ideas on how to pull off the most diabolical attack America had ever witnessed, I'd jump up at this point and say --

'Now wait just a friggin minute here!....Holograms? Trucks waiting to dump light posts and jet turbines out on street corners? Wiring up the two tallest sky scrapers in Gotham city right under everybody's noses?...Why don't we just stick to plan B? Put a group of those Muslim fanatics at the controls of a few airliners and have them dive bomb into a few landmarks. We'll save the holograms to make us all look ten years younger and twenty pounds lighter while we address the TV cameras afterwards.'

Muuuuuuhahahaha!!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty
 


Um you brought up explosives.. And when would they have a chance....
I don't think you have really looked that hard at the days events. Its public knowledge the WTC building was powered down a the weeks prior to 911.

Heres a short vid about it.. Sorry its a "twoofer" video I looked for something that wouldn't offend your bias but this is what I could find and its not that long.




posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty
Because like the rest of your suspicions, it flat out lacks common sense.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Yes, common sense. Who would be incharge of placing said jet engine, and how do you get it in position without being noticed. illuminatinatifofotty you have definitly brought something to this arguement.


Albert Einstein said, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

After reading both of your posts I would have to agree.

Thanks for your input it is greatly appreciated.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


And thanks for that 'Moment of Zen' there John. Although I have to admit, such is regarded as just another avoidance to these fundamental flaws with the hologram theory among other things that I've raised here today (to myself and a few others at this point I'm sure.)

And here's a counter quote for you Mr. Lear, "I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out."





posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


So in following Einsteins quote your common sense is like 50 years old? Should we disregard our common sense when it comes to 911, or are you just joshin' with us?

PS: Yes I would rather be riding a horse under blue skies with puffy white clouds.


[edit on 10/6/2007 by infinityoreilly]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
"Scalar" technology? Holograms!

u2r2h.blogspot.com...

Remember the ESTONIA ferry? Soviet hi-tech was so valuable that they sacrificed 800 people:

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...

and

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...

are pertinent links.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty
Aside from that (as with the downed lamp posts over at the Pentagon)...


Its just too bad we have no reports from the FBI or NTSB that the aircraft parts match any of the 9/11 planes.

Also the Flight Data Recorder from Flight 77 shows it was not near the lamp post at the Pentagon.

Also 2 police officers at the gas station back up that the plane was not near the lamp post.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




Also 2 police officers at the gas station back up that the plane was not near the lamp post.


You mean those two cops in the 'Pentacon'? We have one who couldn't remember from which fuel island he was gassing his car up at, then later stretched his account to claim that the force of the plane blew him into the car. Plus the other cop that was convinced that it was a United airlines flight. Those two right? If you really pay attention to that trash documentary, you will also note that if the second witness can be believed; than both the cops are wrong! Also lets not forget those other witnesses's (perhaps 80 or more) who claim otherwise. But let me guess, they don't count right?



Its just too bad we have no reports from the FBI or NTSB that the aircraft parts match any of the 9/11 planes.


Sure they do, 757 parts of identical make up were found all throughout the Pentagon (green Boeing primer on the debris, the correct Roll's engines, landing gear, double-rimmed commercial airline rims, portions of the fuselage, cockpit internals, on and on.) That's the in your face physical evidence which should weigh a lot heavier to any serious investigator as opposed to a few witnesses (sketchy at best) with jogged memories. But then again, it's my understanding that common sense is the enemy here when attempting to understand the events of September eleventh. By that rational, a few sketchy accounts should be vastly more credible than the mounds of physical and other eyewitness accounts that contradict them. In fact, it should be irrefutable proof of a conspiracy of epic proportions!



Also the Flight Data Recorder from Flight 77 shows it was not near the lamp post at the Pentagon.


Again as I pointed out to Mr. Lear (which he conveniently ignored by the way) -- if all of this evidence has been supposedly tampered with; how can you guys be so sure the data recorder wasn't tampered with as well? Let me repost that key idea yet again from my earlier post (maybe you can answer the question since Mr. Lear is reluctant to for whatever reason.)

So here we are (the conspiracy itself) -- Planning phase, initiation phase and ultimately the cover up phase. Makes sense to me. As for the latter, to pull off your conspiracy according to near perfection; the cover up phase would hinge on suppressing any & all undesirable witnesses's and evidence to implicate you as the perpetrator.

Evidence of course being the key idea here.

So I'm wondering, what makes you believe that the information from the flight data recorder hasn't been tampered with as well? Assuming that it was (or wasn't) -- what sense does it make that the conspirators wouldn't comb over a key piece of evidence such as that, while doing so eliminating (or altering) any sort of data that would even hint at something fishy going on?

Let's face it, other than the plane itself; that info found on those little black boxes would be essential when cover up time rolls around (pretty important detail I'm sure you would agree.) Experts would be assessing the data and subsequently expertly manipulating it before it got into yours, or anybody else's hands.

So explain that one if you would. Going further, why are you so convinced (I'm assuming you are) -- that the phone calls aboard the flight had been fabricated (placing Burlingame and co pilot not even in the cockpit), yet the black box data wasn't?



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty
Sure they do, 757 parts of identical make up were found all throughout the Pentagon (green Boeing primer on the debris, the correct Roll's engines, landing gear, double-rimmed commercial airline rims, portions of the fuselage, cockpit internals, on and on

So I'm wondering, what makes you believe that the information from the flight data recorder hasn't been tampered with as well?


Photos of plane parts is not evidence they are from a 757 or flight 77. We need the official reports from the FBI and NTSB that match the parts to flight 77, otherwise we do not really know what hit the Pentagon.

Also we have not seen any actual videos or photos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, the builidng has cameras and near by builidngs have cameras?

So you would rather believe what the media says then the information from the flight data recorder? What makes you believe the information from the media is correct?




[edit on 6-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




Photos of plane parts is not evidence they are from a 757 or flight 77. We need the official reports from the FBI and NTSB that match the parts to flight 77, otherwise we do not really know what hit the Pentagon.


Okay, so when do we start trusting those government agencies all of a sudden conspiracy theorist? Let alone reports from them considering this supposed vast conspiracy? Let me guess, the only data that should be considered authentic would be any little convenient piece that you can cherry pick if it aids your 'theory' in whatever way. Which isn't really correct considering you don't even have a theory.

All you have is wild speculation that ultimately ends up contradicting your own wild speculation when put to the test. So explain to me, why you would trust a report from the FBI of all agencies; yet automatically dismiss the phone call from Barbara Olson to her husband while aboard flight 77?



Also we have not seen any actual videos or photos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, the builidng has cameras and near by builidngs have cameras?


Well I sure have. I can make the plane out in two frames from that gate cam (there's great evidence pointing to that in the form of a scale recreation which I've already linked up to here.) Let's not dismiss the perspective of that camera either detective. The Pentagon is a large, five story building. From that angle and at that tremendous speed; the planes not going to appear as big as the Pentagon! What I flat out don't see is anything to suggest holograms, or missiles, or planes shooting missiles, or planes flying over the Pentagon, etc.



So you would rather believe what the media says then the information from the flight data recorder? What makes you believe the information from the media is correct?


I believe what the overwhelming body of evidence points to. In other words; simple logic is what I believe in. Wether were talking 9/11, or how to mow your lawn. The media didn't investigate the collapse of the towers, the media doesn't conduct investigations of that scale period. In this case, all told, thousands of independent experts in all sorts of fields ultimately end up doing the investigating here. That is a hell of a lot more convincing to myself than some shady CT documentary selling for twenty dollars retail. Or wild speculations that fall apart upon even brief examination. Like planting jet engines on street corners in broad daylight. Or overturned lamp posts that are sheered off at both ends on as busy highway in broad daylight.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty
Okay, so when do we start trusting those government agencies all of a sudden conspiracy theorist? Let alone reports from them considering this supposed vast conspiracy? Let me guess, the only data that should be considered authentic would be any little convenient piece that you can cherry pick if it aids your 'theory' in whatever way. Which isn't really correct considering you don't even have a theory.

Well I sure have. I can make the plane out in two frames from that gate cam (there's great evidence pointing to that in the form of a scale recreation which I've already linked up to here.)

I believe what the overwhelming body of evidence points to. In other words; simple logic is what I believe in.


1. Well i believe the actaul evidence that can be verified through trusted professioanl and government research sites.

2. I would love to see these 2 frames that you state you can see a 757.

3. What body of evidence? What actual facts and evidence do you have?

Do you have the crime scene reports from the FBI and NTSB?
What official reports do you have?
What sites have you used to research to support your theory?

I have a background in aviation and law enforcement, now i am a government analyst. With my experience along with a lot of common sense i can see a lot of things wrong with the official story.



[edit on 6-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




Well i believe the actaul evidence that can be verified through trusted professioanl and government research sites.


Here we go, again! So how would you know which government web sites, agencies, and 'actual evidence' you could rely on? Especially since it's your own working 'hypothesis' that the government is behind 9/11 itself? You cite the FBI on one hand for these trusted documents of theirs, yet at the same time; claim that they played a role to some extent in the cover up!



What body of evidence? What actual facts and evidence do you have?


It's a tad premature here for you to start practicing your fantasy courtroom paranoia on me. First of all (even in some kangaroo court) -- those are the questions you are going to have to answer with plaintiff! Also considering you are tasked with attempting to convict the federal government in the most documented and researched terrorist attack in world history on top of it all. Although I'm sure you're are well up to the challenge considering your supposed background in aviation, law enforcement and status as government analyst.

This is how my opening statement would go: 'Your honor, ladies and gentleman, members of the jury....In regards to the proceedings taking place today and over the course of following weeks, Mr 'Ultima' will be presenting his case against me in hopes of conviction on the grounds that I, and with full knowledge and premeditated intent, did so willingly participated in and help carry out the plans and subsequent cover up relating to the events of September eleventh 2001. Events, those of which, directly resulted in the untimely deaths of three-thousand citizens of the United States of America. The basis of his presentation will permit the following: clandestine government 'hologram' technology, that in all actuality, was capable of disguising a ballistic missiles as a Boeing 767 aircraft to deceive the entire lower half of Manhattan island, New York in broad daylight.

Now if I could direct your attention to the rear of the courtroom. There you will notice I have arranged & situated for myself, both a steel bed frame and box spring mattress along with full bedding accommodations. Concluding my opening statement and all during these further proceedings, I will take up a natural resting position in the bed totally oblivious to my immediate surroundings. Plus any and all further testimony for that matter.



I would love to see these 2 frames that you state you can see a 757.


Here's a negative still clip from the accurate scale recreation (I've outlined the aircraft in magenta.)



Here's the recreation itself (You'll like this, it has that courtroom style presentation to it that you're such a fan of.) www.youtube.com...

Tell you what? Trade ya! Now provide me with some just as convincing evidence of a missile (or missile disguised as a 767. Or proof that Paul McCartney was in fact switched in 1966 with an imposter.) I'm sure Mr. Lear has a working theory regarding that conspiracy. What I can't figure out to this day and for the life of me; is why they introduced Ringo as Billy Shears during the Sgt. Pepper opener. But that's a whole other thread entirely, right John?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty
Here we go, again! So how would you know which government web sites, agencies, and 'actual evidence' you could rely on? Especially since it's your own working 'hypothesis' that the government is behind 9/11 itself?

It's a tad premature here for you to start practicing your fantasy courtroom paranoia on me. First of all (even in some kangaroo court) -- those are the questions you are going to have to answer with plaintiff!


1. I never stated the govenment is behind 9/11 there is not enough evidence to suppot that. There is enough evidnece that the government had plenty of prior warnings and either failed to stop it from happening or let it happen.

2. I still have not seen any hard evdince from you to support your story. I have evidence to support my theory, and that shows the offcial media story wrong.

I have filed FOIA request to the FBI and NTSB. I have received the data from flight 77 flight data recorder. I have also e-mailed the contrators and other companies that were at ground zero on 9/11.

Thats a nice negative you posted, too bad it does not show a 757. you just made an outline around of what you think is a plane. Do you have any actual proof of a 757 hitting the pentagon or not ? Any evidence to say that it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

You would lose your case on court if this all you can up with for evidence.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




"I never stated the government is behind 9/11 there is not enough evidence to suppot that."


I can't believe my own eyes! Common sense coming from you at last!!



the government had plenty of prior warnings and either failed to stop it from happening or let it happen."


Now here's where the fork in the road begins with me and you -- "failed to stop it, or let it happen.' Which one do you suppose is more likely the case here? Let's face it, you for whatever reason don't believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. So obviously you believe in the latter. Correct?

So going by that rationale, you are going to have to sway a person from a lot of things that are in fact in the official record. That's how it works you see, you want to play investigator and prosecutor, well guess what? The burden of proof lies at your feet. Not only to present your findings, but to discredit the findings of others who by default render your findings obsolete.

Such as all of the physical evidence of flight 77 winding up obliterated within the Pentagon itself. In other words, guys like this (from your favorite agency)



...with pieces of flight 77 right in his hands! Or these overturned lamp poles out on the highway in front of the Pentagon.



Or more importantly, the close to 80 or more direct eyewitnesses that will testify in direct opposition to you of a plane in fact impacting the Pentagon. Let alone the phone call placed aboard flight 77 from Mrs Olson, in fact confirming a hijacking of flight 77 occuring. One in where she places the pilot and co pilot to the rear of the aircraft while these mid eastern hijackers are in fact at the controls.

If you want me or anybody else to really start taking you serious as some sort of investigator here; time to stop playing conspiracy theorist and start playing debunker. Debunker in this case of a mountain full of evidence and eyewitness testimony in the official record, that you can't even explain away in the slightest to substantiate your alleged 'findings.'

As far as that negative goes, lets have another look at that...



Obviously there is no denying that one second that object is there and the next it's not. (followed by a huge explosion directly forward of it.) That much is obvious (plainly obvious.) Hence, common sense dictates that the object in question was traveling at a relatively tremendous speed and impacted the Pentagon.

Here's the best part Sherlock. When we apply the simple formula of scale measurement that is grounded in this reality to it all, here's what we learn: We discover that the object in question is of the exact dimensions of flight 77 including the distinct tail section! You would have to admit; that would be one hell of a huge missile now wouldn't it? Especially with not one lone eyewitness account of a huge missile with a Boeing like tail section striking the Pentagon on top of it all.

So when we add all of the eyewitness, physical and recorded evidence together, indeed; common sense tells us flight 77 did in fact impact the Pentagon. Time for you to now discredit every point I've made in my little presentation here. Because as I pointed out earlier; proving your findings dictates that you discredit each of these findings.

Good luck with all of that by the way.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty
Now here's where the fork in the road begins with me and you -- "failed to stop it, or let it happen.' Which one do you suppose is more likely the case here? Let's face it, you for whatever reason don't believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. So obviously you believe in the latter. Correct?

Such as all of the physical evidence of flight 77 winding up obliterated within the Pentagon itself. In other words, guys like this (from your favorite agency)

Or more importantly, the close to 80 or more direct eyewitnesses that will testify in direct opposition to you of a plane in fact impacting the Pentagon. Let alone the phone call placed aboard flight 77 from Mrs Olson, in fact confirming a hijacking of flight 77 occuring. One in where she places the pilot and co pilot to the rear of the aircraft while these mid eastern hijackers are in fact at the controls.

Here's the best part Sherlock. When we apply the simple formula of scale measurement that is grounded in this reality to it all, here's what we learn: We discover that the object in question is of the exact dimensions of flight 77 including the distinct tail section!
Good luck with all of that by the way.


1. Well if the agencies invovled failed to stop it that would mean they were pretty incompetent. NORAD is a very professional agency and that chance of them being incompetent is very low. Also if they were incompetent why was no one fired or punished, instead the people involved received promotions and awards. How do you get promoted and given awards for letting 4 planes fly around for over an hour without escort?

2. Please show me this evidnece with FBI or NTSB reports to support that it is 757 parts and from flight 77. If you cannot you have lost your case.

3. You mean the witnesses who could not tell what type of plane it was. The ones that some admitted later did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757? Your so called eyewitnesses would be destroyed in court.

4. What training have you had in avaition that you use for scale measurement did you use. Can you show the exact figures?

If i was in court and challenged you to show me actual physical evidence and official reports from the investigating agencies for all 4 plane crash sites could you show me anyhting at all?




[edit on 7-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   


Well if the agencies invovled failed to stop it that would mean they were pretty incompetent. NORAD is a very professional....


My comments weren't even in reference to NORAD (more assumptions on your own part there.) I'm entertaining the thought of pre 9/11, the system itself failed in preventing those guys from even boarding the flight's. Coulda, shoulda and woulda. But it's a fundamental fact of life; no system is full proof. Especially in the case of 9/11 and the agencies involved before the fact.

...And you find it hard to believe that a fully armed F-16 wasn't in the air within minutes on that day? And you supposedly have so much knowledge into the inner workings of aviation, that you don't understand that it isn't a matter of some balding 'gent' at ATC picking up the 'red phone' and piping 'send in the F-16's, we have a hijacking going on.' It simply doesn't work that way my friend. Delays are inevitable, especially on 9/11 with the mass confusion and chaos going on within those couple of hours.

I've come to realize something about yourself. You really think things should happen as if scripted in some Hollywood action flick. As in the case of you declaring the pilot of flight 77 'was in Vietnam', so that alone is cause enough to believe that he could have fended off any number of armed hijackers in the cockpit that day. As in the case of NORAD, you're simply wrong.



Please show me this evidnece with FBI or NTSB reports to support that it is 757 parts and from flight 77. If you cannot you have lost your case.


My case? This is your little endeavor...Which is to discredit the official case let's not forget. So by all means, let's see you even attempt to discredit it all for once detective.



You mean the witnesses who could not tell what type of plane it was. The ones that some admitted later did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757? Your so called eyewitnesses would be destroyed in court.


Just like the witnesses you cited (the two cops) from that low budget conspiracy documentary? Who the same definitely would apply to? What makes them anymore convincing inspector? Especially when they are outnumbered some eighty (or more) to two on the matter? Hell, even your witnesses in that documentary confirmed that the plane did in fact hit the building! Just curious, where are any of the witnesses's who claim a plane flew over or didn't in fact hit the building? Slight advantage here; you would totally be without witnesses when it came to this particular detail. While the opposition would literally have a line of witnesses extending out through the door of the court. I'd like to see you win over any jury under those circumstances Matlock.



What training have you had in avaition that you use for scale measurement did you use. Can you show the exact figures?


What the hell are you even talking about? How hard is it to obtain the exact measurements of a 757, or the Pentagon and surrounding area? Calculate that by the vantage point and type of camera in use to capture the scene? Only those with aviation experience can calculate distance and measurements of an object practically at ground level to correct scale?

Forget that, when are you going to start reinforcing your assumptions with some kind of logical common sense here? I address your comments point for point while every point I myself leave for you to address is skipped over. As in the case with my last post which raises all kinds of questions regarding the issue that you should at least be making some sort of effort to address here. That's the pattern though. You make speculative claims, but when confronted with the task of discrediting the official account (which you obviously have issues with), you flat out dodge and instead attempt to make me out as if I'm the one seeking some sort of investigation here.

I'm not your problem conspiracy theorist. The key points I make pointing out the flaws in your speculations are your biggest problem. If you can't even touch on them, then it's time to sit down and stop speculating until you in fact can. Simple as that!



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty





...And you find it hard to believe that a fully armed F-16 wasn't in the air within minutes on that day? And you supposedly have so much knowledge into the inner workings of aviation, that you don't understand that it isn't a matter of some balding 'gent' at ATC picking up the 'red phone' and piping 'send in the F-16's, we have a hijacking going on.' It simply doesn't work that way my friend.



Do tell? I thought it worked that way. Please enlighten me illuminopottyfotti.


Delays are inevitable, especially on 9/11 with the mass confusion and chaos going on within those couple of hours.


Not in fighter launches they're not. ATC might have been busy but not confused. Delays are not ineveitable, thats what training is all about. Now if you know something I don't about ATC or tactical fighter launches please enlighten me.

Thanks for the post illuminobanannasfotti. It is greatly appreciated.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join