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.

 

7/7 London Bombings Inconsistencies

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   
At the time in 2005 when the London bombings occured i was someone who had spent alot of time researching 9/11 and going over all of the inconsistencies between the evidence and the offical report.

I came to the same conclusion as most others who have thoroughly investigated 9/11. That is... there are inconsistencies so huge and un-answered that there is a cover up of some sort going on and quite possibly gov. involvment in the actual attacks themselves.

So as a person of this opinion i was hugely worried when the 7/7 attacks happened that there would be inconsistencies between the official report and the evidence in this case aswell.

As it turns out the British public has been continuosly turned down a public enquiry since 7/7 and instead after much pressure allowed the public an official narrative instead, written by a single high ranking civil servant.


Charles Clarke provoked anger among Islamic leaders and families of the victims of the London bombings today when he confirmed that there would be no public inquiry to investigate the atrocity.

The Home Secretary said that an independent inquiry into the July 7 attacks was not suitable, because the bombings were still the subject of a police investigation. What's more, an inquiry would offer a "distraction" from future terrorist threats and take too long to report, Mr Clarke said.

Instead, a senior civil servant will compile a "narrative" describing the bombings, using evidence already collected by the police, the security services and two House of Commons select committees.
www.timesonline.co.uk...


The narrative that was offered was full of errors and inconsistencies just as i had feared. Now lets take a look at some of the evidence that contradicts the official narrative.

In the official narrative the bombers were referred to as "clean skins" who had never been identified by any intelligence sources before the bombings.
This has been shown to be complete and utter nonsense as this report below shows. Here's a snippet for full story use link.


Last week, we found out from the investigations of Ron Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, that the CIA was so worried about Mohamed Sidique Khan, he had been banned from flying to the USA in 2003. Suskind's source is Dan Coleman, who headed the FBI's al-Qaeda investigations. Now the FBI, still reeling, is denying the revelations.

But Suskind insists: "There is no doubt, from the many sources that I interviewed in the US for my book ... this incident involved Mohammad Sidique Khan."

Now we learn that Special Branch had been monitoring Khan so closely, they had a tracking device on his car.
nafeez.blogspot.com...


Another strange inconsistency is the official narrative states:


04.54: The Micra stops at Woodall Services on the M1 to fill up with petrol. Tanweer goes in to pay. He is wearing a white T-shirt, dark jacket, white tracksuit bottoms and a baseball cap. He buys snacks, quibbles with the cashier over his change, looks directly at the CCTV camera and leaves.
www.officialconfusion.com...


Yet the picture of them going into the train station, the only picture of the whole group together which was released from that day, shows Tanweer wearing black trousers not white.

The narrative says that the bombers got on the 07.40 London King's Cross train from Luton. Although this has shown to be a complete lie as according to witnesses and Thames Link employees the that train had been cancelled.

Here is an e-mail from a Thames Link employee in relation to an enquiry by a independent public researcher.


Dear Nick

The information you require is as follows:

Booked departure time, Actual departure time and Arrival time at King's Cross Thameslink

07.16 07.21 08.19
07.20 On time 08.15
07.24 07.25 08.23
07.30 07.42 08.39
07.40 Cancelled n/a
07.48 07.56 08.42

Kind regards

Chris Hudson
Communications Manager
Thameslink Rail Limited
www.julyseventh.co.uk...

This evidence which has been shown to hold up in the face of public scrutiny shows that if the bombers had of taken the next train they would not have been in London in time to set off the bombs!


the Home Secretary Dr John Reid confirmed before Parliament, on 11 July 2006, that the official Home Office report about 7/7 -- a report that took ten months to produce and publish anonymously -- was wrong with regard to its allegation about which Thameslink train from Luton to King's Cross the alleged perpetrators caught. In other words, John Reid's admission of the error is more evidence of the Home Office report being a highly flawed and easily discredited document and, further, that the information uncovered by indpendent, public J7 researchers has now been officially validated.

On July 11th 2006, the Home Secretary John Reid announced in Parliament that the Official Report was wrong in giving the time of the train that the suspects took from Luton to London as 7.40am. This led to relatives of the bomb victims renewing calls for an inquiry into the July 7th bombings as it raised concerns about the accuracy of the rest of the report. Strangely, Scotland Yard said that the official account had been produced by the Home Office and police had never given it the time for the train.
www.julyseventh.co.uk...


There are many other inconsistencies with the official narrative that i could go into but seeing as i have used all the character space nearly i will leave it at that for now.

I will be using this thread to make other reports surrounding the inconsistencies of 7/7 not just the narrative as in this report.

Comments welcome and appreciated.

[EDIT: Typo]




[edit on 19/11/07 by Argos]




posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I think the Suskind thing may have been debunked:

/2fhneu


There had, indeed, been a Mohammed Khan from England about whom the Americans were concerned and who had, as the book reported, been involved with a jihadist movement in Virginia.

But it was not Mohammed Siddique Khan, a Yorkshire teacher who is not known to have visited America in recent years, but Mohammed Ajmal Khan, from Coventry, who is serving nine years in a British prison.

... For the Suskind theory to work, both Khans needed to be in Virginia at about the same time and to have made exactly the same connections among Islamists in Falls Church, a town of 11,000 people.


Though as you say Suskind seems to be standing by it.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by TimB1]

[edit on 19-11-2007 by TimB1]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TimB1
 


Thanks for pointing that out


There are many other articles of public record that also show that there was intelligence of the suspected bombers before 7/7. Here is a link to a researchers blog that has some good articles about this.

nafeez.blogspot.com...

There are also many other links about this i could provide also if requested.

I am personally of the opinion that the bombers were patsies. They probably thought they were involved in a fake excersise to help the intelligence services. That is of course just my opinion there isn't much material evidence to back this up.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Booked departure time, Actual departure time and Arrival time at King's Cross Thameslink

07.16 07.21 08.19
07.20 On time 08.15
07.24 07.25 08.23
07.30 07.42 08.39
07.40 Cancelled n/a
07.48 07.56 08.42


ok so the 7.40 was cancelled, but the train before it, scheduled for 7.30, didn't arrive 'till 7.42. So, couldn't they have caught this one, only 2 minutes after the 7.40 was due ?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by baudolino
 


Glad to see some interest in this thread....

You are totally right of course it would of been easy for the bombers to catch the next train at 7:42, but the high ranking civil servant who compiled the narrative said the bombers caught the 7:40 from Luton and arrived at Kings Cross at 8:23!!

As you can see in the table if they had of got to Kings Cross at 8:23 they would of had to catch the 7:24 not the 7:40.


This is where all the confusion comes from, the times that have been offered in the narrative are just plain false, there is no way of matching the gov. narrative to the times the trains were running that day.

This sort of blunder or deliberate mistake is the reason why the public want a public enquiry.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Argos
reply to post by baudolino
 




This sort of blunder or deliberate mistake is the reason why the public want a public enquiry.






If it's a deliberate mistake, they're clearly under-estimating the attentions of your good self and others who think the answer lies in the minutiae.

I don't think the timings are particularly relevant. It's clearly just a small error or mis-reading of information by the writer of the report, or more likely an error in information provided by Thameslink.

Incidentally, I travel by Thameslink (now First Capital Connect) every day and believe me, they don't get much right.

The inquiry shouldn't focus on inaccurate timings. It should focus on how four men planned this attack and were off-radar to the security services.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by thechauffeur
 


Welcome to ATS thechauffeur and nice post.

You are totally right in what you say about a public enquiry being focused on the four bombers, but to clarify the part where i say deliberate mistake.

I am implying that this information might have been deliberately incorrect in effect making it dis-information. Dangle a carrot infront of a donkey and it'll follow it and miss out on all the sights it passes on its journey.

As to your comment about the bombers being off the radar before 7/7. I haven't mentioned that yet, so i think i will make that my next report on this thread.

Here is just one mainstream newspaper article that shows M15 knew of at least one of the bombers before 7/7 and have been trying to cover that fact up since.


MI5 is being accused of a cover-up for failing to disclose to a parliamentary watchdog that it bugged the leader of the July 7 suicide bombers discussing the building of a bomb months before the London attacks.

MI5 had secret tape recordings of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the gang leader, talking about how to build the device and then leave the country because there would be a lot of police activity.
www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Now as i have shown there are many inconsistencies in the official narrative compared to facts the public know. The home office had 10 months and reels of evidence to produce this narrative yet it has been shown to be highly discreditable.

The British government called this attack the biggest crime in UK history yet ex-primeminister Tony Blair called a public enquiry into the attack a "ludicrous diversion".

What is it that the British government doesn't want the public to know about the attacks?

Why has evidence that would totally back up the official narrative being withheld from the public?

The official narrative states the bombers were "clean skins" as promised here is more information that contradicts that statement.


Two of the four suicide bombers who killed 52 people in the July 7 attacks were scrutinised by MI5 last year but were not considered to be a threat, The Independent has learnt.

Shahzad Tanweer, 22, who detonated a rucksack bomb on the Tube train at Aldgate, is believed to have been indirectly linked to an alleged plot to build a bomb in 2004. It has already been established that the suspected mastermind, Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, had been known to security services.
news.independent.co.uk...


As you can see M15 knew about atleast two of the bombers before 7/7. And here is another report that says unconfirmed police sources knew about all the bombers before 7/7.


All four July 7 London suicide bombers were tracked by intelligence services a year before the attacks, it was claimed today.
Quoting unnamed police sources, the Mirror reported that field agents had Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay, Hasib Hussain and Mohammed Sidique Khan on a list of 100 feared religious fanatics before the watch was called off because they failed to "fit the preconceived terrorist profile".
www.guardian.co.uk...


It has even been suggested since that the mastermind behind the attacks has definate links to M16.


In an interview with Fox News (29 July 2005), intelligence expert John Loftus revealed that Haroon Rashid Aswat had connections to the British Secret Service MI-6 (emphasis added): "the entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British government, MI-6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him... "

The Loftus interview suggests that the suspect was being used either as an informer or a "double agent":
www.officialconfusion.com...


So far the official narrative has been shown to be an unreliable report with little or no value. And the security services and the government (surprise, surprise) has been lying to us about the attacks.

Next report will be about the number 30 bus that blew up in Tavistock Square.

Comments welcome and appreciated.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Argos
In an interview with Fox News (29 July 2005), intelligence expert John Loftus revealed that Haroon Rashid Aswat had connections to the British Secret Service MI-6 (emphasis added): "the entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British government, MI-6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him... "



Well, it's not hiding him now, if it ever was - he was arrested shortly after the attack, and is currently undergoing extradition hearings pending being sent to the USA.

en.wikipedia.org...



I am implying that this information might have been deliberately incorrect in effect making it dis-information. Dangle a carrot infront of a donkey and it'll follow it and miss out on all the sights it passes on its journey.


No offence mate, but that sounds pretty crazy to me. I do support the calls for a full enquiry though.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Oh no... The bombers caught on video were holograms





posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TimB1
 


Hello TimB1 welcome to ATS.

You are right he is being held now but i object to the "if it ever was" remark about Aswatt being an MI6 asset.

The evidence trail shows Aswatt, who called the bombers 20 times on 7/7 has had strong connections with MI6.


Haroon Aswat - the man British Police believe was behind the London bombings - was working for MI6, it has been confirmed by leading U.S. and French intelligence asset/agents.
www.officialconfusion.com...



In a lengthy statement that will send shockwaves around the world, John Loftus, a terrorism expert and a former prosecutor for the US Justice Department, has publically revealed that the so called mastermind of the 7/7 London Bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British 'Intelligence Asset'.
www.officialconfusion.com...



THE British al-Qaeda leader linked to the London terrorist attacks was being questioned by police in Pakistan last night after the discovery of mobile phone records detailing his calls with the suicide bombers.
www.officialconfusion.com...


And as for the disinfo. or not argument there is no need to debate this its only a possibility.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Thanks for the welcome.


Originally posted by Argos

Haroon Aswat - the man British Police believe was behind the London bombings - was working for MI6, it has been confirmed by leading U.S. and French intelligence asset/agents.
www.officialconfusion.com...


I'm sorry to say that this article does not strike me as a credible source. Firstly, it gives as its original source a URL:

www.newcriminologist.co.uk...

which doesn't bring up an article. Of course it's possible that this was a publication which has closed down or gone out of business, but the rest of the article is highly dubious, e.g. it gets the name of John O'Neill wrong, there are numerous grammatical errors, and the use of anonymous sources who say things like,

'Bush and Blair are just puppets. Their strings are tugged by money, corruption, ego, by the Intel services. You don't even want to know the truth.'

and, 'MI6 would order me to commit murder, then the SAS would try and shoot me because I knew too much.'

seems to me to be a bit unlikely. I can meet people down the pub who claim to have been deeply embedded MI6 agents, it doesn't make it true.



In a lengthy statement that will send shockwaves around the world, John Loftus, a terrorism expert and a former prosecutor for the US Justice Department, has publically revealed that the so called mastermind of the 7/7 London Bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British 'Intelligence Asset'.
www.officialconfusion.com...


Interesting to hear that if John Loftus says something, it must be true. Does that mean that it's definitely true that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but they were smuggled across the borders into Syria and Iran prior to the 2003 war?:

www.spectator.co.uk...



THE British al-Qaeda leader linked to the London terrorist attacks was being questioned by police in Pakistan last night after the discovery of mobile phone records detailing his calls with the suicide bombers.
www.officialconfusion.com...


Well, I note that later, the Times reported that:

www.timesonline.co.uk...

'But British investigators, examining whether telephone calls were made between the London bombers and Aswat before the attacks of 7/7, caution that the calls may have been made to a phone linked to Aswat, rather than the man himself.'


Personally, I don't rule out that he was a MI6 agent or more likely an informer/double agent who double crossed the British, and there probably has been a lot of ass-covering by MI5/6, that much is definitely true. As that Times article put it:

'To some, British intelligence is too willing to let terrorist suspects run in the hope of gathering useful leads and other information.'



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argos

As it turns out the British public has been continuosly turned down a public enquiry since 7/7 ...because the bombings were still the subject of a police investigation. What's more, an inquiry would offer a "distraction" from future terrorist threats and take too long to report, Mr Clarke said.


[edit on 19/11/07 by Argos]


Well Argos, I don't know if you live in UK but if you do, you will know that politicians in particular and pressure groups/militants/those with any kind of cause/axe grinders/tub thumpers & fanatics of every kind constantly 'call for' a public enquiry about all kinds of everything on a continuous basis.

PEs generally cost between 4 and 10 million GBP each (our tax money), run for more than 2 years and produce a report at the end which confirms what everyone knew in the first place.

So this tax payer in particular is skeptical about the benefits of a 'public enquiry' into this or any other incident. They are IMHO a worthless waste of everyone's time and money. Especially mine.

However I do recognize that if people feel there are 'inconsistencies' about 7/7 then these can & should be examined & addressed. Otherwise, it just fuels the conspiracy-fanatics and incompetence and misjudgments remain covered up.

Germaine Lindsay lived a few streets from here. I recognized him from the publicity after the attacks, and knew him by sight though never spoke to him. He converted from Christianity to Islam at age 15, and abandoned all his former friends and associates to embrace the very extreme wing of militant Islam. The guy in the corner shop at the end of the street knew him.

Talking to local moslems, with whom we are on good terms (the kids play cricket in front of our warehouse), those who knew Lindsay tell me he often expressed extreme anti-western views.

Lindsay was reported to have repeatedly praised the AQ op on 9/11 (militant Islamists don't hold with 9/11 conspiracy theories by the way, they know AQ planned it) and spoke about 'making Britain pay' for supporting the USA invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the 7/7 bombings, his wife and small child were victimized by anti-Islamic militants who firebombed their house. They were innocent parties and had nothing to do with the bombings.

Any idea that Lindsay might have been involved with the British security services, or might have co-operated with them in any way, is totally absurd. No way does any serious investigation, and actually talking with local people who knew the bombers, support such a notion. Only a conspiracy-theory fanatic clutching at straws could possibly invent something so manifestly preposterous.

IMHO the way to approach it is to look at the bigger picture. The beliefs, history and expressed intentions of the individuals involved over a long period of time need to be examined & understood. To get hung up on whether a train left Luton at 07.40 or 07.42 is to become obsessed with minutiae, and to completely 'lose the plot'.

Look at the context of the attacks on 21/7/2005 & 30/6/2007:

www.youtube.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

I suppose someone will make a case that these guys ramming a car full of flamable gas canisters into the terminal building at Glasgow Airport, throwing canisters into the departures hall and yelling 'Allah ou Akbar!' whilst their clothes & bodies burned were 'patsies' engaged in some kind of 'drill'. Sure they were. And the WTC was demolished by thermite. And there were no planes, it was all holograms and missiles. And Condoleeza Rice is a reptilian from Draco (well maybe you have a point with that one...)

Governments are devious and incompetent enough without inventing preposterous fantasies which only alienate the MSM & Joe Public from all notions of 'conspiracy'. Let's keep feet on ground, and we'll get a lot further.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TimB1
 


Great post TimB1 thanks for putting in the time and effort to create it


About the link to new criminologist i think they have changed to .com instead of .co.uk. And as for their credibility well take a look at this link listing their contributors:

www.newcriminologist.com...

All highly respected and powerful people mixed in amongst anonymous contributors aswell. I haven't managed to dig up any information yet that discredits this publication.

As for the former Justice Dept. prosecutor and terror expert John Loftus, im not saying he is or isn't lying. There is a fair amount of evidence out there that says what he said was true though. And why would he lie live on Fox news, risking his reputation, inless he had something to gain of course.


'But British investigators, examining whether telephone calls were made between the London bombers and Aswat before the attacks of 7/7, caution that the calls may have been made to a phone linked to Aswat, rather than the man himself.'


This just stinks, as soon as it is public that he may be an MI6 asset the news breaks that it was a mobile linked to Aswatt that rang the bombers 20 times that day. Hmmmmm.... smells fishy to me but of course thats just my opinion.

Here is a very good bit of independent research done on the case that is publicly known about Aswatt:


So now we've got Aswat being held or followed in both South Africa and Pakistan and both times mysteriously "slipping away" from them. If that's not weird enough, check out the FT from July 31:


Zambian officials have agreed to extradite Mr Aswat, whose telephone reportedly received calls from the July 7 bombers, but British officials said they were no longer interested in interrogating him.

I've seen dozens if not hundreds of reports showing that Aswat's cell/mobile phone made "up to 20" calls to all four of the 7/7 bombers shortly before the attacks. Why on earth would they be "no longer" interested in interrogating him? And I've seen this new "Aswat's not involved and doesn't need to be questioned" story corroborated in other mainstream newspapers.

So it seems that Loftus' story pans out. Aswat, clearly linked to the 1999 training camp, never gets indicted. He's free to roam around the world and lives in Britain, somehow "undetected" even though MI5 and the FBI think he's dead. He then makes 20 calls (or his phone was used to make the calls) to the 7/7 bombers. He skips out of Britain, goes to Pakistan, is arrested and then un-arrested. He was previously in South Africa where he is tailed but again not arrested. And then finally he's picked up in Zambia and now the British police aren't even interested in questioning him.
www.eurotrib.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


WOW great post Bovarcher thanks very much for your opinion


I would like to defend myself though.

I have my opinions about 7/7 and they do sway one way with the evidence that i have researched, but i haven't accepted those opinions as fact in my mind yet. If asking these questions and caring about the answers makes me a conspiracy nut then so be it.

It is well known there are inconsistencies with the official narrative and what actually happened, and its well known that there are lots of other inconsistencies about what happened, so far i have barely scratched the surface in this thread as intend to.

Why is the gov. refusing to answer these questions with a PE about the biggest attack on british soil since the last war? If anything deserved a PE it would surely be this?

And i never stated Lindsay working for the security services was fact. Thats just my opinion based on one possible scenario.

There is a very convincing video on youtube called 7/7 Ripple Effect that makes this case very well. It maybe clutching at straws but when your not being told the truth, and evidence is being withheld. You have to fill in some of the spaces yourself sometimes with whatever makes possible logical sense.

I would ask you to take into account the fact that when i started my research i didn't want there to be the same sort of inconsistencies as there has been with 9/11 but there are and they seriously need to be answered.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Argos



Originally posted by Argos

I have my opinions about 7/7 and they do sway one way with the evidence that i have researched, but i haven't accepted those opinions as fact in my mind yet. If asking these questions and caring about the answers makes me a conspiracy nut then so be it.


This was not implied nor intended in any way personally. Your attitude looks from here to be very healthy & the spirit of open-minded inquiry shines through.


Why is the gov. refusing to answer these questions with a PE about the biggest attack on british soil since the last war? If anything deserved a PE it would surely be this?


Good question. I suspect the answer may be concerns that mistakes & incompetence in the security services might be revealed, degrading public confidence. Sir Ian Blair is still in post two and a half years after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead on 8/7/2005. IMO the fact that he is still in his job is outrageous. It might also be stated that future intelligence sources may be compromised. It is understandable that the public will be skeptical about this, and rightly so.

There will probably be a PE one day when the heat has died down. The Bloody Sunday PE took 20 years before it got going.




And i never stated Lindsay working for the security services was fact. Thats just my opinion based on one possible scenario


Sure, I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting other poorly-researched stuff you can find on the net posted by those with a 'cause'.



There is a very convincing video on youtube called 7/7 Ripple Effect that makes this case very well. It maybe clutching at straws but when your not being told the truth, and evidence is being withheld. You have to fill in some of the spaces yourself sometimes with whatever makes possible logical sense


I'll check it out. Local people here have seen a lot of of this stuff, but I haven't so far seen that one. Thanks for the link.




I would ask you to take into account the fact that when i started my research i didn't want there to be the same sort of inconsistencies as there has been with 9/11 but there are and they seriously need to be answered



As I said, nothing personal. I am having a go at the conspiracy obsessives who, once given time on the MSM, convince Joe Public by their unreasoned partisan ranting that the 'official story' must be true in every detail, as the aforementioned CT types frequently display a transparently zealous 'cause' which alienates the majority.

Cheers.





[edit on 23/11/2007 by bovarcher]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
More attention should be paid to Daniel Obachike's experience on 7/7. He was on the ground floor of the bus that was bombed and writes about his experiences at www.the4thbomb.com and in a book.

Obachike says he was the only man on the bottom deck apart from the driver. He also states that he fled the bus 10 seconds after the explosion and whilst running down the street was confused to find the square was already sealed off and a man in a black jumpsuit was walking towards him with a video camera.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
@bovarcher

Well thankyou i appreciate what you have to say, hopefully you will follow this thread and see where it leads you.

@uknumpty

Thanks for the link i had heard about Obachike didn't know he had a wensite. Will have to dig a little deeper into this. Maybe you could post a summary report on what you know about him and his story in this thread?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Hi all, there's more discussion on the above link... Including my opinion and noted inconcistincies....



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join