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.

 

9/11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon

page: 9
50
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
We can't agree on the presence of a plane in that "video".
We can't agree on the origins of the pieces of metal and plane parts allegedly found.
We can't agree on the extent of the damage caused by whatever hit it.
We can't agree on what one meant by saying "missile".
We can't agree on what one meant by saying "pull it".

The problem is first we have to agree on what really happened that day, then once we are sure there was no plane hitting the pentagon we can start discussing where the airliner went.

As of now, asking what happened to the plane is useless because we can't even agree on some basic points.
If someone tries to answer that it's going to spiral into speculation extremely quickly, with no proof but personal beliefs.

So what is it? Official story or official "slip up"?

What we know for sure is: someone had the resources to pull off the attacks, and someone profited big time.
Was it a terrorist in a cave or an inside job?

So the real question is: Who profited the most?




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

As I have stated a few pages back, I never believed the official explanation of 911. I have questioned everything since the moment I saw tower 1 collapse. In response to the question, I have also never closed my mind to the possibilty, that though the truth was never disclosed, that there may be another reason for it. I think perhaps its possible some of the truth may be veiled to "save face" for one reason or another. A conspiracy yes, I think so, but who the players really are? I would not even chance a guess...


[edit on 11-1-2009 by odd1out]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldunquist
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

Well, certainly its within the government's power to do that, but in that scenario, they are letting the passengers go. Where is the value in that? Isn't the first thing they would do would be to call someone to pick them up at the airbase? Wouldn't someone question what the hell they were doing there instead of being on the plane that was just shot down over Cuba?


I dunno, but in the Operation Northwoods scenario, the planes would be "loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases." I've read that the 9/11 flights had an unusually low number of passengers, but an unusually high number of government employees.

And does anyone remember this little-known and quickly-forgotten story?


Former Cleveland Mayor Reported Flight 93 Landed at Cleveland Airport on 9/11 and Flight 175 in Vicinity. Cincinnati WCPO-TV Cover-ups Why Account Removed From Web Site

State sponsored U.S. media ignores story, leaving 'internet hounds' to smell out the truth behind what really happened to the passengers on the doomed flights.

11 Nov 2005
By Greg Szymanski

On the morning of 9/11 a Cincinnati television station ran a little-known story saying that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland International Airport instead of crashing in Pennsylvania as claimed in the official government story.

Reporters at WCPO Channel 9 quoted then Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White as saying that “a Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing due to a bomb threat.” The airplane landed safely and was moved to a secure location and evacuated.

The early morning report went on to say United Airlines verified the plane as Flight 93, but was also deeply concerned about another jetliner in the vicinity, Flight 175, flying from Boston to Los Angeles.

Also included in the little-known news report was a comment from United CEO, James Goodwin, who said, “The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. United Airlines is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights.”

Former Mayor White, as well as United and WCPO, could not be reached for comment, but the evidence still remains, even though it was suspiciously removed from the television’s web site in June 2004 in and around the time of the 9/11 Commission hearings.

With the evidence trail getting colder and colder, the obvious still must be asked: if Flight 175 slammed into the South Tower and Flight 93 was downed over Pennsylvania like the government contends, why was Mayor White saying both planes were in or in the vicinity of Cleveland?

The answer to this question remains a mystery four years later since the 9/11 Commission and the FBI never thoroughly investigated the news report or former Mayor White’s statement...


MOD Edit: Review This Link: Posting Work Written By Others

[edit on 1/11/2009 by semperfortis]

[edit on 1/11/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raytracer
So the real question is: Who profited the most?

Always the most pertinent question.

Last I heard, after six years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "profits" were more than $$$3 TRILLION dollars, with no end in sight. And not to mention the vast reductions in freedoms, civil liberties and privacy from the "PATRIOT" and "Military Commissions Acts".




[edit on 12-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I'm pretty positive it wasn't just terrorists doings. I also think it may not have been a job done by a U.S. organisation. Maybe Rumsfeld and crew were played as fools here. We may be falsely placing blame on the U.S. Government. Whats a better way to take down a country than to point out its weaknesses in front of the whole world? Why would someone want to do that? Why does one company buyout another? When the people of a nation (already aggitated) are given insight that our government is made up of people just as foulable as the rest of us, it only takes a shove or two, aaannd JENGA! Plenty of space for that new ceo parking spot.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


well the whole "no plane" argument seems to be a misunderstanding amongst the conspiracy theorists and those who believe the state-sponsored story. 9/11 truthers don't believe the wtc 1 and 2 buildings were never hit by planes, they(we) believe the planes hit the buildings, then explosives were detonated to cause the collapse. the part of the theory where a "no plane" philosophy comes in is in respect to the pentagon. no plane ever hit the pentagon, hence the "no plane" argument. its sad when miscommunication, ignorance, and misunderstanding are fuel for the government's disinformation.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Raytracer
So the real question is: Who profited the most?

Always the most pertinent question.

Last I heard, after six years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "profits" were more than $3 TRILLION dollars, not to mention vast reductions in freedoms, civil liberties and privacy from the "PATRIOT" and "Military Commissions Acts", with no end in sight.
[edit on 11-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]


After decades of needing much less to go to war over, why do people think they really needed to knock down that many buildings to justify it? Heck, flying a plane into the Empire State Building along would have done it. Even if I bought any of this conspiracy theory, common sense tells me there would be no point to doing that much damage and murder to our own, just in an attempt to justify a war. We went to war on flimsy and non-confirmed accusations of WMD. We really needed to do a massively complex plan to try to justify another?

VASTLY reduced freedoms? What vast measures are you talking about? Has 99.5% of the American public been affected by this reduction in freedoms? I'd say not. Worst I personally encountered is more stringent security at airports, which we should have done years ago regardless. Many countries have armed soldiers at their airports, and check ALL baggage. We have such light security as to be almost laughable.

If you use common sense, none of these conspiracy theories make sense. It's overkill in the extreme, and I can't imagine any team of intelligence agencies actually discussing these sort of plans and taking it seriously at all. "Yes sir, we plan to fly a plane over the Pentagon at the moment an explosion will be set off, and in the confusion following, we'll have agents plant bodies and wreckage in the mere minutes that follows, and chop down light poles for added effect. We think in the aftermath of the explosion, no one will notice a jumbo jet flying away." Please. If you think about these items prior to them happening.. in the planning stages.. they are ludicrous in the extreme.

Why not set a single dirty bomb off? I can think of dozens of ways to reduce casualties, have MUCH less room for error, while still fully pinning the blame on terrorists in an excuse to go to war. But no.. they supposedly carried out a MASSIVELY complex plan, that requires perfection on ALL ends (and supposedly worked, too), and then of the hundreds or even thousands of people involved.. not ONE confessed after!

And still people can't explain away very simple matters. Supposedly dozens of eyewitnesses who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon are ALL lying or mistaken. How convenient. Because humans are dumb as vegetables, and cannot tell the difference between a missile and a passenger jet.

And finally, between all the theories, there are massive differences! It's sort of hard to take any one of them seriously, when they vary so dramatically. A plane flew over the Pentagon.. there was no plane.. but a missile.. no missile or a plane.. was an explosion... and so on. Which is it? It's hard to take you seriously, when your side has 5 different theories. And yet.. the eyewitnesses almost all agree on what they saw. Go figure.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Raytracer
 



The problem is first we have to agree on what really happened that day,


That will never happen, so, we are wasting our time discussing it, I do not need to tell you why. You, and I, and everyone, in here know why.


then once we are sure there was no plane hitting the pentagon we can start discussing where the airliner went.


Again, we will never know, not until someone comes forth and tells the truth, but we all know that will never happen. So that leaves nothing but guessing at this point, we do not have a any proof a plane hit the Pentagon, We have to accept what the Pentagon officials tell us, and we all know they never lie.


As of now, asking what happened to the plane is useless because we can't even agree on some basic points.


I agree with you on this statement, and as long as money is being spent to protect a secret there will be those who will not agree.



If someone tries to answer that it's going to spiral into speculation extremely quickly, with no proof but personal beliefs.


I agree with this and most of the statements are opinions anyway.


So what is it? Official story or official "slip up"?


We all know the Official story, and the truth are enemies, it is, what it is.


What we know for sure is: someone had the resources to pull off the attacks, and someone profited big time.


You are right, and it could not have been done, without aid from inside this government. We all know who profited from 911, and the two wars, everyone can see who the greedy contractors are and the grown military budgets and protections for big oil Co and now an open free for all in the foreign oil Co. Without 911, none of the above would have seen penny, isn’t a false flags wonderful.



Was it a terrorist in a cave or an inside job?


Americans know now that Muslims hiding in a cave could not carried out such a defeat with out inside help (here’s proof) what traitor, in our government told those terrorist that war games where going to happen on 911, in all said places, where all the airplanes crashed that day.


So the real question is: Who profited the most?


Again, no one needs to look any further than the US Government, and the Military and all the greedy contractors who are associates of the Bush administration, and the Military establishments. We all know whom, in the Bush administration that has strong ties to big oil. Watching how all the events unfolded, we can clearly see how the oil Co where able to cash in from this illegal war. These oil Co, rake in profits, never seen before, thank to 911 and this illegal war.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
This is seriously a GREAT Find! Thanks bunches!



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
And how can three buildings be gutted and weakened then rigged with hundreds of explosives without anyone noticing?


People did notice. Big time. Unfortunately, at the time they were detonated though.

I'm sure the CIA would have been able to gain access to the buildings to do it.


Originally posted by Raytracer
So the real question is: Who profited the most?


No, the real question is, who gained the most power?

When you already have everything you could dream of, money ceases to matter.


[edit on 12/1/09 by NuclearPaul]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Raytracer
So the real question is: Who profited the most?

Always the most pertinent question.

Last I heard, after six years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "profits" were more than $3 TRILLION dollars, with no end in sight. Andnot to mention vast reductions in freedoms, civil liberties and privacy from the "PATRIOT" and "Military Commissions Acts."


After decades of needing much less to go to war over, why do people think they really needed to knock down that many buildings to justify it? Heck, flying a plane into the Empire State Building along would have done it.

Thank you for your suggestions, Mr. Fleabit. Perhaps you should offer your insightful analysis of the false-flag terrorist attacks to someone who can benefit from it, like the PNAC neocons and the NWO. Or do they already employ you?


Even if I bought any of this conspiracy theory, common sense tells me there would be no point to doing that much damage and murder to our own, just in an attempt to justify a war. We went to war on flimsy and non-confirmed accusations of WMD. We really needed to do a massively complex plan to try to justify another?

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the number of times that "9/11" is used to justify the endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever is next. Cheney just said it again a few days ago. We must never forget! Everything changed after 9/11! Along with the "war on terror" and "al-Qaeda", it's their favorite phrase to justify anything.


VASTLY reduced freedoms? What vast measures are you talking about? Has 99.5% of the American public been affected by this reduction in freedoms? I'd say not.

You'd say not, huh? Then it's obvious you haven't read the PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act. Hey, who cares about the Bill of Rights and 16th century legal protections like that Habeas Corpus stuff when a military tribunal is much easier and quicker? Who cares if the government can search your house, domestically wiretap, examine your internet history or see what books you've purchased or checked out of the library, without any justification, probable cause or court order?

If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried, right Mr. Fleabit?

Why should we be concerned about laws that give the government power to continue defining what is torture, the power to name anyone an enemy combatant or the power to commit war crimes without penalty? The new law also immunizes those who have already committed war crimes, via retroactive amnesty provisions.


Worst I personally encountered is more stringent security at airports, which we should have done years ago regardless. Many countries have armed soldiers at their airports, and check ALL baggage. We have such light security as to be almost laughable.

Light security? I guess you've never been to Europe, where you can actually walk through an airport metal detector with your shoes on! Sometimes I even live dangerously by walking through with spare change in my pocket. I'm sure you're old enough to remember being able to buy an airline ticket without showing any ID. Oooh, but that would be WAY too scary to imagine these days with all those ooga-booga al-CIAduh terrorists hiding behind every Bush!


If you use common sense, none of these conspiracy theories make sense. It's overkill in the extreme, and I can't imagine any team of intelligence agencies actually discussing these sort of plans and taking it seriously at all.

Thank you for that much needed dose of common sense. But it's apparent you've never seen the 50 year-old Operation Northwoods plans that were approved by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff and which only needed Kennedy's signature to become operational.


"Yes sir, we plan to fly a plane over the Pentagon at the moment an explosion will be set off, and in the confusion following, we'll have agents plant bodies and wreckage in the mere minutes that follows, and chop down light poles for added effect. We think in the aftermath of the explosion, no one will notice a jumbo jet flying away." Please. If you think about these items prior to them happening.. in the planning stages.. they are ludicrous in the extreme.

Ludicrous in the extreme? Perhaps you still haven't read the Operation Northwoods documents. Please do so in order to get a better grasp of "ludicrous in the extreme."


Code-named "Operation Northwoods", the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing they needed to launch their war.

And who says government agents had to plant any bodies or wreckage at the Pentagon? A Navy aircraft missile drone painted to look like a commercial jet was all that's needed. Matter of fact, that's the only wreckage that was found. There were no identifiable parts from a 757 anywhere near the Pentagon.


Why not set a single dirty bomb off? I can think of dozens of ways to reduce casualties, have MUCH less room for error, while still fully pinning the blame on terrorists in an excuse to go to war.

Thank you again Mr. Fleabit, but I really think you should offer your well thought-out critique of 9/11 to people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Kagan, Perle and the other fine members of the PNAC, CIA and Mossad. They're the ones who said a "New Pearl Harbor" was needed. Perhaps you could assist them with your persuasive abilities and dirty bomb suggestions as an advisor of false-flag terrorist attacks?


But no.. they supposedly carried out a MASSIVELY complex plan, that requires perfection on ALL ends (and supposedly worked, too), and then of the hundreds or even thousands of people involved.. not ONE confessed after!

Well, it certainly was MASSIVE, but it wasn't perfect, was it Mr. Fleabit? It seems there were MANY mistakes, screw-ups and crazy anomalies. That's why people like you are needed to assure us that it's all ludicrous and non-sensical.

But what do you mean no one confessed? That's what this entire thread is about!


And finally, between all the theories, there are massive differences! It's sort of hard to take any one of them seriously, when they vary so dramatically. A plane flew over the Pentagon.. there was no plane.. but a missile.. no missile or a plane.. was an explosion... and so on. Which is it?

For you Mr. Fleabit, perhaps it's best to keep the story simple. See, there's this guy named Osama bin Laden who lives in a cave and hates America for our freedoms. So one day this bin Laden character sent 19 al-Qaeda dewds to hijack four commercial jetliners using only box cutters, without tipping off a massive global intelligence operation and totally confounding the most sophisticated military in the world. I'm tellin' ya, this sumbitch is so slick, he STILL can't be found and even managed to keep his name off the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list!




[edit on 12-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul


People did notice. Big time. Unfortunately, at the time they were detonated though.

I'm sure the CIA would have been able to gain access to the buildings to do it.


So why bother with the hugely risky decision to fly planes into them?

How many variables are there with that?

Considering planting a car (or truck) bomb would be so much easier and would have the same outcome, why bother with the planes when you got explosives already planted ready to go?

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Chadwickus]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Where's the massive documentation of a conspiracy against America. No one has come forward saying they were given instruction to do something treasonous. Where is the timeline, names, places, of The Plot.


THEY ARE ALL AS DEAD AS DOORNAILS

Everyone participating in 9/11 except on the highest level has been disposed off... What do you think would happen to the expendibles?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
If it was complicated for the insiders, why would anyone think it would be simpler for a bunch of terrorists?

I think it's the other way around...

Inside job
resources: biggest and finest military, top notch technology, media control, billions of dollars.
motive: war profits, oil profits, trillions to be made, population control, more power to authorities, asbestos in the towers, compromising documents in wtc7.
result: more war, more oil, trillions made, population scared and ready to accept govt "security measures" against "terror" (more power), loss of important documents in govt building (wtc7), getting rid of the towers.

Terrorist in a cave
resources: fire weapons provided by foreign govt, box cutters, limited intelligence gathering.
motive: hate western freedom.
result: still hate western freedom but manage to reduce it, no evident or direct monetary profits, war and destruction at home, forced to jump from a cave to another to avoid "getting caught".

So... who was in the best position to perform such an act?
Who had the most to gain (in power or money)?

Anyway why choose a spectacular and complex way to kill 3000+ us citizens when they (terrorists) could simply poison water and kill tens of thousands, compromising water supplies for years to come and not get killed in the process? Not smart enough?
Why the hell the terrorists didn't continue to perform acts of terrorism even immediately after 9/11/01 on US soil?
Where are the hundreds of terrorist cells ready to kill us all and what are they doing?
If they were so smart to outperform US Defenses, wouldn't it makes sense if they hit again and again until we are on our knees begging them to stop?

Do you guys see where I'm going with this?
Is it really so straightforward for you guys to be sure about what you are told by the US Govt?
And I will ask again... who was fired for incompetence or negligence? Who didn't see it coming?
Who decided to ignore the (alleged genuine) warnings of foreign countries?
Who was responsible for US Defense that day?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Gonenuts
 



That will never happen, so, we are wasting our time discussing it, I do not need to tell you why. You, and I, and everyone, in here know why.


What?!?!??? this is what ATS is about, discussing Conspiracys and other Above Top Secret info / events!

as to

so, we are wasting our time discussing it


I dont agree we will probs never get propper proof of what actually happened that day but why should that stop us discussing it. You are implying that we all should come to 1 Conclusion and stick to it. Now wheres the sense in that.

We on the majority all agree that it was a staged act (The buildings collapsing) - No plane hitting the pentagon. Etc Etc.... We have come to that conclusion due to facts and evidence surrounding the event..

Now the second question to the whole thing is who was responsible. We have no prove or evidence only possible motive (POSSIBLE MOTIVE) So everyone coming to the same conclusion is possibly not the best way to guess.

Obviously the most obvious is the US Gov staged it for personall gain.
(%85) Possible Probability I think


BUT! you cant rule out the other possibles. Remember even the president and US GOV are puppets. The question is who is pulling the strings and why! See my earlier post regards the Disclosure Project of 2001, and how EVEN the president has not got access to certain Security areas in the US GOV. In otherwords theres people that are more powerfull than the president! (BUT WHO)

Kind Regards "ME"



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Hi all, I've been a lurker on this site for a couple of years now but have finally joined up. There are a couple of points I'd like to make...

1) The planes/fuel could not have heated the steel in the towers enough to make them collapse (1800 degrees heat to make the steel bend?) even if this heat was reached how could the people hoping for rescue stand in the holes of the towers.
2) There were images of the scene at the pentagon when the firefighters first arrived and the rolls of cable etc (some construction work was ongoing at the time) where still intact and in place.. Wouldn't a plane at least have pushed them into the building?
3) There were elevator contractors working on the towers months before the events.. Could they have been installing the explosives?
4) Have a look at this footage...
Pentagon Video New Angle
5) RE:- Flight 93. Every plane crash I have EVER seen there has always been substantial wreckage... Planes just don't evaporate on impact.
6) Wouldn't a commercial jet shake it's self to pieces at the stated speeds and altitudes?

I watched 9/11 from the UK as it was happening .. remember the BBC reporting WTC7 collapse 20 mins before it happened?

A good conference on the heat/collapse theory is available at:-
Structural analysis


My 1st post. I hope it sheds some light.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by UKWO1Phot]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 

Not only that(point#1)Some steel is formulated to be useful under high heat.Your car's engine exhaust valves for example are subject to incredibly wide range of temp variations including red hot,yet not only do they function without failure,but also maintain very close tolerances for millions of very stressful cycles.I have a 'hack' a triphammer tool of special steel with an edge that is used under severe duty,cutting hot steel.A bear to initially forge,it holds its edge all day,cut after cut.The steel in the WTC was spec'ed for toughness and weldability( each major weld was tested to ensure no flaws.)I have the book.It was designed to sustain not one but two airplanes!And who was in charge of security in the WTC?Hint:same guy who was doing it for Logan airport.And all this just scratches the surface if the Zit of a lie we've been fed,by the FED.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


comparing a jet hitting a concrete wall to a jet is not an appropriate comparison. a jet hitting the WTC would be more like a jet hitting a cardboard box. it only had to penetrate some windows and some vertical steel with gaps in it.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Just been checking the link through Jipsee and it doesn't seem to load reliably so I've just uploaded the clip to Youtube..
Here is the video clip...



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



very easily answered. planes were flown into the bldgs to give the public a distraction to watch, coupled with the trauma effect, it made what may have been happening in plain sight less obvious.

the bldgs just falling down from multiple bombs/explosions would have been much harder to explain away.

as far as difficulty, a plane can very easily hit a bldg if it is meant to.
there are a couple of vids that I have saved that I can't believe haven't been posted, unless I missed them. I will post soon.

also, as an earlier poster stated, it is very easy to gain access to any non governmental bldg as a contractor of some sort. I have worked as a comercial/industrial HVAC tech and once you establish, which isn't hard to do, that you have a valid reason to be in a bldg or compound, you can pretty much come and go as you please without raising much suspicion. Some bldgs require your prescence or the presence of many other people from your company to perform maintenance, etc. After an initial meeting with bldg security/maintenance office, I came and went as needed for as long as I needed and no one ever questioned what I was doing or even bothered to see what I was doing. So it would be very easy for demolitions to be placed in ceilings and maintenace areas without raising suspicion. The work could have been done at night as well, since many large office bldgs prefer that as not to disturb tenants during the day. night work would have made it even easier.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by LiveFreeOrDie..]

[edit on 12-1-2009 by LiveFreeOrDie..]

[edit on 12-1-2009 by LiveFreeOrDie..]




top topics



 
50
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join