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.

 

3 Videos w/more evidence of NRPT and Fakery of Gashes in First Impact

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by Erasurehead
I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.


so you claim without any proof whatsoever.

as the NRPTists have said...

-You are anonymous
-Your story has not been verified
-Your story contains inconsistencies with other witnesses
-Your exact location has not been made known
-Your PoV has not been made known

...therefore you are NOT a genuine witness to a 'plane crash'."

please come back when you're ready to present some real evidence to your claim. Until then, join the rest in the disinfo camp.



I have the most rocksolid proof, what I saw with my own eyes. Not some video feed or film. When you are ready to do a real investigation about your no plane theory let me know. Maybe it would be helpful to actually interview people that witnessed the event instead of just watching video on the internet. I will not post my personal information on ATS. Send me a U2U when you want to come to NYC to talk. I will meet you in person and bring you to the exact spot I was standing when I and at least 20 other people from my office saw planes hit the WTC towers. I will introduce you several other eye witnesses that saw PLANES !!!




posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
-Your story contains inconsistencies with other witnesses

You must mean the few that you've cherry-picked and taken their statements out of context. Nevermind the other countless thousands that actually DID see the planes. You game has been over for quite awhile now.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
right, people that don't have common sense, don't do enough research and are disinfo agents, wouldn't think he's a disinfo agent


You're right, I haven't done enough research into the no plane theory because I think I DO have common sense.

If the video posted in this thread is is the best evidence on offer, it is pretty rubbish IMHO

Show some cruise missiles hitting WTC or holograms shimmering in and out and you would have my support.

Black smudges on a few frames of film = no planes? What planet are you on?


so jet fuel ignites in a perfectly diagonal and symmetrical manner?

have you bother to examine the CUTS that were allegedy made by the wing and fuselage?

have you even noticed how they're perfectly symmetrical? you don't find anything suspect or inconsistent with what such an impact might do? Would such a chaotic plane impact create the type of symmetrical cuts that a blow torch or cutting charges can do?

do you need video evidence of what i'm talking about?

if you don't know what i'm talking about or haven't seen it, then you haven't done enough research.


The video does not show enough detail to show how neat and symmetrical you think the holes are. To me, the explosion looks like it is blowing out of a hole created by the wings of a plane.

What's with the "perfectly symmetrical cuts" you are on about? Yes, I think you need to show me what you are talking about.


As its been explained, "You have a lot in common with 'conspiracy theory' debunkers, who also rely on suggesting alternative theories which MIGHT explain the events. For example, they say that the collapse of WTC 7 could be explained quite easily by an exploding diesel tank, that the top-down gravitational collapse of a steel-framed building could be caused by localised fires, that an aircraft's wings could fold up to allow it to pass through a small hole, and that an aircraft could bury itself in an disused mineshaft.


I'm not a debunker but I do think the NPT theory is one of the most ridiculous theories out there. WTC7 has nothing to do with this thread or NPT.


Even if you did manage to debunk the magical smoke and inconsistent explosions or gash anomalies etc, you'd still have to debunk the other two dozen arguments for NPT, and there are tons and many much more obvious than that.


Two dozen? Tons? OK, name me three other anomalies that point to the NPT so I can do some more "research"


Unless you're willing to verify whether your explanation is consistent with the evidence, your theory is pure conjecture and your speculation is worthless


Worthless? Hardly. How would you like me to verify my explanation exactly? I think my explanation is consistent with the evidence (a blurry zoomed in youtube clip)


All you've done is construct a theoretical explanation while totally disregarding the known facts.


What KNOWN facts are these?


You're idea of debunking a theory is to say it MIGHT have been something else.


Yep, I said MIGHT because I don't consider myself to be a 911 debunker.

However, I do consider the NPT to be a fantasy so I guess you are now going to pigeon hole me as a disinfo agent, debunker or perhaps just someone who hasn't been brainwashed by enough blurry youtube clips created yet (or "research" in your jargon)



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynedg
i only watched one video but what came to mind was the 2008 beijing olympic games.

now i dont know how true the stories were but they said the fireworks display that was shown all over the television was fake so what are the chances of faking the WTC crashes and the Pentagon one too?



Those fireworks looked fake too me. Watched them live then and video of it the next day and they looked like very very very good cgi but not realistic enough.

The tech is around.

My only problem is what about the people in New york around the trade towers at that time who saw both planes hit live?

Did they use some kind of hologram from tower 7 to trick people and over lay it on the missle too look like a plane and guide it together with gps and other tracking so it is dead on??


I'm tending to believe what usually is the truth.......That it is a few or many things combined into one conspiricy or event.

Some claim this some claim that and they all think THEY are right. They are partially right , but it's a few of those scenarios combined that tricked us.


My best guess is they tried to trick each one of our senses the best the could.

If you trick the audio, and visual, and maybe some other senses it could def give people the illusion that it is asctually happening.


Just look at a great magic show. It makes yo believe what you saw was real.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by waynedg
i only watched one video but what came to mind was the 2008 beijing olympic games.

now i dont know how true the stories were but they said the fireworks display that was shown all over the television was fake so what are the chances of faking the WTC crashes and the Pentagon one too?



Those fireworks looked fake too me. Watched them live then and video of it the next day and they looked like very very very good cgi but not realistic enough.

The tech is around.

My only problem is what about the people in New york around the trade towers at that time who saw both planes hit live?

Did they use some kind of hologram from tower 7 to trick people and over lay it on the missle too look like a plane and guide it together with gps and other tracking so it is dead on?


You are correct - the giant footprints of the Beijing firework display were faked for TV.

telegrap h news

The fireworks were there for real outside the stadium. But in those responsible for filming the extravaganza decided in advance it would be impossible to capture all 29 footprints from the air so worked on a CGI sequence which was inserted into the footage broadcast worldwide

CGI inserted at the right time during a live TV broadcast is vastly different from creating 3D holograms to be projected in the air to cover missiles in flight to fool eyewitnesses into seeing airplanes whilst simultaneously editing live TV footage from multiple angles.

Vastly different.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.

so you claim without any proof whatsoever.
as the NRPTists have said...
-You are anonymous
-Your story has not been verified
-Your story contains inconsistencies with other witnesses
-Your exact location has not been made known
-Your PoV has not been made known
...therefore you are NOT a genuine witness to a 'plane crash'."
please come back when you're ready to present some real evidence to your claim. Until then, join the rest in the disinfo camp.
I have the most rocksolid proof, what I saw with my own eyes. Not some video feed or film.


the videos are not just "SOME" VIDEO OR FILM as you incorrectly insinuate and misrepresent.

They *are* WITNESS TESTIMONY... which most often can show and PROVE far more than you or any such witness can.

and there's TONS of other EYE WITNESSES who contradict what you claim.

why are they any less credible than you claim to be?


Originally posted by Erasurehead
When you are ready to do a real investigation about your no plane theory let me know.


its already been done.... you just chose to ignore and deny it.


Originally posted by Erasurehead
Maybe it would be helpful to actually interview people that witnessed the event instead of just watching video on the internet.


except its not JUST a video on the internet.

its VISUAL EVIDENCE of what happened that day.

and that evidence is simply the evidence being analyzed that helped create the LIE in the first place that you and most believe and never bothered to scrutinize.

the evidence is something thats FAR MORE POWERFUL and CLEAR than any after-the-fact hearsay and witnesses from 8 years later.

VISUAL EVIDENCE is EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY.


Originally posted by Erasurehead
I will not post my personal information on ATS. Send me a U2U when you want to come to NYC to talk. I will meet you in person and bring you to the exact spot I was standing when I and at least 20 other people from my office saw planes hit the WTC towers. I will introduce you several other eye witnesses that saw PLANES !!!


and then you can argue with the other 20 plus people including media who said they didn't see any "planes".

in this case, thats the difference between VISUAL EVIDENCE (used by the MSM and gov to peddle their lie) which can be reviewed, analyzed, and scrutinized, versus HEARSAY and OPINIONS as you're stating.

CIT investigation at the Pentagon is a totally different type of investigation and the circumstances and evidence at the WTC are different. the witnesses at the pent were interviewed and corroborate each other and have far less problems/contradictions than the witnesses at the WTC imo.

I also find it interesting and hell of a coincidence not to mention TALE that a) you saw "both" impacts,, and b) you've never come forward until now nor ever been interviewed about your experience by the media or government officials?


why might that be?


[edit on 23-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
[Originally posted by matrixNIN11
-Your story contains inconsistencies with other witnesses
You must mean the few that you've cherry-picked and taken their statements out of context.


right, all those witnesses including MEDIA PROFESSIONALS the media interviewed who said they didn't see a plane or it looked like a missle etc were cherry-picked by the same people who did the interviews on others who allegedly claim they saw planes.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nevermind the other countless thousands that actually DID see the planes.


oh you mean all those countless thousands who you can't name, verify or show us?

you mean all those countless thousands who were duped or deduced a plane by the deception based on the video fakery that was fed to them?

Ahhh, right. okay. those.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You game has been over for quite awhile now.


enjoying your delusion again i see.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
They *are* WITNESS TESTIMONY... which most often can show and PROVE far more than you or any such witness can.
except its not JUST a video on the internet.

its VISUAL EVIDENCE of what happened that day.

VISUAL EVIDENCE is EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY.


Exactly matrixNIN11

Video evidence is similar to eye witness testimony

The youtube video posted shows a plane striking WTC... so how come you are saying that there were no planes then?

If you still want to believe that it was simpler for the government to fire missiles, plant cutting charges in the facade of WTC, employ a 3D hologram projector to fool bystanders and finally edit CGI planes into live TV footage instead of just simply flying remote controlled airplanes or allowing hijackers to fly airplanes into WTC without intercepting them then carry on

NPT is the most ridiculous and unwieldy fantasy I have heard of regarding 911

If you can give me one link.. just one link to a website summarising the NPT theory that I can read and digest so that I can try to understand I would appreciate it because I simply cannot believe that any adult with a full mental capacity can swallow such a thing

[edit on 23/4/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Interesting theory, how does one explain the plane parts all over New York?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
you mean all those countless thousands who were duped or deduced a plane by the deception based on the video fakery that was fed to them?

No, I'm talking about the countless thousands that were standing outside and watched the planes with their OWN EYES and NOT watching tv.



Originally posted by alienanderson
NPT is the most ridiculous and unwieldy fantasy I have heard of regarding 911

That's why the 9/11 truth movement has distanced itself from NPT by calling it disinfo and/or banning the very discussion of it on their forums.



Originally posted by alienanderson
I simply cannot believe that any adult with a full mental capacity can swallow such a thing

Without going into further detail, that's the kicker right there! You hit the nail SQUARELY on the head!



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
They *are* WITNESS TESTIMONY... which most often can show and PROVE far more than you or any such witness can.
except its not JUST a video on the internet.

its VISUAL EVIDENCE of what happened that day.

VISUAL EVIDENCE is EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY.

Exactly matrixNIN11

Video evidence is similar to eye witness testimony


No. Its not similar.

VIDEO EVIDENCE is far more powerful than eye witness testimony

If I had a video of you breaking into a bank versus someone claiming to have seen you, the probability you'd be convicted are far higher than if it was just someone that saw you.

For one, Video evidence can be analyzed and reviewed over and over.

Hearsay can't or what you're implying isn't remotely the same or as powerful.


Originally posted by alienanderson
The youtube video posted shows a plane striking WTC... so how come you are saying that there were no planes then?


because it doesn't show a "plane" in the way you and the oct implies/claims.

Show me how the OBJECT (and thats all it is) remotely fits the outline or image of what a boeing 767 looks like.


Originally posted by alienanderson
If you still want to believe that it was simpler for the government to fire missiles, plant cutting charges in the facade of WTC, employ a 3D hologram projector to fool bystanders and finally edit CGI planes into live TV footage instead of just simply flying remote controlled airplanes or allowing hijackers to fly airplanes into WTC without intercepting them then carry on


If you want to ignore the EVIDENCE that supports many of those "theories" and believe your fantasy oct-fed delusion that flight 11 and 175 were used, go right ahead.

ignorance must be incredible bliss.


Originally posted by alienanderson
NPT is the most ridiculous and unwieldy fantasy I have heard of regarding 911


YES. in your UNEDUCATED OPINION it is... Your opinion doesn't prove or disprove anything.

its only ridiculous to those like you who ignore the evidence and refuse to do any real investigation or research on it.


Originally posted by alienanderson
If you can give me one link.. just one link to a website summarising the NPT theory that I can read and digest so that I can try to understand I would appreciate it because I simply cannot believe that any adult with a full mental capacity can swallow such a thing
[edit on 23/4/2009 by alienanderson]


do a SEARCH and you'll find thousands of links, pages on the internet, visual evidence, analysis and FACTS that support the real NRPT
which you obviously have no clue about.

I'm not going to waste my time doing research for you when its obvious you don't have the common sense or intelligence to
do even the most basic investigation.

So enjoy your delusion. You're obviously not a truth seeker nor have any desire to do basic research that seeking truth
requires.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Finalized
Interesting theory, how does one explain the plane parts all over New York?


you mean the parts that have no serial numbers that have ever been verified to belong to any of the "planes"?

oh yea, right. those... the parts that were planted by the fbi, cia etc...iow the perps.

but then your assertion has no evidence or facts to support it.

when you say PLANE PARTS ALL OVER NY... thats not even remotely what the EVIDENCE shows nor accurately describes the DEBRIS issue and questions.

do some research and maybe you'll come back with a more educated opinion and understanding of what really happened and what the OCT claims.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Not going to parse your latest post, nor argue....but I WOULD like to see the video you alluded to, somewhere in the middle, where you said that the object that hit the Tower looked nothing like a B767.

I'd like to see this video, because of all the many I've seen, obviously I haven't seen the one you're talking about.

Can you post it?

Thx

*edit* I see you were typing....as to Serial Numbers,,,that's an old chestnut, a little nugget of disinfo.

This is like investigating a car wreck and asking for serial numbers being stamped on every part of the car. No.....there is the VIN plate. Older cars had a number stamped on the engine block.

The structure of the airframe does NOT have S/N stamped all over them!! A completed airframe from Boeing is assigned a production number, that stays with it for the rest of its life. Meticulous records are kept...call it a 'paper trail'...

I was watching "A Week in the Life of American Airlines" the other day. (An MSNBC Special from 2006). They weren't talking about 9/11 in any way, but just for grins focused on one B767 that they were along for a ride...they pointed out that it was delivered new to AAL in 1986, and during its life it had undergone 26 engine changes, over 500 tire changes, and flown the equivalent of over 2,000,000 miles. (Silly about the miles, I know...they just took the number of hours on the airframe and estimated it...) All of this data is from the records...NOT from individual S/Ns from every little piece.

[edit on 4/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by Finalized
Interesting theory, how does one explain the plane parts all over New York?


you mean the parts that have no serial numbers that have ever been verified to belong to any of the "planes"?

oh yea, right. those... the parts that were planted by the fbi, cia etc...iow the perps.

but then your assertion has no evidence or facts to support it.

when you say PLANE PARTS ALL OVER NY... thats not even remotely what the EVIDENCE shows nor accurately describes the DEBRIS issue and questions.

do some research and maybe you'll come back with a more educated opinion and understanding of what really happened and what the OCT claims.


I was asking a question, not trying to "debunk" it; I've been into 9/11 for a while, ran across the NPT and the past and gave it no thought; this is the first time, upon seeing these videos, that I've given it any credence. Just spent the last couple of hours watching September Clues. Truthfully, it makes more sense than some of the other theories I've seen and cleans up a lot of inconsistencies, I was just trying to get an idea of how those parts could be put in those different places w/o anyone noticing. Also, does anyone know when they appear?

The most damning piece of evidence in September Clues, in my mind, is the Verrazzano Bridge moving all over the place. It could also be that the PTB decided on this course of action, just in case anyone caught on to it, as a way to easily debunk the truth seekers, I mean, come on, who WOULD BELIEVE that no planes existed at all, we all saw it on TV... anyone researching this area could easily be called a crackpot.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Finalized
 


Finalized, check out the debunking of 'September Clues'.

Here's part of part 1....




Simon Shack is a con artist....and he is despicable.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
posted by matrixNIN11
right, people that don't have common sense, don't do enough research and are disinfo agents, wouldn't think he's a disinfo agent

You're right, I haven't done enough research into the no plane theory because I think I DO have common sense.
If the video posted in this thread is is the best evidence on offer, it is pretty rubbish IMHO


if its rubbish, it should be very easy for you to show exactly where and how it is. but its funny how you've offered ZERO evidence to support your OPINION its rubbish.

anyone with REAL COMMON SENSE knows what it means to seek truth, be objective and investigate all the evidence to obtain an educated understanding of what they criticize. You lack even the most basic critical thinking skills which is why your opinion is worthless. So how can possibly be a reaonable person or offer any educated opinon on something you know nothing about and haven't researched?



Show some cruise missiles hitting WTC or holograms shimmering in and out and you would have my support.


its not necessary... there's more than enough evidence that supports NRPT... but of course since you admit you've done no research, you know nothing about the facts and evidence or what you're criticizing... so your opinion is worthless.

but then, you first you have to prove there WERE "planes" to begin with.

please show me where there's conclusive proof of flight 11 and 175.



Black smudges on a few frames of film = no planes? What planet are you on?


a planet where people do real research and physical laws aren't ignored.

if you think the black smudges are black smudges, or the so-called BS are the only evidence presented, then you once again confirm your opinion is worthless and lack any understanding of what you're criticizing.


so jet fuel ignites in a perfectly diagonal and symmetrical manner?
have you bother to examine the CUTS that were allegedy made by the wing and fuselage?
have you even noticed how they're perfectly symmetrical? you don't find anything suspect or inconsistent with what such an impact might do? Would such a chaotic plane impact create the type of symmetrical cuts that a blow torch or cutting charges can do?
do you need video evidence of what i'm talking about?
if you don't know what i'm talking about or haven't seen it, then you haven't done enough research.

The video does not show enough detail to show how neat and symmetrical you think the holes are. To me, the explosion looks like it is blowing out of a hole created by the wings of a plane.
What's with the "perfectly symmetrical cuts" you are on about? Yes, I think you need to show me what you are talking about.


If you can't see the symmetry in the explosion i'm talking about then i can't do much else for you.







as the video doc explains, the damage is not consistent with a boeing 767.


As its been explained, "You have a lot in common with 'conspiracy theory' debunkers, who also rely on suggesting alternative theories which MIGHT explain the events. For example, they say that the collapse of WTC 7 could be explained quite easily by an exploding diesel tank, that the top-down gravitational collapse of a steel-framed building could be caused by localised fires, that an aircraft's wings could fold up to allow it to pass through a small hole, and that an aircraft could bury itself in an disused mineshaft.

I'm not a debunker but I do think the NPT theory is one of the most ridiculous theories out there.


of course you do... you've done no real research or investigation on it.

and I used to say almost the exact same thing you are... then i woke up, put my ego aside to consider the evidence, and do some objective research.



WTC7 has nothing to do with this thread or NPT.


what does WTC7 have anything to do with NPT or what i'm talking about.

thats a typical diversion technic by trolls, disinfo agents, those in denial, those who have done no research or those who have no argument or evidence to prove or disprove anything they claim.



Even if you did manage to debunk the magical smoke and inconsistent explosions or gash anomalies etc, you'd still have to debunk the other two dozen arguments for NPT, and there are tons and many much more obvious than that.

Two dozen? Tons? OK, name me three other anomalies that point to the NPT so I can do some more "research"


again why should i waste my time doing basic research an investigation that a person with half a brain should be able to do? This board is designed to discuss the data, evidence and have serious discussions and intelligent discourse on all theories and facts or evidence on 911.

if you're not willing to do, or understand HOW TO DO basic research to seek truth, then you shouldn't be here nor is there any incentive or point debating someone that is willing to criticize things they admit they haven't research or know anything about.


Unless you're willing to verify whether your explanation is consistent with the evidence, your theory is pure conjecture and your speculation is worthless

Worthless? Hardly. How would you like me to verify my explanation exactly? I think my explanation is consistent with the evidence (a blurry zoomed in youtube clip)

All you've done is construct a theoretical explanation while totally disregarding the known facts (& video evidence)

What KNOWN facts are these?


see above.



matrixNIN11:
You're idea of debunking a theory is to say it MIGHT have been something else.

Yep, I said MIGHT because I don't consider myself to be a 911 debunker.
However, I do consider the NPT to be a fantasy so I guess you are now going to pigeon hole me as a disinfo agent, debunker or perhaps just someone who hasn't been brainwashed by enough blurry youtube clips created yet (or "research" in your jargon)


There's several posts and threads that explain my position and present evidence. Go back and re-read the thread or be specific. Balls in your court.



[edit on 23-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
its only ridiculous to those like you who ignore the evidence and refuse to do any real investigation or research on it.

Yet those of us that have wasted countless hours of our lives doing real research on NPT and debunking it for the past 2 years refuse to do any real investigation or research on it.


You slay me, Matrix!



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Where is the original Naudet video for comparison? Will look for it myself later.

2nd line to extend the text written.


[edit on 23-4-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Here ya go, mirage....



...note that the soundtrack is intact....not adulterated as seen after others edit it for their own purposes.

[edit on 4/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
you mean all those countless thousands who were duped or deduced a plane by the deception based on the video fakery that was fed to them?

No, I'm talking about the countless thousands that were standing outside and watched the planes with their OWN EYES and NOT watching tv.


so show me some verifiable evidence that THOUSANDS saw "planes".

and where then are even 10% of these THOUSANDS?


Originally posted by alienanderson
NPT is the most ridiculous and unwieldy fantasy I have heard of regarding 911

That's why the 9/11 truth movement has distanced itself from NPT by calling it disinfo and/or banning the very discussion of it on their forums.


A claim that i've already debunked many times.

get some new material bonez.


Originally posted by alienanderson
I simply cannot believe that any adult with a full mental capacity can swallow such a thing

Without going into further detail, that's the kicker right there! You hit the nail SQUARELY on the head!


ah ha! I knew something had to explain that hole in your head.




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join