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 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 45
141
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What YOU keep avoiding (by distracting this Board with inanity) are two things:

[b[Gross weight difference


From page 40



Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
And as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, click here to see what happens to the V-G with weight changes. It is a video tutorial from an aerobatic flight school.

www.apstraining.com...

Again - The conclusion is not in your favor. You should really check it out. It only takes about 20 mins to view.

I'm surprised you haven't viewed it yet given the amount of times I've posted the link for you.


Since it is clear you repeatedly ignore the reply to your rants, look at the above C130 V-G/V-n diagram (the one which Xtrozero claims doesn't exist), and see what happens with weight.

That's right weedwhacker, speed limitations are lower as aircraft weight gets less.

Now read this again slowly.

Weight changes are not in your favor.



And, That the V-g diagram is IRRELEVANT in this instance.


Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight and wind tunnel testing are irrelevant to aircraft control and structural integrity? Really?

Perhaps a Specific Range chart is more relevant?


Once again you demonstrate that you are not a pilot weedwhacker.

Numerous verified pilots across the planet disagree with you, including every book written on aerodynamics, every flight school, every airline, charter or fractional carrier.

The rest of your rant is mostly insults once again, so I won't bother to address them. Your G loading guess is completely wrong as well.

Again -


Please let us know when you will find one verified pilot who will endorse your claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220, while pulling G's leveling from a 10,000 ft dive in less than a minute, while cranking in 38 degrees of bank to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error.



edit on 15-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: Clarity - added link




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


And, That the V-g diagram is IRRELEVANT in this instance.


Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight and wind tunnel testing are irrelevant to aircraft control and structural integrity? Really?


Could you, Tiff, please let us in on when Hani Hanjor, Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah took a good, close look at the 767 Vg diagrams and what they thought of them? Do you really think they gave a damn at all about them?

Weed is exactly right - a Vg diagram - your or Boeing's or Embry-Riddles or whomevers - or speed limitations or maneuvering restrictions or load limits or rolling-g limitations or whatever - are completely irrelevant when it comes down to a a hijacker taking over an aircraft with the express intent of crashing it into a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper (something, I hasten to remind the readers, your pilot buddies say they could not do).

I could care less what an aircraft *should* do in this case. You'd argue a carjacking never occured because the carjacker drove over the speed limit and faster than the manufacturer's recommended maximum speed.

With regards to the 9/11 hijackings, I care about what an aircraft *can* do. Until and unless you can prove beyond any shadow of any doubt that a 767 cannot fly 470 knots at 1,000 feet, for at least 10 seconds (the length of time UA 175 flew at that speed in the terminal portion of its flight) then you should go back to your Pilot's club and concentrate on your radio controlled models.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Could you, Tiff, please let us in on when Hani Hanjor, Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah took a good, close look at the 767 Vg diagrams and what they thought of them?


You claim they all had pilot certificates and pilot training. Do you know what and how pilots are trained with respect to "red-line"?

Clearly not.

Click here and read page 151 to find out -

Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

If you are still confused and would rather have a Flight Instructor spell it out for you, click here and watch the video tutorials.

APS Training, V-G Diagram Discussion, Clarke “Otter” McNeace, VP – Flight Operations, Aerobatic, Upset Recovery & Spin Training Instructor

If you're still confused - I'll spell it out for you in a simple sentence.

Pilots are taught that they risk structural failure and loss of control if they exceed "red-line".



Do you really think they gave a damn at all about them?


How is exceeding "red-line" productive to a "hijacker" completing their mission when they have been trained that they may lose control or risk structural damage over "red-line"?

You seem to avoid this question every time asked.




With regards to the 9/11 hijackings, I care about what an aircraft *can* do. Until and unless you can prove beyond any shadow of any doubt that a 767 cannot fly 470 knots at 1,000 feet, for at least 10 seconds (the length of time UA 175 flew at that speed in the terminal portion of its flight)



Wrong -

You need to do your research as the reported UA175 mode C radar (and video) data shows more than 500+ knots for more than a minute, diving out of 10,000+ feet, and then cranking into a 38 degree bank for impact. This is impossible for a standard 767 based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts.

Are you familiar with rolling on G's? Clearly not.

Click here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

4nsicphd gave a pretty good explanation.

Again - the score remains after FOURTY-FIVE pages now -

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.
Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...)



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS (It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150) -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Most people don't know that passenger tires on cars are supposed to fly apart at 90mph. They have nifty color graphs at the tire factory that show how they are not covered by the guarantee when they exceed 90mph. I have taken them to 140 mph. The charts are just for reference, don't think they will always work in real life. Double the speed and g's and I will listen. Until then, in my mind, crazy hijackers flew the planes very badly. They must have had Allah on their side.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Again -

blah blah blah


You know, as much fun as this is watching ol' Tiff and Captain Bob Balsamo opine on their speculative flights of fancy, it really is getting old with her and his repetitive, by rote, recitation of ridiculous inanity. Really, the only reason I can think of for continuing this is to wait for more keepers from Tiff, such as the claim that a radar "only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan" and Captain Bob Balsamo's claim that when an aircraft "hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period."

While doing a bit of research on this whole thing, it really struck me how pitiful and absurd their claim is. The FAA has...how many aviation professionals within its ranks? The NTSB has...how many aviation professionals within its aviation branch? The various National Aviation Authorities for the nations around the world have....how many aviation professionals working? Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA, Australia)? Transport Canada (TC, Canada)? Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC, Brazil)? Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC, France)? Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom) (CAA, UK)? Those are only a few.

How many members are there of the various pilots unions around the world? ALPA? ACPA? IFALPA? CASA? 75,000? 100,000?

ICAO? Nations that absolutely *detest* the United States - even more than the Pilot's club hates Bush - are members of the International Civil Aviation Organization. You'd think THEY would come forth with these absolute concrete facts that the United States Government is complicit and hiding the truth and that beefed-up, remote-controlled planes were flown into the towers because, well, if the Pilot's club pilots can't hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208-foot wide skyscraper, then NOBODY can! Iran? Columbia? Cuba? You'd think *their* aviation professionals would come forth and tout the Pilot's Club line - if there were any truth to it. Why hasn't this happened?

You'd think...if there were any truth whatsoever to the Pilot club's claims, led by Captain Bob Balsamo and parroted word for word, almost like she was channeling him, Tiffany, one....just one...of these organizations would come forth and express some sort of concern that UAL 175 flew an "impossible" flight profile. Not just improbable, not just incredible, not just unlikely, but impossible.

You'd think that at least one of those FAA professionals would say something. You'd think that at least *one* of the NTSB aviation professionals would say something. You'd think *somebody* other than the handful of the same Bush-Hating names would say something - it is always the same - Aimer, Kolstad, Wittenberg, Latas. Ya got anyone *new* out there, Tiff? Or are we going to be hearing from this same bunch for the *next* 10 years?

Tiffany and Captain Bob Balsamo will, no doubt, bring up the "Appeal to authority!!!!" argument, which is fine and dandy but would be yet another red herring in this soup sandwich they created. What does the Civil Aviation Authority of Iran have to do with maintaining a code of silence with regards to UAL 175? Oh...they must be "in on it, too".

Just one...there are tens of thousands of aviation professionals out there currently working for these organizations whose sole job is to ensure aviation is a safe and mishap-free profession. Just one would be a start, one who is not retired, not a "former", not a "once was" - one who values character over "I have to keep my job, man!" Some of these Pilot's club members even work *for* the enemy! Imagine that...talk about standing up for your beliefs and principles. The Pilot's club is accusing our government of mass murder...you'd think, if there were any truth to their claims, there would be more people talking - and talking on more important venues than an Internet discussion board..

You'd think.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


You mean it's getting old being shown that what you're saying doesn't make any sense?

This isn't that complicated. You are being shown technical diagrams that prove the speeds the 757 was allegedly traveling at would have pushed it to its very operating limits, and there is a consensus among real pilots that it is NOT easy to control a plane in these circumstances.

All of these pages of thread have just been you and weedwhacker bickering argumentatively with this information.

Questions have been pressed directly to weedwhacker that took pages of discussion for a straight answer.

Imagine how Tiffany feels.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

This isn't that complicated. You are being shown technical diagrams that prove the speeds the 757 was allegedly traveling at would have pushed it to its very operating limits, and there is a consensus among real pilots that it is NOT easy to control a plane in these circumstances.


If it isn't that complicated, where is the concurrence with all those aviation organizations I highlighted? Where is the agreement? Where is the outrage? Why is it that just this Pilot's club and not any one of the other professional organizations saddling up with them? Where is the support?

Are you claiming that every single aviation organization, world wide, is in on this? That there isn't *one* aviation professional who would put his/her career on the line, his job, his everything, in order to right this massive wrong that the US Government conspired with Boeing and a dozen other organizations to commit mass murder of its own citizens?

You have to think Captain Bob Balsamo has taken these claims to at least some of those organizations. Which ones? What was their response? It is patently obvious they are not manning up to support these idiotic claims. The one foray Captain Bob Balsamo made into the real world with this football bat of a claim was into the court system with that hilarious April Gallop lawsuit affidavit he offered up. Just to reiterate the result of that:


A court may dismiss a claim as "factually frivolous" if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless", that is, "fanciful", fantastic" or "delusional" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325,327,328 (1989)) Courts have not hesitated to dismiss complaints asserting delusional claims of conspiracy.3 Indeed, courts have dismissed other cases alleging delusional conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11,2001. Because Gallop's claims are factually baseless -- indeed, because they are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional -- they are dismissed.


Bolding mine.

Captain Bob Balsamo and Tiffany's claims are just that - fanciful, fantastic and delusional. There is no arguing those facts.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451



Captain Bob Balsamo and Tiffany's claims are just that - fanciful, fantastic and delusional. There is no arguing those facts.


You left out HILARIOUS.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
If it isn't that complicated, where is the concurrence with all those aviation organizations I highlighted?


This is no different than the old line, "If the WTC buildings were demolished, why hasn't the ASCE spoken up?"

There are only two facts I will address in response to this. First of all, even when the organizations themselves don't make official statements, their members often do wind up in these "truther" organizations. For example there are ASCE members in AE911. There was also an ASCE member that used to post here by the name "Griff" and he also believed the towers were demolished.

The other fact I'd bring up is that there is no evidence most professionals have studied the official reports in the first place. There is technical data from the flight recorder that I seriously doubt 90% of professional pilots have scrutinized.


Take a trip back a few hundred years ago and you'll find a similar situation. "All" of the supposed "experts" in agreement that the Sun revolves around the Earth, all "rigorously debunking" that fool Copernicus.

Lesson learned is, don't follow that herd all the way over that cliff trebor. It hurts just the same when you finally hit the ground at the bottom, whether you did it alone or with everyone else. Wrong is wrong.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by trebor451
Captain Bob Balsamo and Tiffany's claims are just that - fanciful, fantastic and delusional. There is no arguing those facts.


You left out HILARIOUS.


You also left out that ad hominem is a logical fallacy.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
. . .that the aircraft that hit the second tower was a military aircraft. . . a modified version. Certainly not civilian. In deed it was a Navy Reconnaissance aircraft, to be exact to do with Sonar Anti Submarine Warfare. . . However, it appears to have been fitted out for remote control, and then flown by computers and radio control into the second tower. . .Likewise what is it that hit the Pentagon ? From evidences brought to my attention it would appear that a redundant, supposed to have been scraped, Navy Fighter Jet is what hit the Pentagon.

(my editing)
I believe this is correct. I did not notice a tilted engine or a side bulge but I did notice it was painted like an air force plane in military grey, like I used to have to fly around in sometimes when I was in the Navy. The plane practically flew right over my observation point, as I watched it make its way to crashing into the south WTC tower.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Take a trip back a few hundred years ago and you'll find a similar situation. "All" of the supposed "experts" in agreement that the Sun revolves around the Earth, all "rigorously debunking" that fool Copernicus.

Lesson learned is, don't follow that herd all the way over that cliff trebor. It hurts just the same when you finally hit the ground at the bottom, whether you did it alone or with everyone else. Wrong is wrong.


So Tiff is merely a cross-dressing Copernicus. Now *that* is a sight for sore eyes.

The Truth movement in reality is more like the Flat Earth Society - a statistically insignificant group that is unable to grasp the basic concepts of reality.

As I said before, I have no doubt that Captain Bob Balsamo and Tiffany have peddled this crazy snake oil to many of the organizations I outlined in my other post. They release these hilarious and crazy "press releases" and submits affidavits to the most absurd law suits. There has been *plenty* of opportunity for aviation professionals to take a look at these idiotic claims yet Captain Bob Balsamo and Tiffany can only roll out the same tired old Bush-hating, moon-base believing, radio-controlled modeled, Pentagon-fly-over, 11.2 g, Camp Springs 1 "confoosed" pilots who claim a Boeing jet will break apart at 420.1 knots and who claim they couldn't hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208-foot wide skyscraper with a 767.


edit on 16-9-2010 by trebor451 because: re-emphasize the idiocy of the claims.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



All well, well said. Summed up pretty accurately the situation, in a far better way than I have been able, lately. It made points that I've tried to make too.


One minor quibble, though......


There is absolutely nothing wrong with ----


....roll out the same tired old Bush-hating...


...(the bolded part). In my book, "hating" Bush is mandatory and indeed, perhaps should be considered de rigueur ** by other rational, sapient adults (and even some children).

** In the defintion sense of "..necessary according to....common sense...."


However, just because I know that the man was a terrible "President", doesn't mean I have to jump on any ridiculous bandwagon that rolls into town, like the "PfT" club's.....because I happen to have a rational, sapient mind.




edit on 16 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Format



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

One minor quibble, though......


There is absolutely nothing wrong with ----


....roll out the same tired old Bush-hating...


...(the bolded part). In my book, "hating" Bush is mandatory and indeed, perhaps should be considered de rigueur ** by other rational, sapient adults (and even some children).


Well, Weed...we all have our little failings in life, I suppose! lol Love or hate what you want, but don't let those emotions taint or skew your perspective on things (the collective "your", mind you) - which is clearly what the Pilot's club has let happen. That, and some weird desire to spend their lives on an Internet discussion board trying to convince Net weenies like us who they claim can't fly out of a wet paper bag of teh legitimacy of their outlandish claims - for some reason we are important enough to get Tiffany's (and her admirers) undivided attention.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I have to agree with the idea that the angle of attack was too steep to accomplish that manouever. I think someone else was mentioning the G-forces involved



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
So Tiff is merely a cross-dressing Copernicus. Now *that* is a sight for sore eyes.


If you can get away with repeatedly insisting that Tiffany is Rob Balsamo without a damned bit of evidence, then I should be able to get away with claiming you're a mental ward fugitive or a pimply basement-dweller in every one of my posts with no evidence. Fair is fair.


The Truth movement in reality is more like the Flat Earth Society - a statistically insignificant group that is unable to grasp the basic concepts of reality.


1/3 of the American people believing there was a government cover-up of 9/11 is insignificant, right. Well that's 1/3 more than the number of people who believed it on 9/11, for a start. Isn't something like 2/3 of this country Christian too? I have no problem playing the waiting game until enough information is disseminated that all the genuinely intelligent people in this country realize the complete ignorance of the rest of them.


I have no doubt that Captain Bob Balsamo and Tiffany have peddled this crazy snake oil


Look basement fugitive, you have spent your entire post thus far ranting. Do you know what the significance of a rant is? It means you're having an emotional fit and not posting anything related to what she's actually talking about.

Do you see that diagram? Do you see how traveling at certain speeds puts stress on the airplane? Do you understand that this makes it increasingly difficult for a pilot to handle? Where is the snake oil here again? The snake oil is your vitriolic ranting. A 10-year old can rant on the internet. What you are doing is not special. If you could actually address the facts being posted I would be amazed.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you see that diagram? Do you see how traveling at certain speeds puts stress on the airplane? Do you understand that this makes it increasingly difficult for a pilot to handle?


That is not what that graph says.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I have several media items on the abovetopsecret media section, covering flying problems involved in reproducing the 175 flight. I have done the whole thing, all the way from Logan Airport numerous times on the X-plane program, one that can be bought at a mass marketing neighborhood store or have mailed from an online order.
To start, you can not look out a window and just steer along and find your destination.
I was flying a model of the 767 and they are just not fast. In order to get up to the proper assumed speed that it was going when it hit, you have to start way back when it quickly gained altitude and took a sharp turn out of its previous course. Then you have to maintain a perfect rate of descent all the way to the WTC and time it out so your altitude is correct when you get there. That's the only way you can do it and it took me probably a hundred times to get it right. This is something I never see addressed, how the plane was going so fast and I guess it is just assumed that a plane can just pick a speed, and it just all of a sudden is going that fast.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by trebor451
So Tiff is merely a cross-dressing Copernicus. Now *that* is a sight for sore eyes.


Copernicus was a male. "Tiffany", as far as I can tell, has never claimed she is a female, relying solely on her avatar and nickname to convey that assumption. Looking at avatars used here on ATS and other Internet discussion boards, the gender of any poster is not necessarily tied to their avatar.


If you can get away with repeatedly insisting that Tiffany is Rob Balsamo without a damned bit of evidence, then I should be able to get away with claiming you're a mental ward fugitive or a pimply basement-dweller in every one of my posts with no evidence. Fair is fair.


lol....go right ahead! The fact is "Tiffany" and Captain Bob Balsamo both say the exact same things, so I use them interchangeably because I do not know who is saying what.


1/3 of the American people believing there was a government cover-up of 9/11 is insignificant, right. Well that's 1/3 more than the number of people who believed it on 9/11, for a start. Isn't something like 2/3 of this country Christian too? I have no problem playing the waiting game until enough information is disseminated that all the genuinely intelligent people in this country realize the complete ignorance of the rest of them.


If you want to go ahead and believe 100 million people believe these cockamamie claims, go right ahead. Here's a suggestion...do a survey over at the Pilot's club...that sampling could get you up around 2/3 or 7/8ths!


Look basement fugitive, you have spent your entire post thus far ranting. Do you know what the significance of a rant is? It means you're having an emotional fit and not posting anything related to what she's actually talking about.


I lol. "I'm" having a rant?

Do you see that diagram?

Sure do! Means very little in this case when a hijacker takes over an aircraft with the intention of flying as fast as he can into a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper. Something, again I hasten to add, the Pilot's club Aces say they couldn't do. Could you?


Do you see how traveling at certain speeds puts stress on the airplane? Do you understand that this makes it increasingly difficult for a pilot to handle? Where is the snake oil here again? The snake oil is your vitriolic ranting. A 10-year old can rant on the internet. What you are doing is not special. If you could actually address the facts being posted I would be amazed.


I know very well about speed. I've been mach 2 in the back of a Navy jet. I've been 500 knots with both the radar and baro altimeters showing zero.

I have tried to address the claims by Tiffany and Captain Bob Balsamo. Its kind of tough when they, as well as you, claim that a Boeing jet will break apart at 420.1 knots. Its kind of tough to reason with someone who claims that as soon as an aircraft reaches its "design limit", it breaks. Period. (clue: an aircraft part will break when it reaches its structural fail point. That is *not* its "design limit".) Its kind of tough to debate someone who claims a 90 ton airliner traveling at 750 feet per second should act like a 10 pound radio controlled model traveling at 20 feet per second when it crashed. Its kind of tough trying to have a useful discussion with someone who claims a radar will only track something based on what has been put into a flight plan. Its kind of tough to try and talk with someone about these issues who reject the fact that airliners are designed to exceed the required tolerances by a factor of 1.5 for structural components (wings, fuselage,etc.) and a factor of 2.5 for engines and landing gear, and control surfaces. You asked for proof of this in an earlier post. Go ask any airline pilot who knows about the manufacturing, design and flight-test process of an aircraft.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
" More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. "

Did you people miss this part ? Did you even read it ? How about comprehension , did any of you comprehend what this statement says ?

Here , I'll make it easy for you ... more than 2/3 of those who tried it couldn't do it .

But , guess what class ? 2/3 DOES NOT mean 100% . Therefore , there were some of those in this experiment who DID INDEED master the task and replicate the manuvers and skill needed to accomplish the 'impossible' flight navigation carried out by the highjackers .

You guys must have missed that part ? But , there it is , right there in the OP . Read it again , real slow .


With respect, you also seem to miss the very important point that only 2/3 of the trained experienced pilots could do it. That's not 2/3 untrained highjackers. Let me just repeat that. ONLY Two out of three highly trained and experienced commercial jet pilots were capable of carrying out these manoeuvres.

So, if you fully comprehend the implications of this, it means that if one out of three experienced commercial jet pilots couldn't manage to carry out this manoeuvre, it is highly unlikely that an inexperienced highjacker could do it.....and even more unlikely that three out of three inexperienced highjackers could successfully carry out the manoeuvres and hit both the two WT towers and the Pentagon successully.





edit on 16-9-2010 by wcitizen because: tidying




top topics



 
141
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join