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: 83
141
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

huh????

SPEED MEANS LITTLE?

let me get this straight,,, your argument hinges on dismissing the speed for 175 as irrelevant but could have hit the wtc, because 11 was slower and thus proves it did ?
mmmmmmmmmkay


edit on 11-11-2010 by sanctum because: (no reason given)



The first plane took a tower down at 400 KTSish, so just what are you trying to prove or disprove with the end result of the second plane, which was the same as the first.
edit on 12-11-2010 by Xtrozero because: grammer




posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Unlike you, I can source my claims.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
....a condition known as “Mach Tuck”...... this condition is related to T tails only.


Let us know when you can source yours trebor, your credibility diminishes by the day, as if you had any left.


Well maybe,Tiff, you should quote all the posts on this if you are trying to make a point...oh and just what point is that?

So you asked me about this and I said the condition I was talking about was the limiting factor that MACH Tuck had on T-tails that Boeing aircraft like the 707 didn't have. That factor limits the C-141 to .74 MACH cruise where the 707 cruised at .89.

You then suggested that you could not find "T-tail" anywhere in Google so it must be wrong....or something like that...
In the end Boeing aircraft cruise extremely fast...




(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson Leslie Hazzard - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."


Very blindsided questioning...but once again you need to continue to build conspiracy on top of conspiracy on top of conspiracy, and so on...

So the government was in on it with 1000s of people, oh wait Boeing was in on it too, and most likely every other aircraft manufacturer too. We can easily explain away all the lack of official discord by just expanding the conspiracy, or just maybe there is no discord because the manufacturer actually agrees and doesn’t feel the need to explain the oblivious to P4T.




Now actually read the NTSB document.



Source - Click


Actually a good descent would help them accelerate rather quickly to the end result of hitting the towers.

Tiff are you suggesting that they over stressed the airplane due to a descent into the towers?

edit on 12-11-2010 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911


Lol ... I love responses like that because it only validates the absurd lengths duhbunkers will go to deny a true story.


I'm confused... are you calling yourself and Tiff duhbunkers? We are not debunking a thing... I'm just watching debunkers reach into a magic hat to pull out a rabbit out and they pull out nothing.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Unlike you, I can source my claims.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
....a condition known as “Mach Tuck”...... this condition is related to T tails only.


Let us know when you can source yours trebor, your credibility diminishes by the day, as if you had any left.


Well maybe,Tiff, you should quote all the posts on this if you are trying to make a point...oh and just what point is that?


The point is that you don't have a clue when discussing aerodynamics. Anyone can see it for themselves if they click the link above and read.

I asked - "What happens to Center of Pressure as an aircraft accelerates??"

You replied - "Not a clue."

Then you went on to describe a condition known as "Mach Tuck" which is related to T-Tails only.

After I picked myself up from having fell on the floor laughing, I did some quick googling to give you some sources to learn. First was wiki. you claimed they were wrong. Then the Pilots Handbook and the reason for T-Tails in the first place. You then claimed you "misspoke".

You then backpedaled faster than a cat being sprayed with a water hose.

It was funny to watch. I highly recommend readers click the link and read through if they haven't already. Especially pilots. Very entertaining.




In the end Boeing aircraft cruise extremely fast...


Some cruise faster than others. But none of them cruise at 1,000 feet above sea level. You know why that is Xtrozero? Clearly not.

Read this post again to learn.

www.abovetopsecret.com...





(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson Leslie Hazzard - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."


Very blindsided questioning...but once again you need to continue to build conspiracy on top of conspiracy on top of conspiracy, and so on...


It wasn't "blindsided", it was a straight forward question within a conversation while Leslie was looking up data in a manual. Really, go listen.

It is you who has the conspiracy to build. Let us know when you get some evidence as you have been failing for more than EIGHTY-THREE pages.







Now actually read the NTSB document.



Source - Click


Actually a good descent would help them accelerate rather quickly to the end result of hitting the towers.


Clearly you didn't even bother to read the document above. Or if you did, you still don't understand it.

The aircraft maintained a speed between 500-520 knots from a dive out of 12,000 feet, to hit the South Tower at 510 knots.

Where does it say or show the aircraft "accelerated rather quickly"?

It doesn't, because there wasn't any rapid acceleration.

Read it this time Xtrozero. Study it, ask questions if you don't understand it.

First you claimed they pushed full thrust at the last second to hit the Tower and the aircraft could have withstood such excessive speeds for a "few seconds" on a straight path. I proved you wrong with actual data. It wasn't for just a few seconds and it certainly was not on a straight path.

Now you claim the descent helped them to "accelerate rather quickly". I again proved you wrong.

Just how far are you going to move the goal posts to maintain your absurd theories and blind support for anything the govt tells you?

Have you tried Vmo+150 with your UAV yet? (I notice you evade this question every times asked, I don;t blame you).


Tiff are you suggesting that they over stressed the airplane due to a descent into the towers?


According to the evidence, it is impossible for a standard 767 to perform as the aircraft seen and reported on 9/11.

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument. You've been failing for more than 83 pages.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You haven't presented evidence that it was " impossible " for a standard 767 to behave as UA 175 did. Best you can claim is that it may have entailed risk. However, as the pilot was intent on killing himself and all on board that is not such a weighty factor as it might have been in other circumstances.

I referred you to a New York Times article on the previous page in which Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier is quoted as saying :- " Flying a Boeing 767 straight ahead at 1000 ft or 1500 ft would not be too difficult, even at 580 mph ., and it would most likely not threaten the structural integrity of the plane " .

I see above you have once again referenced the telephone call with Leslie Hazzard at Boeing which you state supports the " impossible " speed claim. As your link to the recording was buried back on page 40 I thought I would bring it forward so that people can more easily check the substance of that call for themselves. The relevant bit starting at 1.35.

www.youtube.com...

People will make up their own minds but to me she is a polite lady trying to be helpful but who is obviously not technically competent to deal with those sort of enqiries. The only technical information she in fact gives is to state a Boeing 767's cruising speed, which she has plainly just looked up.To quote that telephone conversation as giving any kind of expert technical support is absurd



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Believe it, or not I'll agree with you Alfie. I think the structural failure / speed claim is inconclusive at best.

There must be an alternative position to explain how the aircraft did not fail and did indeed hit the building,
otherwise these points are useless.

I will however state that the control and ability to hit these targets is much more of an issue than speed.
This should remain the focus, but it's tough to explain to the general public.

Lining up an aircraft from miles away and thousands of feet up and hitting two 208 foot wide structures is
incredible. These airplanes have sophisticated electronics to help line them up with runways and get them
in the vicinity to begin a straight approach for landing.

These 'hijackers' had some damn nice luck on their side to accomplish this on their own.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Well lets have a look again



Is your background aerodynamics or is you research all through the net? The reason I ask is my background is construction 30+ years first started in design/drawing office of a Structural Steelwork company, weedwacker is a qualified pilot of large aircraft do you have any expetise in either?

The reason I say is and I will repeat if you look at the OS

Planes hijacked flown into towers, structural/fire damage leads to total collapse.
Its the shock value that leads to JOE PUBLIC coming up with the conspiracies theories.

The TOWERS great design for maximum office space was what lead to their demise!

If you look at the other version of events you have so many variables its a JOKE!
So lets SEE

Planes either not there ie missiles/holograms
WE WILL IGNORE THAT or not the aircraft that took off?
If they are not the aircraft that took off we then have kidnap/mass murder of passengers by the government

Explosives planted in the building when built
or just before 9/11 with no evidence
or a super new explosive
to bring the towers down.
Then a government willing to kill hundreds of people from overseas and expect not to be caught out I mean with all the internet self taught construction and aircraft experts on here alone
.

I mean truly what do you think has more chance of being true!!!


Engineers ALWAYS have safety factors just in case iirc the floors of the towers could take between 3-6 times the expected load depending on were you look BUT and its a big BUT thats without ANY other problems you know like being hit by a plane and fire weakening the steel.

I would take it they will be some hidden safety factor re the planes limits not to the same extent as building design but enough to confirm what is shown in the video above.
edit on 12-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: extra word removed



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You haven't presented evidence that it was " impossible " for a standard 767 to behave as UA 175 did. Best you can claim is that it may have entailed risk..


Wrong Alfie. Read through the evidence.

After EIGHTY-THREE pages, the list of evidence remains -


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
Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
NASA Research


Precedent -
EA990
China Air 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, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



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 = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


Again - To those who blindly support whatever their govt tells them -


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-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - 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...". You have been failing for more than NINE years.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Some cruise faster than others. But none of them cruise at 1,000 feet above sea level. You know why that is Xtrozero? Clearly not.


Yes we all understand this but you fail to see the point that if you firewall the engines in a good descent with the purpose to hit an extremely large building then the norm doesn't play much into it either. Your Google expertise just doesn't allow you to understand this very simple point, and as much as you want it to it doesn’t change reality.

Attacking posters here doesn’t change reality or prove you are right, it just shows what kind of person you are, and that you have long ago ran out of “proof” towards anything and your only course now is to attack those who disagree with you. We know that your ridicule is just a defensive shield due to reaching a dead end long ago, but come on…..





(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson Leslie Hazzard - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

It wasn't "blindsided", it was a straight forward question within a conversation while Leslie was looking up data in a manual. Really, go listen.


That's your smoking gun?

Cold calling some ignorant PR person with an off the wall question that she had no clue to what it was about as they fumbled to find anything on aircraft speed is Boeing official answer and not blind sided?

There are 110,000 employees there, so what does anyone with the capability to understand the question and is in the management position to actually give an official answer say...


I think you are better off siding with Lear's alien intervention theory...
edit on 13-11-2010 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You want evidence that this is possible? Here you go Tiffany www.youtube.com...

Obviously that will not be good enough for you but you asked for evidence so I will supply it =)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Yes we all understand this but you fail to see the point that if you firewall the engines in a good descent with the purpose to hit an extremely large building then the norm doesn't play much into it either.


Here, I'll bold the parts you missed from ATS Member JetStream - (since it's clear you do not wish to listen to anything I have to say)


... maybe I am not being clear enough for some to understand.

An airplane-any airplane-is a balance of forces. Lift Drag thrust and gravity. The controlability of the airplane is designed within a certain speed range and weight range.

If you exceed airspeed-and at low altitude this is the major limitation on the airframe, you run out of pitch authority to keep the nose down.
The horizontal stabilizer of an airplane-the tail mounted wings- have up and down limits. these limits are mechanical stops.

As you increase speed beyond the design limits you need more nose down. At a certain speed you will run out of nose down authority.And the Aircraft will climb regardless of your nose down force on the yoke-simply because the aircraft is not built to exceed or fly... outside of its flight envelope.
Thats just a cost for no gain.


[snip]

An airplane is a beautifully balanced piece of equipment,within its design parameters. At the claimed speed what will the roll rate be?Don't know.I don't even know if the spoilers could stay attached at that speed.But a little if any deflection can have huge control issues.

[snip]

And again-I tried this in a 737-400 simulator. I ran out of nose down pitch authority and the airplane started to climb even with my full nose down command on the yoke.



The above was written by a person who understands aerodynamics and aircraft limitations.

ATS members Jetstream, Capt Chaos, 4nsicphd and several others understand the above.

These verified pilots also understand the above -

patriotsquestion911.com...

The list is growing.

You (Xtrozero) and weedwhacker seem to be the only ones who claim to be "pilots", yet do not understand the above. But then again, you both think a V-G diagram cannot be plotted when the V-Speeds are known, and you also feel Mach Tuck is "a condition related to T-Tail's only".

This is not an insult to you Xtrozero.

It is what you believe and it is well sourced.

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument as you have been failing for more than 83 pages.
edit on 13-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: fixed tags



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You want evidence that this is possible? Here you go Tiffany www.youtube.com...

Obviously that will not be good enough for you but you asked for evidence so I will supply it =)


If you read the thread, you will note that no one is disputing whether aircraft hit the WTC.

What is being disputed is if it were the aircraft as reported by the OS. (Standard 767's with "hijackers" at the control who had less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots).

All the evidence provided thus far conflicts with the OS.

Let us know when you get some evidence to support your theory.

But first, you may actually want to read the thread and review the arguments being made.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


**edit** I don't remember stating any theories of my own that I would need to support. You asked for evidence of how these planes could be flown into the buildings and I supplied you with a video that had many different shots and stills of the planes being flown into buildings.... Am I missing something here? Are you going to tell me those are holograms?

You are ok with the theory that planes hit the building, ok good. We have that established, could you be so kind as to tell me then how those planes were flown into the buildings? I am sure it is probably somewhere in this thread but 83 pages is a lot and I am already familiar with the thread. In the meantime I will go back and look for it in case you are too busy to be asked what your position is. Thanks.

Ok it seems like this is still heading in the direction of "it was remotely controlled and flown into the buildings". So I guess I still pose my question, if it is impossible to do this live, in the cockpit wouldn't it be even more difficult to do it with a remote control?

If I am way off on my assumptions and questions please just let me know and I will edit this with my apology. Further more I want to state that I never said I thought you were right or wrong and I never stated I thought the original story was right or wrong. I am just curious on this particular point.


edit on 11/13/2010 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/13/2010 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Well actually if you go back you will see I posted in this thread within the first few of its 83 pages Tiffany. If you go back and find that comment you will see what my point was, and see it is very relevant to your comments. You are ok with the theory that planes hit the building, ok good. We have that established, could you be so kind as to tell me then how those planes were flown into the buildings then?


I would LOVE to tell you. However, all the evidence conflicts with the OS with respect to a standard 767 with an inexperienced "hijacker" at the controls.

Can you please tell us how it was done? Can you please provide evidence for your argument?

All the others here who blindly support the OS in this thread have failed to provide such evidence for over 83 pages. Hopefully you can help them?

Perhaps start with the part/serial numbers matched with Maintenance logs?
edit on 13-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: fixed tags



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Hmm, im sorry but again I don't have any theories to back up or to prove. I am sorry I made some edits to my post after you read it. I am just curious on how you think these planes were flown into the buildings if not done by the "hijackers"?

I am not making any arguments for or against the original story, I am just trying to clear something up for my own benefit. If you want I can restate my question in case you missed my edit. We certainly got off on the wrong foot here, I wasn't attacking you or your theory I just asked for some clarification.

You said you would be happy to tell me how this was done, but then you didn't? And asked me to prove my theory? I am really confused here. Could you possibly just answer me that question please ma'am?
edit on 11/13/2010 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I HAVE COVERED THIS>

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by JetStream
And again-I tried this in a 737-400 simulator. I ran out of nose down pitch authority and the airplane started to climb even with my full nose down command on the yoke


The ATS member JetStream's experience, as related (IF it was a real Sim...??? And not just a desktop PC program??) is irrelevant. Totally different airplane, airfoil, wing plan-form, etc, etc. DID or did he/she not indicate (honestly, I've forgotten) whether the stab trim was commanded to full nose down? OR, was the trim left at the last setting (for whatever configuration) and only elevator authority used?

Odd that you wish to hang your "confidence" on THAT particular anonymous ATS member....merely because he/she seems to agree with "P4T".

I am afraid each and every effort made to bolster this non-argument (the "P4T" position) is a dismal failure.

Repeating it over and over and over again does not magically make any of the "P4T" claims true.

I ask (and question JetStream's qualifications) only because I once, some time back, stumbled upon a YouTube video that made this exact same claim....in the video the poster used a desktop PC flight sim program of some sort. (I am not at all familiar with these, though I understand they're getting quite sophisticated...based on the YouTube examples that people post. HOWEVER, I expect they are limited, and a very poor and shallow imitation of the much more accurate and sophisticated full-motion sims that I am more familiar with...and that represent REAL airplanes more precisely). Perhaps if you made the effort to rent some actual simulator time, instead of the desktop variety, you would begin to understand my point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While typing that, I decide to go hunting for you. I am aware of a company in the UK that rents out sim time, to anyone willing to pay. IN the U.S. I believe it isn't that way, anymore, since 9/11. (But, to tell the truth, haven't researched it yet...until now).

Have you heard of Flight Safety Int'l?

Very large company, part of what's-his-name's holdings....Warren Buffet. All over the map, in the U.S. (Searched, not sure they have any Boeing sims?? Say they have the 737NG, but didn't see where...)
___
There's always the Pan Am Academy, old standby, been around since I can remember....

www.panamacademy.com...

Have no idea on their policy about one-off simulator rentals.....

___
Here's Virtual Aviation in the UK, caters to anyone (apparently) willing to pay. Perhaps we should put together a junket? I'll offer my services as tutor free of charge.


Update: Checking their site, hmmmmm.....well, found their "1-hour experience" in a selection of airliners SIms (no 757) at about 600 pound sterling. Whew! Like, $900 or so.....
___

ATS member turbofan once started a thread where he had contacted someone in Canada (Tino blocked the identity, but based on the recorded phone conversation, and accent, I guessed Toronto, possibly Air Canada). They offered Sim time, forget the price. $350-450 per hour would be the general rate, I would think.
Here's the Air Canada site, FYI: www.aircanada.com...
___
Found this about Delta:


Pilots can rent time in the simulators. If you’re pilot qualified to train in a large jet simulator, here’s the contact info:

Email: dal.pilottrngsvcs@delta.com


blog.delta.com...

Sounds a bit vague, the "qualified to train in large jet" comment....obviously, screening out potential Saudi hijackers is a top priority nowadays....but that would entail "profiling", and isn't "politically correct", I suppose....
___

I think that IF you already have some light airplane time (I'm guessing at least a little??) then experiencing a real airliner, at least in simulation, would be eye-opening for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, gawd!!


I found that YouTube video I was talking about...by someone called "skyarcher" (Shame....pretty cool name, too bad he/she isn't all that well-versed about flying.....)

D'Oh!! Stephen Hawking is narrating!!!
Joking...it IS annoying, though. You can spare yourself some agony, and skip to about 6:00. ( Jeeze...did I say earlier those desktop PC sims were getting "good"? I take it back!!
Looks crap to me....)

When "skyarcher" switches to that exterior view, you can see he (?) is basing the claims of "uncontrollable" on flawed assumption, and a lack of real piloting experience. Never trimmed the horizontal stab!!!

Well, here it is, boys and girls.....:









edit on 13 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Hmm, im sorry but again I don't have any theories to back up or to prove. I am sorry I made some edits to my post after you read it. I am just curious on how you think these planes were flown into the buildings if not done by the "hijackers"?

I am not making any arguments for or against the original story, I am just trying to clear something up for my own benefit. If you want I can restate my question in case you missed my edit.


I am not here to offer theory, nor does my opinion mean much.

I prefer to follow the evidence.

There is a growing mountain of evidence which conflicts with the OS.

This is the reason so many experts are calling for a new investigation, and the list is growing.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Those who blindly support the OS, spend their days and nights attempting character assassination because they cannot debate the facts or data, arguing information they claim are "unpopular" and "No one cares". They spend their days and nights virtually telling everyone who looks into the evidence, "Nothing to see here folks, move along. Your govt is here to help you and keep you safe".

They are losing of course.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Odd that you wish to hang your "confidence" on THAT particular anonymous ATS member....merely because he/she seems to agree with "P4T".



Seems there are many who agree with P4T. Not only do they put their name on it, but also their faces and professional reputations.

patriotsquestion911.com...


weedwhacker, why haven't you been able to find just ONE verified pilot to support your claims?

You claim to be a "pilot", yet you don't even want to put your OWN name to your claims.

Anyone reading this thread will understand why you refuse. Your claims are absurd. You know your claims are absurd. Especially the claims you make arguing a V-G cannot be plotted if the V-speeds are known.




posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
I am not here to offer theory, nor does my opinion mean much.


And that is all you have, your opinion!


I prefer to follow the evidence.


Wrong, you avoid the evidence as it destroys your silly conspiracy theory!


There is a growing mountain of evidence which conflicts with the OS.


Wrong again, that is just your opinion.


They are losing of course.


And yet wrong again, it is the truthers that are losing, as their conspiracy theories get sillier and sillier - one only has to read the threads that they post here to see how silly that they are!



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Oh I see. I guess. So you are saying that the planes were not flown into the buildings but you don't offer any explanation of how they were flown? I am seriously confused now. So you don't have any clue how they were flown you are just certain that they weren't flown by the hijackers? Please clarify because I don't want to put words in your mouth.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join